The Sabbath Day, Should You Keep or not Keep?

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Are you saying His personal, physical body is the "image of good things to come"?

It seems to me the image spoken of in Hebrews 10 is not a single specific thing, but rather is a contrast between the shadow of the law. Thus, the entire scheme of worship and offering and priesthood etc under the law as "shadow" (vague outline) is being contrasted with the "very image" (clear representation) of the good things to come. Which would mean the very image is not just Christ's physical body, but Christ Himself - including His past, present, and continuing ministry as High Priest, and all the benefits that accrue from that ministry.

i thought that was finished.
The sacrifices were shadow of the Christ`s sacrifice.
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Those elements were also shadows.. thats why we dont follow them now, because are fulfilled. (some in the way).
Sabatism is Rest.
We will enter in His rest ,once and for all (future) but also we live according to that form now , "(how?)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.1 3 But in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins every year. 4 For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

You see? the firure thing of the sacrifices which the passage speaks got their fulfilment in Christ`s body

1 Then verily the first [covenant] had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.1,............
8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation.

Do you see how the Law and all the first Testament was :
was dedicated with blood of animals (all the Testament between God and Israel was dedicated through Maoses with Blood of animals and given by Angles.)
All that was shadows of the things to come,
by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
The BODY/FLESH of Christ is what entered forever in the Holiest place in Heaven.


19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

The body is that of Christ, and we WILL enter to His Rest ,BUT ,we are seated with Him at heaven (through Christ). We are the BODY now...and we live with that and only that HOPE:
9 There remaineth therefore a rest (Sabbatism)to the people of God.5 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his.
you see? Brother we will enter to the Sabbath but we "entered" through Him too. And if one enters in His rest , he stops from his own works!!!!



18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, (that is religion of angels.The law was received through Angles.we are not folloing Religion which given through Angles but through Christ.)

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by peter83

i thought that was finished.

What was it that you thought was finished? Sabbaths? or the discussion?

[peter83]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What was it that you thought was finished? Sabbaths? or the discussion?

"For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his."
your believing on days i meant

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by peter83

Do you see how the Law and all the first Testament was :
was dedicated with blood of animals (all the Testament between God and Israel was dedicated through Maoses with Blood of animals and given by Angles.)
All that was shadows of the things to come,
by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
The BODY/FLESH of Christ is what entered forever in the Holiest place in Heaven.

The offerings represented in a vague way what Christ and His New Civenant represent in a perfect and exact manner. Skia compared to eikon.

If this means we should not obey the Fourth Commandment, it also means we shouldn't honour our mother and father.

[peter83]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The offerings represented in a vague way what Christ and His New Civenant represent in a perfect and exact manner. Skia compared to eikon.

If this means we should not obey the Fourth Commandment, it also means we shouldn't honour our mother and father.

Ι dint say we should NOT obey
I said how we are to obey:
"For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his."
That is how you obbey.
It is the same with NO MURDER .
Is it enough to just dont kill anyone?
In the new you have much more than that.
Also "dont commit adultery". Is it enough to give a divorce?
No! there is NOT anymore divorce neither second marriage.
ALso is much more than touch your neighbours wife. It is sin even if you look at her with bad thoughts!!!
Dont swear false.???
Does Jesus did not obey the law (NO!) . He just gave the real usage and meaning of the commandment ,which is: "But I tell you ,do NOT swear atoll)


I never said we dont obey the law.You see? i am a lawful man ,lawful in Christ.
(being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by peter83

Ι dint say we should NOT obey
I said how we are to obey:
"For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his."
That is how you obbey.
It is the same with NO MURDER .
Is it enough to just dont kill anyone?
In the new you have much more than that.
Also "dont commit adultery". Is it enough to give a divorce?
No! there is NOT anymore divorce neither second marriage.
ALso is much more than touch your neighbours wife. It is sin even if you look at her with bad thoughts!!!
Dont swear false.???
Does Jesus did not obey the law (NO!) . He just gave the real usage and meaning of the commandment ,which is: "But I tell you ,do NOT swear atoll)


I never said we dont obey the law.You see? i am a lawful man ,lawful in Christ.
(being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ)

Can you obey the commandment against murder by not hating your neighbor in your heart, while still actually killing them?

Or does obeying the commandments include actually doing what it actually says to do?

[mfblume]

Since we're repeating things a bit, then I will, too. The 4th commandment is the only said to be a shadow of Christ, of the 10. So, we keep the body and the shadow is fulfilled.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Since we're repeating things a bit, then I will, too. The 4th commandment is the only said to be a shadow of Christ, of the 10. So, we keep the body and the shadow is fulfilled.

Where does the Bible say the fourth commandment is a shadow of Christ?

How does one "keep the body"? What does that even mean?

In Hebrews, the comparison/contrast is between shadow and very image (skia vs eikon). In that context, the skia is not a shadow cast by a body, but a vague resemblance contrasted with a true representation. What "casts the shadow" (if you insist on going that route) would be "the good things to come". Those things are the benefits of His eternal priesthood and mediatorship, according to Hebrews 9:11 and 15. So I think you are making a very loose connection between the shadow of the law, the body of Christ, and the fourth commandment, too loose for any hermeneutic I would be comfortable with (whether I was a sabbath keeper or not).

Paul argued extensively about circumcision, and about offerings. He did not argue extensively about the fourth commandment, he did not make it blunt and clear and undeniably unmistakable like he did with circumcision and offerings, that such things have been transformed and/or replaced under the new covenant. Yet the Sabbath question was just as, if not MORE important, to people of that day. In other words, IF Paul and the apostles believed as you believe regarding the Sabbath, we should expect far more data and far more extensive debate and explanation than we do find. The fact we do not, but instead find vague and indirect allusions (claimed to be) about the Sabbath, inclines me to think the antisabbatarian claim is erroneous.

The historical record likewise demonstrates Christians did in fact keep Sabbath for centuries until it was eventually all but stamped out by catholicism (along with Oneness, Jesus name baptism, and other apostolic truths). All this (and much more) leads me to a certainty that the apostles and early Christians did NOT abandon the fourth commandment in actual practice. And therefore neither should we.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Where does the Bible say the fourth commandment is a shadow of Christ?

Col 2:16-17. I said it over and over again.

How does one "keep the body"? What does that even mean?

When you have and walk in all that Christ is, that is represented by the sabbath rest, you are fulfilling what the keeping of the natural day foreshadowed.

In Hebrews, the comparison/contrast is between shadow and very image (skia vs eikon). In that context, the skia is not a shadow cast by a body, but a vague resemblance contrasted with a true representation.

That's the same concept altogether. The shadow of the body is the same thing as the shadow of the image.

What "casts the shadow" (if you insist on going that route) would be "the good things to come". Those things are the benefits of His eternal priesthood and mediatorship, according to Hebrews 9:11 and 15.

Which we enjoy now.

So I think you are making a very loose connection between the shadow of the law, the body of Christ, and the fourth commandment, too loose for any hermeneutic I would be comfortable with (whether I was a sabbath keeper or not).

Paul argued extensively about circumcision, and about offerings. He did not argue extensively about the fourth commandment, he did not make it blunt and clear and undeniably unmistakable like he did with circumcision and offerings, that such things have been transformed and/or replaced under the new covenant.

And we went over all of that before all. He extensively dealt with ALL holy days, months and years in Gal 4.

Yet the Sabbath question was just as, if not MORE important, to people of that day. In other words, IF Paul and the apostles believed as you believe regarding the Sabbath, we should expect far more data and far more extensive debate and explanation than we do find. The fact we do not, but instead find vague and indirect allusions (claimed to be) about the Sabbath, inclines me to think the antisabbatarian claim is erroneous.

Sorry but I see it extremely extensive in Gal 3 through 4 as well As Romans 14.

The historical record likewise demonstrates Christians did in fact keep Sabbath for centuries until it was eventually all but stamped out by catholicism (along with Oneness, Jesus name baptism, and other apostolic truths). All this (and much more) leads me to a certainty that the apostles and early Christians did NOT abandon the fourth commandment in actual practice. And therefore neither should we.

I don't care what some Christians did do. They also believed in real presence. There is no teaching in the bible that believers in the New Covenant should keep sabbath day, and that is easily seen in Acts where sabbath was not mentioned among the strangling of blood and things offered to idols.

It is so obvious I am ever shocked you do not see it.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I don't care what some Christians did do. They also believed in real presence. There is no teaching in the bible that believers in the New Covenant should keep sabbath day, and that is easily seen in Acts where sabbath was not mentioned among the strangling of blood and things offered to idols.

It is so obvious I am ever shocked you do not see it.

Two points: 1, the folks who believed in "real presence" are the folks who tried to stamp out Oneness, Jesus name baptism, and sabbath keeping. 2, Acts 15 only mentions 4 things, therefore we are not obligated to do anything else? I've gone over that many times before so I won't belabour it.