Sabbath or Sunday ?

September 23, 2008

So God was totally cool with Gentiles developing their own man made traditions etc?

In Colossians 2, which makes more sense.

Paul spoke out against the doctorines of Man, telling these former Pagans to abandon their old pagan ways (the ways of Man) and turn towards the ways of God.

As former Pagans Paul knew that they would've been keeping man made traditions, Pagan customs etc and he is telling them that, now, that they had come out of the Pagan religion and into the truth of Messiah that they should follow in God's ways and let no one judge them for it???

Or

Does it make more sense that Paul taught these new believers to go ahead and worship God however they saw fit, let no one judge them for making up their own days and ways.

God had laid out what Holidays He wanted kept and celebrated and the Sabbath He himself choose, these things are from God not from Man.

Which make more sense in Colossians two?

it makes more sense to tell them not to follow the silly rules the Jewish believes were trying to set upon them.

let me ask you this, why is circumcision not to be followed but things like feast and the Sabbath are? The requirement of circumcision was in place long before Moses ever existed. If we as Christians have moved past circumcision why not the rest also?

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15A nd having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

is not this written code that Paul speaks of the Laws of Moses?

I agree with you that we shouldn't place any man made traditions or rules above God's and yes this was Paul's argument through out the NT but are the Sabbath, Feasts, Kosher Laws etc. silly Jewish rules? Or God's Holy Law's?

Circumcision was never a means of conversion which is what the Gentiles were being tricked into thinking, they were being told that they needed to convert to join the club, so to speak. Circumcision is a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant not a means to acquire Salvation, as many Jews tried to make it, this is what Paul continually sets straight.

So Christians today don't force circumcision because they realize that it doesn't matter to your salvation BUT it never did save anyone to begin with.

Again this is Paul's entire point.

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15A nd having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Did God's Law stand opposed to us or was it God's direction for righteous living? Did Christ, disarm God the Father and make a spectacle of God's Law? His own Law? He triumphed over His Father????? He nailed His Father's ETERNAL Law to the Cross. This is what you are saying?

I absolutely disagree

Our sin was nailed to the cross, our condemnation, the written code of MAN.!!! Not the HOLY ETERNAL LAW of God. Christ would never make a spectacle of His Father. Colossians 2 in whole is talking about the things "of MAN" not God, I thought you agreed with that awhile back.

If you still believe this refers to God's Holy Perfect Law, then which Laws did Christ need to make a spectacle of? The Laws of Animal relations? The Feast Prophecies yet to be fulfilled? The commandment to fear God, To honor our elders, the Law to not stand by and watch your brother suffer, the Laws against incest, the commandment to not eat a worm found in fruit, not to hang the dead body of one who has incurred a penalty, the Law that tells us to help a burdened beast, to give to charity? Was the Law that requires a SIN SACRIFICE nailed to the Cross (we need that Law even today remember) Etc.

These commandments are contrary to us and therefore they needed to be nailed to the cross? Made a spectacle of? They were triumphed over....???

Again I FULLY disagree!!!!

September 23, 2008

We can't do sacrifices without a temple. We are obeying by not doing Sacrifices at this current time because there is no Temple.

what was the time frame between the time that Moses was given the law and the Temple was bulit? did they do Sacrifices during this time?

You can't sacrifice anywhere but where God places His name... IF I remember correctly there were other locations that were deemed ok throughout the Bible because they were where God placed His name.

We have no such place today so we do not do sacrifices and thereby we are obeying the commandment.

Deut 12

13 Take heed to yourself that you do not offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see; 14 but in the place which the LORD chooses, in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you.

September 23, 2008

You're right the Old Covenant was made with Israel but so was the New Covenant.
This is the ONLY place in the Old Testament where the "New Covenant" is explained...

Jeremiah 31
31

Edited September 23, 2008 by Rain27

September 23, 2008

Did God's Law stand opposed to us or was it God's direction for righteous living? Did Christ, disarm God the Father and make a spectacle of God's Law? His own Law? He triumphed over His Father????? He nailed His Father's ETERNAL Law to the Cross. This is what you are saying?

I absolutely disagree

No, I am not saying that Father's ETERNAL Law was nailed to the Cross,

What I am saying is that the rules given to Moses are not Father's ETERNAL Law, or they would have been in place prior to Moses.

Some of the rules were there prior to Moses, others were not. (murder being a good example)

Exodus 24

5 Then he sent young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the LORD. 6 And Moses took half the blood and put it in basins, and half the blood he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. And they said,

Edited September 23, 2008 by Rain27

September 23, 2008

We can't do sacrifices without a temple. We are obeying by not doing Sacrifices at this current time because there is no Temple.

what was the time frame between the time that Moses was given the law and the Temple was bulit? did they do Sacrifices during this time?

You can't sacrifice anywhere but where God places His name... IF I remember correctly there were other locations that were deemed ok throughout the Bible because they were where God placed His name.

We have no such place today so we do not do sacrifices and thereby we are obeying the commandment.

Deut 12

13 Take heed to yourself that you do not offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see; 14 but in the place which the LORD chooses, in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you.

let me make sure I am understanding you...

you are saying that if we had a temple then we would still be required to make sacrifices and burnt offerings, despite what Jesus did for us on the cross?

There are New Millieum Prophecies in the OT that say we will still give offering in the New M. I think in Zechariah and Exodus 40 something.. let me look...

Exodus 45

&

Zechariah 14

There are more places I just can't think of them, I'm getting short on time.

I don't know how it will work out exactly, I just know it's in prophecy.

September 23, 2008

Ezekiel 40-47

Speaks in detail about the Sacrifices, Temple etc. of the New Millennium.

Zechariah 14

Clearly says that the Feast of Tabernacles will be kept in the New Mill, and some people will still refuse to keep it.

***Interestingly enough, The Feast of Tabernacles is becoming increasingly more popular in Modern Christian circles (it has great meaning). Some Christians who keep no other Mosaic Law have decided to keep this Feast. .

And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD's house shall be like the bowls before the altar. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

BlindSeeker · September 23, 2008

Running Gator,

Did you read my reply to your post?

I am interested in your thoughts. I know you and rain have been running neck and neck today . . . good thing you do marathons

September 24, 2008

I have never said the law was abolished, I fully admit that all those that fall under the Mosaic Covenant still fall under the law. The Mosaic Covenant was between God and Israel. I am not a part of that group, never have been and never will be. I fall under the New Covenant.

If you wish to live by the Mosaic Covenant that is great and I have no doubt that you honor the Lord by doing so. I do not make that choice, and I honor the Lord with my choice.

Heb 9

15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance

OneLight · September 24, 2008

Let the word speak for itself.

Romans 14:1-13

Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another

OneLight · September 24, 2008

Let the word speak for itself.

Romans 14:1-13

Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another