7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

In reference to the bolded. He didn’t always deny the charges.
It was not only the Pharisees that accused him. It was the apostles as well. Allow me to show my work.

[17] And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
[18] And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
[19] And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
[20] And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

This is describing Paul being received of the brethren of the church at Jerusalem. Verse 21 is the accusation that Esaias seems to think is made by Pharisees. But if you look at verse 18 you see that it was James that Paul went in to see. James and all the elders, OF THE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM.

I didn’t know James was a Pharisee. I knew that Paul had been one but not James.

Another issue that Esaias is missing is , well

Esaias,

Please show where Paul denied the accusation of James and the elders. According to your words Paul ALWAYS denied teaching the Jews to forsake the law. Show your work.

I show my work, but I don't like to do other's work for them.

"[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs."

Who is "they"? Who "informed" them? What was the "information"?

Here are the verses you left off for some reason:

22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. 23 Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24 them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.
26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

Notice the bolded parts. James didn't believe the accusation. He said go and perform a Levitical purification ritual with some Nazarites, to prove the accusations are false. Accusations which you, let's remember, AGREED WITH. And what does Paul do? Does he say "Oh, no dear brethren, y'all got it all wrong! Y'all have COMPLETELY misunderstood everything Jesus taught you in those 3.5 years y'all was with Him. Y'all have COMPLETELY misunderstood everything the Holy Ghost taught you from Pentecost till now. No, no, no, Jesus wants us all - gentile AND JEWS - to abandon all the Ten Commandments, commandments, statutes, judgments, ordinances, ALL of it! Give it up! Circumcision too! And Sabbath keeping, definitely that! And we can eat pork. Brethren, Jesus died so we can have bacon with our flapjacks! Don't you get it? Y'all been listening to that screwball Esaias over on AFF too much!"

No, he didn't. What did he do? YOU TELL US, what was Paul's response?

Now, notice verse 25: " As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication."

I know you seem to think this helps your case, but as I asked in a post or two above: Where is honour your mother and father in that list? What about no stealing? Taking God's name in vain? See, you think "Sabbath keeping isn't on the list, therefore Sabbath keeping isn't for gentiles." But that reasoning means those four things - AND ONLY THOSE FOUR THINGS - are obligatory. Nothing else, you are free to do anything not on the list. If you believe you are obliged to do ANYTHING OTHER THAN THOSE FOUR THINGS, then your antisabbath argument based on this passage collapses into the supermassive black hole of illogic that it is.

So, what is the "no such thing" that was instructed of the gentiles? That they had to BECOME JEWS. The ordinances given are three dietary restrictions and a sweeping injunction against fornication. "What about the Sabbath?" Gee, all through Acts, Paul is preaching to gentiles ON THE SABBATH IN SYNAGOGUES. The vast majority of gentile converts were ALREADY SABBATH KEEPERS, they were "God-fearers" attending synagogue.

And nothing Paul teaches them in his epistles is contrary to BIBLE TRUTH AS RECORDED IN WHAT WE CALL THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. Including the food laws AS I ALREADY PROVED.

Folks just don't want to give up their Saturdays and pork chops.

[Esaias]

"[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs."

My, my, my, there's that word again: "customs". Wow, what a coweenkydink.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

In reference to the bolded. He didn’t always deny the charges.
It was not only the Pharisees that accused him. It was the apostles as well. Allow me to show my work.

[17] And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
[18] And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
[19] And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
[20] And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

This is describing Paul being received of the brethren of the church at Jerusalem. Verse 21 is the accusation that Esaias seems to think is made by Pharisees. But if you look at verse 18 you see that it was James that Paul went in to see. James and all the elders, OF THE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM.

I didn’t know James was a Pharisee. I knew that Paul had been one but not James.

And here is a most astounding proof that Tithesmeister knoweth not what he teaches, neither whereof he affirms. According to Tithesmeister, the apostles accused Paul of the same thing the Pharisees did. Yet, the text he quoted in his own obviously not proofread post, shows James saying the zealous-for-the-law Jewish Christians "are informed of thee" of these accusations. Clearly, Tithesmeister is not reading what he's copy pasting, or what he's posting. This is embarrassing, honestly.

[Esaias]

And just because I'm bored...

Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
That's like saying God would show a homosexual couple in a relationship to indicate his love for us! God does not use something that is WRONG to relate a spiritual truth to us as symbolism of that truth.

I wonder if that would be something like using an unjust judge to illustrate God's care to answer prayer?

Luke 18:
1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; 2 saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: 3 and there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. 4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; 5 yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. 6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. 7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? 8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Here, a judge who had no fear of God but who responds to a pestery widow is used to illustrate that God answers prayer though He takes His time sometimes in doing so.

In Luke 11:13, Jesus uses natural parents "you then, being evil" who are willing to give good gifts to their children to illustrate that God gives the Spirit to those who ask Him.

So, yes, occasionally that which is a moral negative is used to illustrate not just a spiritual truth, but a moral positive.

Besides which, in regards to Peter's vision - AS I SHOWED - the vision wasn't saying the gentiles were the unclean animals, much less that the unclean animals were now clean animals.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And just because I'm bored...

Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
That's like saying God would show a homosexual couple in a relationship to indicate his love for us! God does not use something that is WRONG to relate a spiritual truth to us as symbolism of that truth.

I wonder if that would be something like using an unjust judge to illustrate God's care to answer prayer?

Luke 18:
1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint; 2 saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: 3 and there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. 4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; 5 yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. 6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. 7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? 8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

Here, a judge who had no fear of God but who responds to a pestery widow is used to illustrate that God answers prayer though He takes His time sometimes in doing so.

In Luke 11:13, Jesus uses natural parents "you then, being evil" who are willing to give good gifts to their children to illustrate that God gives the Spirit to those who ask Him.

So, yes, occasionally that which is a moral negative is used to illustrate not just a spiritual truth, but a moral positive.

Besides which, in regards to Peter's vision - AS I SHOWED - the vision wasn't saying the gentiles were the unclean animals, much less that the unclean animals were now clean animals.

And honestly, I have to say this. The mistakes being made by antisabbatarian teachers are simply too simple and obvious and basic. It really indicates they haven't studied this subject out anywhere near as well or as thoroughly as they apparently think they have. The above is just one example of the numerous mistakes made by the opposition. Misquoting and misreading Scripture texts (like Tithesmeister's blunders with James et al in Acts), making statements nowhere found in Scripture and then building whole doctrinal systems on them (like brother Blume's "new creation at the cross" fiasco, which sounds all theological and spiritual but which is in fact made out of hole(!) cloth), making statements that literally concede the argument then scrambling for recovery by equivocating ("the Spirit causes us to avoid what the law preached against, er, except for the fourth commandment cuz that one is speshul"), and so on and so forth...

...I mean, really? Tithesmeister, you are pretty solid in your understanding of what Biblical tithes were and are (for the most part), and brother Blume, you are pretty solid on Oneness vs trinity, and the new birth (very good at teaching them), but honestly, you guys don't seem to really have this subject down pat yet.

We all have areas we are well versed in, and others we are not. I will not dare to engage in debating remarriage, for example, or ecclesiastical authority to, say, set "standards", nor would I be inclined to engage in debate concerning pre vs post millennialism (yet), because I am nowhere near what I would consider "skilled" in those areas at the present time. I study, I ask questions, I give my opinion and understanding, but I don't TEACH on those subjects. There's nothing wrong at all with saying "Hey, on the subject of XYZ, I am not solid enough to start debating and giving doctrine, I'm still learning."

I honestly think that's the case here with you two. I don't say that to be rude, or to puff myself up, or out of pride or arrogance. There are things, on THIS SUBJECT even, that I do not know, or do not understand.

But some things I certainly do understand.

I've studied this subject for over 20 years, brethren, IN DEPTH, obsessively, just like I did with my studies of trinitarianism, and of new birth. I've read just about every counter argument by antisabbatarians I could get my hands on. I once spent hours a day for WEEKS pouring over a book sent to me by an antisabbatarian minister that was chock full of calendrical arguments and migraine-inducing math calculations that would make Bishop Ussher's head spin. I've read translations of Inquisition archival records, scoured medieval historical annals, read through and studied the antenicene "fathers", traced the history of Sabbath and Sunday BOTH back into old testament times, studied Zoroastrian and Persian religion, Graeco-Roman Mystery cults, Jewish Essenism, Enochian Judaism with its own solar calendar, ancient Baal worship and the roots of Sunday keeping, documents written NOT by "Sabbath keepers" but by secular historians, catholic theogians, Protestant polemicists, pagan philosophers and chroniclers from the dim past... I'm sorry but I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt, and walked the runway with it.

EVERYTHING CONFIRMS GOD'S WORD, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. There is no wisdom or understanding or counsel against the Lord (Proverbs 21:30). The Biblical data, the historical record, plain logic, ALL of it lead me inexorably to a simple but profound Truth: Fear God and keep His commandments, this is the whole duty of man (Eccl 12:13).

[peter83]

" Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions (PARADOSEIS) , as I delivered them to you."
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. " WE KEEP ALL THAT


being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.1 15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, WE DONT KEEP THOSE.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Where is honour your mother and father on this list?

Where is thou shalt not steal on this list?

Show your work.

How ‘bout you answer first?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs."

My, my, my, there's that word again: "customs". Wow, what a coweenkydink.

Brother, I am concerned for you. You are typing words on the sabbath. Kind of like you do on any other day. What happened to setting it aside and keeping it holy? It seems it is “just another day” for you.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

In reference to the bolded. He didn’t always deny the charges.
It was not only the Pharisees that accused him. It was the apostles as well. Allow me to show my work.

[17] And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
[18] And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
[19] And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
[20] And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
[21] And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

This is describing Paul being received of the brethren of the church at Jerusalem. Verse 21 is the accusation that Esaias seems to think is made by Pharisees. But if you look at verse 18 you see that it was James that Paul went in to see. James and all the elders, OF THE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM.

I didn’t know James was a Pharisee. I knew that Paul had been one but not James.

Another issue that Esaias is missing is , well

Esaias,

Please show where Paul denied the accusation of James and the elders. According to your words Paul ALWAYS denied teaching the Jews to forsake the law. Show your work.

Bump again for Esaias.

What? Are you just hoping this will go away?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

How ‘bout you answer first?

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Bump again for Esaias.

What? Are you just hoping this will go away?

No, I'm hoping you'll actually read the thread, and maybe discover some truth from God's Word. Your Father blessed and hallowed His Sabbath day for you, as a blessing. Maybe you should trust that He knew what He was doing, and not despise His gifts?