7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I do not question your honesty. I do, however, question your reading comprehension and reasoning abilities. But that does not have to do with your morals. So, since you question my honesty, I think we are done here.

Stop accusing me of antinomianism and we can Continue, for that is evidence of dishonesty. In no way do I think sin is ok and doesn't matter. I strongly preach against sin. You've repeatedly accused me this every time I raise the issue, and I've always said I preach strongly against sin and that it does matter how Christians need to battle against it in the spirit. To continue to accuse me of this while I say that is what I can only say is dishonest.

And questioning reading comprehension is actually what I did with your view of Colossians 2 and Galatians 3 through 4.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Stop accusing me of antinomianism and we can Continue, for that is evidence of dishonesty. In no way do I think sin is ok and doesn't matter. I strongly preach against sin. You've repeatedly accused me this every time I raise the issue, and I've always said I preach strongly against sin and that it does matter how Christians need to battle against it in the spirit. To continue to accuse me of this while I say that is what I can only say is dishonest.

And questioning reading comprehension is actually what I did with your view of Colossians 2 and Galatians 3 through 4.

Me:
You try to avoid this consequence of your argumentation by asserting the Fourth Commandment is somehow qualitatively unique and different from the other ten, that it is equivalent to the law regarding the daily sacrifice or those regulating offerings and such. But that is simply not the case, as I already proved regarding both the argument about "ritual" and about "observances".

If being freed from the law means no longer obligated to do what the commandment of God actually says, then it applies to any and ALL commandments of God. And if the commandments of God are no longer obligatory, there can be no such thing as transgression. And thus, no sin. Sin is now impossible, in this scheme of things. Which by the way results, necessarily, in universalism. If nobody can be guilty of sin, nobody can be deserving of punishment. But Jesus does not save by getting rid of the commandment, but by getting rid of the transgression.

You:
Again, I question your honesty after I have noted fufilled types ALONE are done away with. Why continue if you continue to ignore what I said and misrepresent me with strawmen?

It is obvious your reading comprehension is interfering with the discussion. I have several times pointed out in this very thread that YOUR INTENTION is not antinomianism, that instead it is the rational conclusion to your argumentation.

The fact you cannot distinguish between these two concepts, and that you so readily accuse anyone disagreeing with you of "dishonesty" and other similar moral failures is enough for me to move on. Thanks for the discussion, though, it was interesting.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Me:
You try to avoid this consequence of your argumentation by asserting the Fourth Commandment is somehow qualitatively unique and different from the other ten, that it is equivalent to the law regarding the daily sacrifice or those regulating offerings and such. But that is simply not the case, as I already proved regarding both the argument about "ritual" and about "observances".

If being freed from the law means no longer obligated to do what the commandment of God actually says, then it applies to any and ALL commandments of God. And if the commandments of God are no longer obligatory, there can be no such thing as transgression. And thus, no sin. Sin is now impossible, in this scheme of things. Which by the way results, necessarily, in universalism. If nobody can be guilty of sin, nobody can be deserving of punishment. But Jesus does not save by getting rid of the commandment, but by getting rid of the transgression.

You:
Again, I question your honesty after I have noted fufilled types ALONE are done away with. Why continue if you continue to ignore what I said and misrepresent me with strawmen?

It is obvious your reading comprehension is interfering with the discussion. I have several times pointed out in this very thread that YOUR INTENTION is not antinomianism, that instead it is the rational conclusion to your argumentation.

The fact you cannot distinguish between these two concepts, and that you so readily accuse anyone disagreeing with you of "dishonesty" and other similar moral failures is enough for me to move on. Thanks for the discussion, though, it was interesting.

Your word about my intentions were my oversight. Sorry. Not lack of comprehension. But my explanations as follows do not allow a conclusion like you demand.

When I explain how the fourth commandment is stated by Paul to be fulfilled in a spiritual picture of Christ's body, thereby showing Paul to make the difference not me, and how that plainly does not lead to a conclusion of antinomianism, then you're claim is unfounded. We can't write as though something we stated was never answered. That's my point.

I repeated a strong point in my argument using the thought of passover, and you glossed over it completely and never gave the courtesy of actually addressing it, but for a little thought about Paul teaching the keeping of unleavened bread, moving me to again repeat the point.

Anyway, there's no point to belabor this if this is gong to always occur, anyway. Thanks, as well.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

When I explain how the fourth commandment is stated by Paul to be fulfilled in a spiritual picture of Christ's body, thereby showing Paul to make the difference not me, and how that plainly does not lead to a conclusion of antinomianism, then you're claim is unfounded. We can't write as though something we stated was never answered. That's my point.

And once again I already showed how your "point" was erroneous, based on misunderstanding and misinterpreting the Colossian passages

I repeated a strong point in my argument using the thought of passover, and you glossed over it completely and never gave the courtesy of actually addressing it, but for a little thought about Paul teaching the keeping of unleavened bread, moving me to again repeat the point.

I do not see how I glossed over it and never addressed it. I pointed out that you misinterpreted that passage as well. I even provided some exegesis of the passage including a key piece of the passage that you most certainly did NOT address. I demonstrated how Paul's language actually reveals the church was doing the very thing YOUR doctrine would keep you from doing, and that Paul told them to do that which YOUR doctrine would tell people to NOT do. Thereby showing the apostle, and the early church, did not hold your doctrine, nor you theirs.

I demonstrated (actually showed) how you equivocate the term Passover. Paul did not say Jesus is the Passover DAY or FESTIVAL. His language is consistent with the Passover being used to refer to the lamb that was offered.

I further explained how Passover (the Feast, as well as the Lamb) functioned under the old covenant, and how they function under the new covenant. Your "strong point" wasn't strong at all, in my opinion.

More importantly and to the point, as related in the thread on first century Judaism and Christianity, I am pretty sure the "shadow of coming things" aren't the holy days, Sabbaths, etc. In other words, you and I both have been operating under a case of mistaken identity as to what are the shadow of coming things.

I'll be posting more on that later, in the other thread.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And once again I already showed how your "point" was erroneous, based on misunderstanding and misinterpreting the Colossian passages

I do not see how I glossed over it and never addressed it. I pointed out that you misinterpreted that passage as well. I even provided some exegesis of the passage including a key piece of the passage that you most certainly did NOT address. I demonstrated how Paul's language actually reveals the church was doing the very thing YOUR doctrine would keep you from doing, and that Paul told them to do that which YOUR doctrine would tell people to NOT do. Thereby showing the apostle, and the early church, did not hold your doctrine, nor you theirs.

I demonstrated (actually showed) how you equivocate the term Passover. Paul did not say Jesus is the Passover DAY or FESTIVAL. His language is consistent with the Passover being used to refer to the lamb that was offered.

I further explained how Passover (the Feast, as well as the Lamb) functioned under the old covenant, and how they function under the new covenant. Your "strong point" wasn't strong at all, in my opinion.

More importantly and to the point, as related in the thread on first century Judaism and Christianity, I am pretty sure the "shadow of coming things" aren't the holy days, Sabbaths, etc. In other words, you and I both have been operating under a case of mistaken identity as to what are the shadow of coming things.

I'll be posting more on that later, in the other thread.

You summarily said I say those who disagree with me are being dishonest. I find a summarization of you in saying those who disagree with you lack reading comprehension .

I said the day of passover was entitled after its events , so as to disprove your assertion that passover was not a holy day. I dealt with your reasoning to show its error. The passover does not function under the new testament except in Christ's death and work of the cross which happened once, otherwise it's like the Catholics crucified Jesus repeatedly with mass. Passover falls under holy days.

I disagree with your interpretation of the passage about us keeping unleavened bread and claim your reading is actually lack of reading comprehension because you're looking for your doctrine there, whereas I read it without looking for a predetermined doctrine. But that gets into claims of reading a person's intentions which is moot, since only God can do that. So leaving aside such attempts, prove the point using grammar, etc. You tried that with Greek, bravo, although I'll continue to show your error and how it's interpretive and subject to error.

I showed you misread and missed the fact that Paul spoke from perspective of time before the cross. Not from day of his writing, as per my reasoning of passover as a holy day that looked ahead to Christ death from time before the cross when it was in effect under law.

Again, pasover only looked ahead before the cross to the cross. Christ is our passover. And the only way he can be that is to fulfill it after it was in effect, which puts it before the cross, not after.

Nothing you said proves passover was celebrated after the cross. It's just a set of hoops one is forced to jump through.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Again, pasover only looked ahead before the cross to the cross.

Exodus 12
14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. 15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. 16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. 17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.

24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever. 25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. 26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? 27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.

You clearly do not understand that Passover was a MEMORIAL that looked BACK to the Exodus, as well as a prefiguration of the deliverance wrought by Christ, among other things. Therefore, your opinions on this particular subject are lacking in weight.

Nothing you said proves passover was celebrated after the cross. It's just a set of hoops one is forced to jump through.

If you genuinely believe Christians did not celebrate Passover after the cross, then you have disqualified yourself from any semblance of being an authority on the subject. The historical record is undeniable, Christians kept Passover for CENTURIES after the cross. "The Quartodeciman Controversy" would be a good term for you to type into Google (make sure you hit "enter").

These fundamental blunders on your part are proof you really haven't actually studied the subject, and your conclusions are the result of errors compounding upon errors. Beyond that, you are simply at the point of repeating that you are correct and I am not, without actually addressing any points that were raised. (For example, you did not provide any counter exegesis to the proof I offered that the Corinthians were in fact keeping not just the Passover but the Feast of Unleavened Bread, as revealed by the plain grammar of Paul's words.)

You can repeat the word "hoops" all you like, but that doesn't qualify as any sort of refutation.

[Esaias]

You said: "... so as to disprove your assertion that passover was not a holy day."

You have got to be kidding me. See? Proof, in plain English, that you cannot comprehend what I write. I never said Passover was not a holy day, I never asserted such, nor did I offer such as any kind of claim that could be "disproven".

I pointed out THE WORD "passover" DOES NOT ONLY REFER TO THE DAY. And I PROVED it with Scripture. I proved the term is OFTEN USED OF THE PASSOVER L A M B that is killed on that day. Paul said Christ our Passover is SACRIFICED for us. You don't kill a day, you kill a SACRIFICE. What sacrifice is called in the Bible "the passover"? The Passover LAMB?

This "debate" is beyond done, it's devolved into a three ring circus. Apologies to anyone who might have been lurking and reading.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Exodus 12
14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. 15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. 16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. 17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.

24 And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever. 25 And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the LORD will give you, according as he hath promised, that ye shall keep this service. 26 And it shall come to pass, when your children shall say unto you, What mean ye by this service? 27 That ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the LORD's passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote the Egyptians, and delivered our houses. And the people bowed the head and worshipped.

You clearly do not understand that Passover was a MEMORIAL that looked BACK to the Exodus, as well as a prefiguration of the deliverance wrought by Christ, among other things. Therefore, your opinions on this particular subject are lacking in weight.



If you genuinely believe Christians did not celebrate Passover after the cross, then you have disqualified yourself from any semblance of being an authority on the subject. The historical record is undeniable, Christians kept Passover for CENTURIES after the cross. "The Quartodeciman Controversy" would be a good term for you to type into Google (make sure you hit "enter").

These fundamental blunders on your part are proof you really haven't actually studied the subject, and your conclusions are the result of errors compounding upon errors. Beyond that, you are simply at the point of repeating that you are correct and I am not, without actually addressing any points that were raised. (For example, you did not provide any counter exegesis to the proof I offered that the Corinthians were in fact keeping not just the Passover but the Feast of Unleavened Bread, as revealed by the plain grammar of Paul's words.)

You can repeat the word "hoops" all you like, but that doesn't qualify as any sort of refutation.

...like real presence and liturgy was practiced after the bible was written, too. Sorry, you are not basing your arguments on bible now. Guess I'm not going to get a strictly biblical discussion here with you. I tried.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You said: "... so as to disprove your assertion that passover was not a holy day."

You have got to be kidding me. See? Proof, in plain English, that you cannot comprehend what I write. I never said Passover was not a holy day, I never asserted such, nor did I offer such as any kind of claim that could be "disproven".

I pointed out THE WORD "passover" DOES NOT ONLY REFER TO THE DAY. And I PROVED it with Scripture. I proved the term is OFTEN USED OF THE PASSOVER L A M B that is killed on that day. Paul said Christ our Passover is SACRIFICED for us. You don't kill a day, you kill a SACRIFICE. What sacrifice is called in the Bible "the passover"? The Passover LAMB?

This "debate" is beyond done, it's devolved into a three ring circus. Apologies to anyone who might have been lurking and reading.

Saying we don't kill a day but a sacrifice, as if to say Passover is not about the day, despite your claim you indicated IT WAS A DAY, AFTER YOUR CLARIFICATION HERE, shows you did not get what I was saying about the issue. Why argue it IS a holy day, and then turn around and talk as if it's ridiculous to say it is because we don't sacrifice a day?

Sorry, you are unclear with your responses. I've noted this many times when you respond and give me something of an idea of what you're saying that turns out to be incorrect. And you claim I cannot read comprehensibly. Wow. I haven't had this problem with others here.

And your response about passover being the day or the lamb was also addressed by me, showing you are not reading nor following through with my reasoning on the issue, and missing it for whatever reason.

The reason I thought you said it was NOT a holy day was because you argued that we do not sacrifice a day, but a passover, implying passover is not a day. But now you confuse me because you say you never said it is NOT a holy day, and claim IT IS. Which is it? If it falls within the category of a holy day, then what is the problem with me saying it is a holy day that foreshadowed something?

[RonMurray]

Good Work! 👍