Rejoicing In the Sabbath:

[Aquila]

This theological approach doesn't seem to jive with early church practice. They wrote about the Ten Commandments. We see more sabbath keeping among Jewish and gentile Christians in the first and second centuries than not. We see increasing Sunday observance among Roman converts who already venerated the "venerable day of the sun). If it wasn't for Constantine's edict in 321 AD, we'd most likely still observe the Sabbath. Observing Sunday may not be a "sin", but it is based on a pagan edict from the Roman emperor and enforced by the Roman Church.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This theological approach doesn't seem to jive with early church practice. They wrote about the Ten Commandments.

Aquila, deal with the reasoning in my theological approach, though.

And the practice of the early church in no way establishes rule -keeping christianity.

We see more sabbath keeping among Jewish and gentile Christians in the first and second centuries than not.

Yes, but for what reason? Paul distinctly said he did those things to reach Jews, as with taking a vow and having Tim circumcised. 1 Cor 9. The TEACHINGS of Paul plainly show keeping days is not for the church. Again, tell me what Gal 3:24 - 4:11 is saying if you disagree.

And many Jewish believers could not get it in their heads that Law was over. Aside from that, Paul never got revelations about this for decades after the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

We see increasing Sunday observance among Roman converts who already venerated the "venerable day of the sun). If it wasn't for Constantine's edict in 321 AD, we'd most likely still observe the Sabbath. Observing Sunday may not be a "sin", but it is based on a pagan edict from the Roman emperor and enforced by the Roman Church.

The catholics are a joke. They think CHANGING THE SABBATH is reason for Sunday, when in reality the first day of the week was simply kept by the church due to the resurrection. It has nothing to do with changing sabbath day.

[mfblume]

We do not determine the true meaning of theology laid out in the epistles by the actions reported about people, anyway.

[NotforSale]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Resting physically is not the issue. I already said we need a day of rest, but the day we choose is not an issue, either. I was talking about the deal as a religious commandment.

No, it is for more than that. It was a HOLY day. Holiness has nothing to do with rest in itself.

Looks like you have more issues than negligence of a day of rest.

Mike, here's what the Commandment says; But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Why do you always dance around the facts? I just don't get it! The original intent of the Sabbath was for rest, period, bottom line!! Genesis says, God rested, that’s it! And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

The Holy Day dilemma grew with time, just like the Apostolic Movement grew with standards. Adding vain requirements to a day of rest was not God's doing, it was Man's doing.

If you throw Religion out the window, the Sabbath becomes what people knew before Scripture was even written; a time to recover mentally and physically. This lost commodity of rest within the Church has caused more Christians to get discouraged than anything else I know of. Work, work, work, otherwise the Kingdom will lose souls, and of course, MONEY!

I also feel that the divorce rate within the Church is just as high as outside the Church because people don’t slow down and appreciate the goodness of life and God’s Creation. People today are more interested in a big Church Production than sitting on a hillside in prayer by themselves.

And let me clarify; rest is not laziness, and laziness is not rest. The Sabbath or a day of rest cannot succeed with a blessing unless someone has worked or labored. It's really that simple!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by NotforSale

Mike, here's what the Commandment says; But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Why do you always dance around the facts? I just don't get it! The original intent of the Sabbath was for rest, period, bottom line!! Genesis says, God rested, that’s it! And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

The Holy Day dilemma grew with time, just like the Apostolic Movement grew with standards. Adding vain requirements to a day of rest was not God's doing, it was Man's doing.

If you throw Religion out the window, the Sabbath becomes what people knew before Scripture was even written; a time to recover mentally and physically. This lost commodity of rest within the Church has caused more Christians to get discouraged than anything else I know of. Work, work, work, otherwise the Kingdom will lose souls, and of course, MONEY!

I also feel that the divorce rate within the Church is just as high as outside the Church because people don’t slow down and appreciate the goodness of life and God’s Creation. People today are more interested in a big Church Production than sitting on a hillside in prayer by themselves.

And let me clarify; rest is not laziness, and laziness is not rest. The Sabbath or a day of rest cannot succeed with a blessing unless someone has worked or labored. It's really that simple!

..."wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Nuff said.

Man, you do not even believe the bible! What's it to you?

I already said TWICE NOW that a man needs a day of rest. Don't you read? lol

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Aquila, deal with the reasoning in my theological approach, though.

And the practice of the early church in no way establishes rule -keeping christianity.

But for nearly 200 years this was customary among both Jew and Gentile believers. Sunday wasn't on the map. Roman Christians incorporated Sunday on account of their pagan customs.

Yes, but for what reason? Paul distinctly said he did those things to reach Jews, as with taking a vow and having Tim circumcised. 1 Cor 9. The TEACHINGS of Paul plainly show keeping days is not for the church. Again, tell me what Gal 3:24 - 4:11 is saying if you disagree

I'll address this Monday. Short on time.

And many Jewish believers could not get it in their heads that Law was over. Aside from that, Paul never got revelations about this for decades after the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

The Law hasn't passed away.

The catholics are a joke. They think CHANGING THE SABBATH is reason for Sunday, when in reality the first day of the week was simply kept by the church due to the resurrection. It has nothing to do with changing sabbath day.

This isn't in Scripture. You know it. I know it. There isn't one instant of Sunday observance or this rationale in the NT.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mfblume

We do not determine the true meaning of theology laid out in the epistles by the actions reported about people, anyway.

Actions don't determine orthodoxy. However actions in Scripture can establish orthopraxy.

[J4Truth]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This theological approach doesn't seem to jive with early church practice. They wrote about the Ten Commandments. We see more sabbath keeping among Jewish and gentile Christians in the first and second centuries than not. We see increasing Sunday observance among Roman converts who already venerated the "venerable day of the sun). If it wasn't for Constantine's edict in 321 AD, we'd most likely still observe the Sabbath. Observing Sunday may not be a "sin", but it is based on a pagan edict from the Roman emperor and enforced by the Roman Church.

Question regarding the bothed:

Were they observing the Sabbath as was stipulated in the Law of Moses or as you stipulated, simply leisure time wherein you have worship? If they where doing it strictly in accordance of the Law of Moses, according to you they were doing it wrong. But if it wasn't done in the strictest of standards of the Law of Moses then if could be said to be the day that everyone had off and thus continued to have off and continue to worship on. And if the seventh day is considered the Sabbath day (as much as we consider Saturday and Sunday, weekends) and if they already gathered on that day ceased from work and worshiped, well continuing to do so do not altogether mean they were "keeping the Sabbath" as you proclaim.

So, were they keeping it leisurely (a time of rest, gather and worship, as you proclaim) or strictly (the do's and don'ts of the Law of Moses)?

[FlamingZword]

The crux of the matter really rests upon the first commandment

"You shall love the LORD . . . with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first and great commandment."

If the Ten Commandments are done away with, then the First commadment must got first.

We are not longer required to love the Lord God, and we can set up other idols before us.

God can love us if he wants to, but we no longer are under an obligation to love God.

And since the fFirst commanment formed the foundation of all the other commandments, the other commandments no longer have a reason to exist.

Yes brethen the Ten commandments are not longer binding, because they are law.
We now are free from the law.

We can are now free to use the name of the Lord God in vain.
We can now dishonor our father and mother
We not longer have to keep the Sabbath
we can now commit adultery
we can now murder
we are now free to steal
we need not have restraining and covet as much as we want.

we are free from the law my brethren, now you go ahead and indulge in anything you want.

since the law is passed away, we do not need to worry about anything, no more pesky law to bother us.
Come brethen be free and break all the ten Commandments since they are not longer binding.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The crux of the matter really rests upon the first commandment

"You shall love the LORD . . . with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first and great commandment."

If the Ten Commandments are done away with, then the First commadment must got first.

We are not longer required to love the Lord God, and we can set up other idols before us.

God can love us if he wants to, but we no longer are under an obligation to love God.

And since the fFirst commanment formed the foundation of all the other commandments, the other commandments no longer have a reason to exist.

Yes brethen the Ten commandments are not longer binding, because they are law.
We now are free from the law.

We can are now free to use the name of the Lord God in vain.
We can now dishonor our father and mother
We not longer have to keep the Sabbath
we can now commit adultery
we can now murder
we are now free to steal
we need not have restraining and covet as much as we want.

we are free from the law my brethren, now you go ahead and indulge in anything you want.

since the law is passed away, we do not need to worry about anything, no more pesky law to bother us.
Come brethen be free and break all the ten Commandments since they are not longer binding.

Yes, we're free from the law. (Romans and Galatians). Paul explains these things in there.

Rom 6
1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

We are delivered from the Law. It's right there. And Paul was quoting from the 10 commandments, so even if we call the 10 commands the Law of God, Paul was still saying we're delivered from it.

Being free from the law does not mean we indulge in anything. No sir!. BUT We are now led by the Spirit. So a Christian cannot live anyhow just because we're delivered from the Letter of the law. We are led by the Spirit and so we do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.

Gal 5
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

If a Christian obeys the leading of the Spirit, they will not fulfill the desires of the flesh. So it's not the 10 commands per se that we're under, but to be led of the Spirit. The things listed in the 10 commandments are listed as lusts of the flesh. So, if one obeys the leading of the Spirit, one does not need the literal 10 commandments.

In fact, Paul says to serve in the newness of the spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. You can hold on to the 10 commands from Exodus and on to the Spirit of grace. It's either one or the other brethren!

Furthermore, DRUNKENNESS is not a violation of the 10 commandments. So if you hold on to the 10 commands, it would be okay to get drunk.
But by being led of the Spirit, we know that drunkenness is a lust of the flesh.

In actuality, the demands of grace SURPASSES that of the Law.
Walk in the Spirit, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in you. (Rom 8:4)