Why Sunday

[mfblume]

And since - according to you - we have progressed from the natural to the spiritual, and no longer keep the day, we no longer trust in God for natural things (crops, etc).

I never said we no longer trust God for natural things. I do all the time. Let's not take my words out of context. I said the trust in natural things in the example of a sabbath year foreshadowed a trust in spiritual things. Big difference.

By the way, you yourself make a big to-do about how spiritual means of or from the Spirit, and that physical things can indeed be spiritual. Yet, you cannot see that the "physical observance of a physical day" is very much spiritual. You are inconsistent.

No, I am not inconsistent. Spiritual things can be very physical. I maintain that. But there is nothing spiritual about a physical observance of a physical day, especially when the spiritual was contrasted from the natural case in referreding to the body and the shadow. YOu do agree that the shadow of something is a natural thing that points to a spiritual? Even you said that the sabbath is indeed a shadow of what we have now in CHrist's priesthood after admitting you previously erred in thinking it only pointed to something not yet come that is in our future. That's the correct route of thought. Do not abandon it now.

. . Just because some things are physical and spiritual does not mean everything that is spiritual is physical, which is the exact same error you made several days ago.

Spiritual things can be both physical and non-physical. Nothing that I stated says differently. But when we're reading about shaoow and body, the shadow remains the natural like the temple and like Jerusalem.

You have attempted to obscure that inconsistency by recently talking about a "natural" day instead of a "physical" day, but the inconsistency remains.

That which is natural is contrasted from that which is spiritual in the bible. A natural day is what nature causes to be a day. There is a spiritual day which is neither physical nor natural. A spiritual day has nothing to do with the earth’s rotation around the sun as the natural one is. And the rest that God entered is not restricted to one natural day.

Exodus 20:12 KJV
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

Here is a commandment that promises a long life in the land. Is this spiritual? Or natural?

That’s quite natural. Long life naturally is involved. And this still holds true today!

The fact we can derive a principle from this about God, the church, and eternal life, does it mean we no longer need to physically honour our natural physical parents?

And here you go making the same repeated mistake of assuming that just because there something is a commandment in the Ten that it must remain forever. The commandment about honouring parents is something that does continue through our day. But you’re appealing to that idea by appealing to the commandment about honouring parents. So, if we honour parents always, including today, and that is natural, then we should keep the sabbath day on until today since that is also natural. Why do you insist that because something natural continues until today, then everything natural continues until today? Why do you continue to insist that belonging to the ten commandments means it must continue to today just because it is obvious some of the commandments continue to today? Even if one thing that is natural is meant to continue until today, LIKE FORBIDDENCE TO MURDER -- then eveyrthing natural in the commandments must continue to today just because they're in the commandments, and for no other reason?

Who is inconsistent? You do not travel to natural Jerusalem for your feasts that you keep, because there is a spiritual Jerusalem. You forget all about that when you discuss insistence on sabbath day despite their natural characteristic. You are inconsistent in keeping SOME of what is natural and not all others. In fact, naturally keeping the feasts on the very days the natural calendar shows you to, mixed together with refusal to go to natural Jerusalem on those feast days that required it in Leviticus, is way beyond inconsistency in the same breath and the same chapter in Leviticus as far as you are concerned today.

Or that there is no longer a very real promise of a lengthened life in the land attached to this commandment?

Sure there is! But that has nothing to do with the fact that sabbath was distinctly said to be a shadow. Where do we read no one should judge us in keeping the shadow of honouring parents as opposed to the body of what that points to? No where.

The Sabbath is spiritual. There is nothing natural about the significance of the seventh day,

Of course it is not spiritual. And it’s full of natural significance since it’s a seventh day of the week that honours the rest God made on the seventh day of old, natural creation that overlooks, or rather completely misses, the fact that even old creation is a shadow of the new creation in Christ. The only thing spiritual about it is that God is a Spirit and commanded it, but He also commanded temple attendance as well as Jerusalem attendance for feasts. And Paul may as well have used the terms natural and spiritual when he said the sabbath was a shadow but the body is of Christ! The natural was the shadow and the spiritual was the body. You are reaching and forcing in ways that are becoming more extreme and apparent.

it derives from the divine act of sanctification whereby God blessed and hallowed it.

Just like He blessed and hallowed the natural temple of Jerusalem as well as the natural City, Jerusalem, by calling it the HOLY CITY.

You fail to realize that God hallowed and blessed many physical and natural things under the Old Covenant, that were shadows of the greater and more blessed spiritual things in the new. So, is the natural Jerusalem and natural temple also spiritual? They have to be by your reasoning put forth here.

Types are in force til Jesus came. They were not as substantial as the body or antitype that they pointed toward.

Just like the Lord's Supper, footwashing, baptism, anointing with oil, laying on of hands, etc. They are SPIRITUAL because their significance is due to the spiritual significance God has given them.

All of these things you mentioned were commanded in the new testament, unlike sabbath days. Sabbaths were not commanded before Moses and the old covenant or after. These things you listed were not distinctly said to be shadows that no man should judge us in due to the body that we are meant to hold to instead like sabbaths. And you consistently overlok that single point of shadow/body.

One cannot talk about inconsistency when one refuses to travel to natural Jerusalem when keeping the same feasts that were required attendance there. This is severe mingling of something claimed to be spiritually fulfilled while at the same time vital aspects of the same mandate are claimed to not be spiritually fulfilled. The truth is that all the feasts are not to be kept literally as you keep them any more than we’re not meant to travel to natural Jerusalem for three of them.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

And here you go making the same repeated mistake of assuming that just because there something is a commandment in the Ten that it must remain forever. The commandment about honouring parents is something that does continue through our day. But you’re appealing to that idea by appealing to the commandment about honouring parents. So, if we honour parents always, including today, and that is natural, then we should keep the sabbath day on until today since that is also natural. Why do you insist that because something natural continues until today, then everything natural continues until today? Why do you continue to insist that belonging to the ten commandments means it must continue to today just because it is obvious some of the commandments continue to today? Even if one thing that is natural is meant to continue until today, LIKE FORBIDDENCE TO MURDER -- then eveyrthing natural in the commandments must continue to today just because they're in the commandments, and for no other reason?

I am pointing out that your argumentation leads to conclusions nobody - including you - accept, therefore your argumentation is wrong. An argument that proves too much proves nothing. You still have not identified the verse that teaches "only 9 of the ten commandments are still valid".

Who is inconsistent? You do not travel to natural Jerusalem for your feasts that you keep, because there is a spiritual Jerusalem. You forget all about that when you discuss insistence on sabbath day despite their natural characteristic. You are inconsistent in keeping SOME of what is natural and not all others. In fact, naturally keeping the feasts on the very days the natural calendar shows you to, mixed together with refusal to go to natural Jerusalem on those feast days that required it in Leviticus, is way beyond inconsistency in the same breath and the same chapter in Leviticus as far as you are concerned today.

Wrong. I have always stated these things are done in a NEW COVENANT CHRIST-CENTERED CONTEXT. You are now taking the position of the Pharisees in claiming Christian obedience to the commandments of God is INCORRECT AND INSUFFICIENT because adherence to the OLD COVENANT METHODOLOGY is not being followed. Hebrews EXPLICITLY STATES the law of sacrifice and offerings, priesthood, etc has been CHANGED.

Your theology is somewhat underdeveloped because you do not understand the difference between ADMINISTRATIONS nor do you have any clearly defined understanding of the multiple uses of the generic word "law" as used in Scripture.


You also assert the Sabbath "is distinctly called a shadow" but that is not actually the case. Even if it was (t's not) your line of reasoning would do away with at least the Lord's Supper and at most all eating and drinking whatsoever. So once again, your position is seriously flawed.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I am pointing out that your argumentation leads to conclusions nobody - including you - accept, therefore your argumentation is wrong. An argument that proves too much proves nothing. You still have not identified the verse that teaches "only 9 of the ten commandments are still valid".

I never said only 9 commandments are still valid. And even though I just said that you are again pointing to the unwritten idea that if any commandments are for today, then all are for today in the way they were kept then, to which you just made this response I am answering now!

Who said one of the commandments cannot be a shadow that will be engaged in with the greater body of understanding and experience, with the others not in that category? So, being a shadow of something, and listed as a shadow in the Ten, and fulfilled by experiencing what the shadow pointed to, is not the same as simply saying 9 out of ten are valid. They're all valid but we keep the fourth in the manner of experiencing the antitype not its shadowy form.

You write as though Paul never said all sabbaths were a shadow and ought not be judging issues due to the handwriting of ordinances that were removed, and that has no bearing on the issue of the fourth commandment. Sabbaths in Col. 2 is plural meaning ALL OF THEM. BAR NONE. But you either do not think that is the case, since you never made that clear, or take the intention of Paull's reference to judging and make it something totally unintended by changing what handwriting of ordinances actually refers to.

Your manner, more overtly than that, changes definitions of words in other cases where context uses a term more than once, with one instance distinctly referring to law (as in Gal 4:3 with elements of the world distinctly referring to law illustrated by the tutors in verse 2 that answers to the law as a schoolmaster in chapter 3), and another instance only verses later also referring to law (as in Gal 4:9 where ELEMENTS OF THE WORD are this time changed to refer to idolatry in your mind due to verse 8's SIDE-LINE REFERENCE that was never the subject of the entire context from chapter 3 through 4). Good bro. Votivesoul felt verse 3 refers to law but not verse 9, whereas I answered saying the bondage noted in verse 9 corresponds to the bondage noted in verse 24 which is distinctly said to come from the old covenant. So, you may never have stated that verse 3 is law, which it is anyway. But, nevertheless, all of this proves you do not follow context and derive your beliefs from context, but rather from a seventh-day adventist-type rule of thumb that teaches no single passage can in any way speak against sabbath keeping on the seventh day so you have to force a text to say what you believe rather than allow that text to teach you what to believe. See my signature. If there is anything that my signature applies to it is your distinct manner of looking for sabbath in a chapter and refusing to see it in other chapters that speak against the shadow purpose of it, or to at least diminish the shadowy purpose to still allow for it today. It's like sabbath is the key issue to which you will always respond when you will leave other issues alone and not bother to answer all objections.

I said there are nine things that continue from the commandments into the new covenant, which is a big difference. The fourth is valid but has changed natures just as the city of Jerusalem that you do not attend on three feasts is not your destination but was a shadow of the New Jerusalem in Spirit.


You never responded to my note about Gal 4 where we do not read of idolatry in the form of an antecedent BEFORE Gal 4:3 uses reference to elements of the world, for us to think that elements fo the world refers to idolatry. You never responded to that whole post of the purpose of antecedents, which makes it impossible to think of Gal 4:3 as idolatry.

Wrong. I have always stated these things are done in a NEW COVENANT CHRIST-CENTERED CONTEXT.

And THAT is what I am saying about sabbath day! Exact same thing. Sabbath is a shadow of Christ as much as the meat and drink offerings. Are you trying to say that sabbaths being shadow fo the body of Christ is not showing the "body of Christ" to be Christocentric?????? That is more plain than the New Jerusalem issue, because Sabbaths were distinctly said to be shadows of the body of Christ. Now, don't go back to the error you previously admitted to believing by saying the body of Christ refers to the church being able to judge when those outside cannot. You already conceded that was error. And when you said I was in error, too, not allowing yourself to be in error alone, you said it was shadow of the priesthood, which I agreed with and always believed, showing I was not in error. ANd that priesthood is in effect NOW, hence no need for the shadow.

You are now taking the position of the Pharisees in claiming Christian obedience to the commandments of God is INCORRECT AND INSUFFICIENT because adherence to the OLD COVENANT METHODOLOGY is not being followed. Hebrews EXPLICITLY STATES the law of sacrifice and offerings, priesthood, etc has been CHANGED.

Hebrews says explicitly that LAW HAS CHANGED, You limit the reference to law to be something less than the overall gamut. Scholars abound who agree with me, in case there is the implication from you that this concept is not known.

Your theology is somewhat underdeveloped because you do not understand the difference between ADMINISTRATIONS nor do you have any clearly defined understanding of the multiple uses of the generic word "law" as used in Scripture.

In places where you claim that the LAW refers to the twisted distorted version of pharisees , I have repeatedly shown that is not the case as in Gal 3's reference to Lev. 18:5.

You also assert the Sabbath "is distinctly called a shadow" but that is not actually the case. Even if it was (t's not) your line of reasoning would do away with at least the Lord's Supper and at most all eating and drinking whatsoever. So once again, your position is seriously flawed.

All sabbaths are distinctly called a shadow of Christ. You even realized you were in error about COl 2 and what the body of Christ meant, but you still will not let go of the plain context that says they're fulfilled in the body now. And Paul stated that we can have no man judge us over those things because the handwriting contained in ordinances was blotted out, being against us and contrary to us, which is the same thing that the partition wall of commandments contained in ordinances was said to be removed because it was against us keeping us away from where God was working. You incorrectly ASSUME that handwriting of ordinances does not refer to the Law, despite the fact that law of Moses is filled with ordinances, and the blotting out was a reference to the case of the adulterous the rotting thigh issue under law where blotting-out was involved.

You add to he word and that say the reference to Moses law and circumcision included distorted rabbinical traditions in the book of Acts when the text only speaks of Moses' law, and take plain references that Moses law could not be borne by the apostles, or their fathers who were under Law, and add to the word again and say it's not Mosaic Law.

So, when you state I do not cover all varying uses of the word LAW in the New Testament, I claim that your uses are additions to the Word and not meant to be considered at all in the instances you refer to like Gal 3 and Acts 15.

Also, you never responded to my notes showing that the service to God using letter of the law was the walking after the flesh that Paul spoke about from Romans 7 through 8, but merely stated you disagree with my thoughts on that. After you said you disagree, I then laid out the context from Romans 7:6 through 8:1 to prove my concept is correct. I hope you do not make me go and look for it again, but look for yourself earlier in this thread.

I really do respect you, but I repeat that this issue is one in which you are way off and have totally missed the context of the references I have just made in this post.


The glaring fault in your claim that I am inconsistent because I do not do away with the Lord's supper and foot washing is your absence of awareness that these things were not commandments in the Old Covenant and claimed to be shadows that ought not be kept in the shadowy form today. Paul never rebuked people for keeping Lord's supper like he did holy days, months and years from law, which you cannot accept because you change the meaning of Gal 4's reference.

Love you bro, but you are extremely weak in the faith in this aspect.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I really do respect you, but I repeat that this issue is one in which you are way off and have totally missed the context of the references I have just made in this post.


...

Love you bro, but you are extremely weak in the faith in this aspect.

Once again, we have devolved to simply repeating ourselves at each other. You are the one who is way off, as I have repeatedly shown. You claim I am weak in the faith, all I want is to obey my Father's Word. Your mileage may vary (as it obviously does).

Next?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Once again, we have devolved to simply repeating ourselves at each other. You are the one who is way off, as I have repeatedly shown. You claim I am weak in the faith, all I want is to obey my Father's Word. Your mileage may vary (as it obviously does).

Next?

Been a while since I've been on the forum, so just tying up loose ends.

Yes, it is now a matter of mere repetition. I think we covered all that we can cover. It matters not whether we want to obey the Father's word. We all do. That is a given. However, it is an issue of interpreting the correct intention of the written word, and which view has to leap through unnecessary hoops to arrive at a conclusion.

The only issue I have with our chats is that you repeat something that you claim I said when I never said it at all, and even explained what I actually said in clearer terms more than once, to say the least. This includes my claim about how the Ten Commandments have no explanation anywhere that says that none of them cannot be temporal shadows that are meant to be fulfilled more perfectly in an antitypical way as the sabbath distinctly is said to be. And your response has usually been, "But it's not what you are saying that is my beef, but what I think your conclusions lead to, while knowing you do not claim those conclusions." That is a moot response anyway. And that has also bee repeated ad nauseum.