Remember the Sabbath

[Guest yod]

Oy again.

Is this what they are teaching in churches these days? No wonder everyone is leaving...

The problem was never with the Law. The problem is with the sin of man. The Law is perfect and useful for instruction in righteousness. Without it we can not even begin to know what sin is!

Galatians 3:20-22

Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

The Law was NEVER about making us righteous. It can only condemn us by it's perfection which is the very reason we need a Savior.

If the Law is made void, then we don't need Jesus to atone for our sin. Past, present, or future....

And by the way....those who are "under the law" are not people who keep the law but those who are outside of faith because they will be judged "under the Law".

How can they be judged by something that no longer exists?

Is the Law written on your heart or not?

[nanasimmons]

Yod, Thank you so very much for your prayers I hope they are sincere, and I will continue to pray for you as well as I have been for months now.

Now lets look at what Paul says about the disciples that walked with Jesus.

Gal. 2

After 14 years Paul takes Barnabas and Titus up to Jerusalem and he went up by revelation to( bring them some thing, not to ask their approval of any thing) He went to communicate to them the gospel that he was preaching to the gentiles even Titus who was with him was compelled to be circumcised.

But of these who seemed to be somthing-(whatever they are it makes no differance to me:God shows personal favoritism to no man) for they who seems to be somthing- added NOTHING to me but on the contrary, they saw they the gospel of the gentile had been committed to Paul. The disciples continued to preach their message to the Jews while Paul took his to the gentiles.

The rest of it talks about Peter playing the hypocrite and causing other jews to also so much so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. Paul rebukes Peter and reminds him justifcation is not by the works of the law but by faith in Christ,

"for if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a trangressor. For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God" " I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain".

[Guest yod]

Yod, Thank you so very much for your prayers I hope they are sincere, and I will continue to pray for you as well as I have been for months now.

Now lets look at what Paul says about the disciples that walked with Jesus.

Gal. 2

After 14 years Paul takes Barnabas and Titus up to Jerusalem and he went up by revelation to( bring them some thing, not to ask their approval of any thing) He went to communicate to them the gospel that he was preaching to the gentiles even Titus who was with him was compelled to be circumcised.

But of these who seemed to be somthing-(whatever they are it makes no differance to me:God shows personal favoritism to no man) for they who seems to be somthing- added NOTHING to me but on the contrary, they saw they the gospel of the gentile had been committed to Paul. The disciples continued to preach their message to the Jews while Paul took his to the gentiles.

The rest of it talks about Peter playing the hypocrite and causing other jews to also so much so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. Paul rebukes Peter and reminds him justifcation is not by the works of the law but by faith in Christ,

"for if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a trangressor. For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God" " I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain".

thank you for being kind.

I am not argueing against righteous being by faith. It always was that way!

Yet the Torah is not made void. This is stated in clear black-and-white language here:

Romans 3:31

Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law!

Is Paul contradicting himself or has post-biblical theology misunderstood the point and purpose of the Torah?

I think it is obviously the latter.

Paul was making the (ancient) point that no one is righteous, not one. No one will be ever justified by the works of the Law pre-or-post Cross.

The situation with Kefa (Peter) had nothing to do with legalistic observance of the Torah. The state of "religion" in Israel during that time was that jews couldn't hang out with gentiles. They weren't allowed to eat with them, have fellowship with them, pray with them, etc...

We all know that was not in the Bible...and it wasn't from God...but it was a theological device of oral law...much like the Sunday sabbath is....or the "ordinances" against dancing or wine or other christian traditions which might be good; but aren't found in the Bible.

But the biggest problem I have with Cephas's position is not over which day is the Sabbath but his insistance that any disagreement with his views is akin to legalism when it is his position that is legalistic.

So far no one has ever been able to show a verse where obeying the commandments has become disobedience because of the Cross. No one on my side of this issue has said that going to church on Sunday is a sin yet some here have implied that observing the Sabbath is.

That point is simply unsustainable and contradictory to Holy writ.

[Guest Cephas]

The bible you have is an English translation of a jewish-greek language translated from speakers who spoke in Aramaic and hebrew. You read it through colored lenses called "theology" given to you mostly by Germans, English, or Romans who viewed the scriptures through Greek philosophical perspectives....yet the original texts came from Jews with a hebraic perspective. Do you see the possibility for misunderstanding the original intent?

If you will unlearn what you have been told and read THE WHOLE THING for what it says, you will find that there is no contradiction between what God said from the beginning until even today.

The only contradiction is in what post-biblical theology has taught you...and apparently you have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Don't confuse the Law with ordinances.

Is it your position that observing the Sabbath on the Sabbath is wrong? That is what it appears you are saying.

make your case.

So, you're arguing for 'esoteric knowledge' in order to properly understand the Bible? Special Knowledge, special training, special methods, special understanding or insight, special keys? I think not.

The greatest part of the New Testament was written by Paul, who preached to the Greeks mostly, and who's letters were mostly to churches in Greece. The Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by Luke (a Greek) to the Greek converts, not the Jews. Matthew and Hebrews were written for the Jewish converts, and very heavily attack the idea that the Old Covenant law has any validity. There is no evidence that the original manuscripts were in anything but Greek. To assume so is to do just that, ASSUME. There is no physical evidence to support you. But even if that were so, God is more than capable of inspiring His translators to do a proper job so that even us 'laymen' can find proper understanding without someone standing over our shoulders and guiding our every interpretive thought

[Guest Cephas]

Paul never told a jewish person that they should stop observing Torah. You mention going up to Jerusalem for the Feasts. Most jews of the diaspora didn't go to every Feast every year. It was more of pilgrimage than an annual event. When Paul DID go, he brought a sacrifice and had Timothy circumcised.

Oh really!! Show me that passage!!! If Paul did sacrifices after his conversion then we all have to, and the Sacrifice of Christ is to no effect.

as to his circumcising of Timothy, he did it to satisfy the demands of Jews, and he later regretted that decision. He also later goes to great lenghts to say that Circumcision is no longer required.

Acts 16:1 - 3 (NASB) 1Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Timothy was already a disciple AND UNcircumcized!!! It doesn't say he did it because of the Law, or because Christ commands it. He did it ONLY to appease the Jews.

Edited November 11, 2006 by Cephas

[Guest Cephas]

If a LAW or Requirement is NOT specifically reaffirmed in the New Covenant, then it doesn't apply to Christians. It is either the OLD COVENANT or the NEW COVENANT, not some kind of blend of both or either.

Oh, so since the Old Covenant law against me sleeping with my brother's wife is "not specifically reaffirmed" in the New Covenant, I am free and clear to that?????

In truth, Paul definitely says that adultery, fornication and sexual immorality are sins, so the command against adultery would be reaffirmed. AND added to, since a commandment against adultery only speaks against married people having sex outside of marriage.

I also reiterate that If you love your neighbor you won't be sleeping with his wife. Love would prohibit that act and the Spirit of God living in you and your changed heart will tell you that is wrong WITHOUT the need for the Commandment.

[Guest yod]

So, you're arguing for 'esoteric knowledge' in order to properly understand the Bible? Special Knowledge, special training, special methods, special understanding or insight, special keys?

You really enjoy being difficult, eh?

No. I've said nothing of the sort. I'll try to explain it in simpler terms for you. What I am saying is that the Bible has a context. It must be understood in the context it is given.

You are repeating assumptions based on post-biblical theology and greek philosophical concepts. There are a 40,000 denominations based on varying theological interpretations. Are they all correct?

Of course not...

So our only real source of truth is the Bible....not commentary.

Our only true comparison is to the original community who actually walked with Yeshua and formed the first faith community in Jerusalem. We should not have to go even one generation later for an example of what the Lord intended the Assembly to be. By the way, they observed Sabbath on the Sabbath and assembled (had "church") every chance they could, day or night.

It wouldn't stay this way for long though....

The ECF (early church fathers) were all gentiles who didn't understand the hebraic foundation of the New Covenant scriptures. Many of them were anti-semetic men with a bigotry against jews as a matter of historical record. They couldn't read hebrew or aramaic...and many of them couldn't even read greek! They wrote not a single verse of scripture yet they changed the course of christendom with their version of a "christian talmud" called "Theology".

This would be like a football player telling us how to play baseball using an NFL rulebook.

Everything after the scriptures were finished is commentary and open to debate. I value the opinions of the great christian theologians throughout history but they were no more authorized to understand the bible than you or I...so the actual text of the Bible is all I will consider authorative.

[Guest yod]

Paul never told a jewish person that they should stop observing Torah. You mention going up to Jerusalem for the Feasts. Most jews of the diaspora didn't go to every Feast every year. It was more of pilgrimage than an annual event. When Paul DID go, he brought a sacrifice and had Timothy circumcised.

Oh really!! Show me that passage!!! If Paul did sacrifices after his conversion then we all have to, and the Sacrifice of Christ is to no effect.

as to his circumcising of Timothy, he did it to satisfy the demands of Jews, and he later regretted that decision. He also later goes to great lenghts to say that Circumcision is no longer required.

Acts 16:1 - 3 (NASB) 1Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Timothy was already a disciple AND UNcircumcized!!! It doesn't say he did it because of the Law, or because Christ commands it. He did it ONLY to appease the Jews.

Are you saying that Paul was a hypocrite? He didn't object or refuse. He never said anything about it being wrong or making the Cross of no effect either.

Let the Word speak for itself....

17And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

18And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

19And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.

20And 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:

21And 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.

22What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.

23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;

24Them 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.

So these verses establish that there are many jews added to the faith and they are ALL zealous for the Torah. The problem is that they have been told that Paul is teaching against the Torah. They'd like for him to make it clear that he is doing no such thing...

25As 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.

And here again, they restate that they are not going to force gentiles to become jews. It would be nice if we could return that same grace to them now?

26Then 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.

27And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,

28Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

29(For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)

Paul had plenty of time to protest this. He has many verses in the bible to repent of it (if it was wrong) yet this is all we are told. He went into the Temple, presented an offering for sacrifice, and had Timothy circumcised.

Anything you could say after that is commentary....but these are the biblical facts.

Even the simplest of simpletons should be able to see that there was no prohibition against the Torah or keeping the commandments of God.

At least...not in the Bible.

[Guest Cephas]

Hermeneutics, now there's a grossly misused and misunderstood word on this board!!! There are those on this board that it's useless to discuss anything with. They've learned a new and big word and think because they can say it that they somehow are the only ones who know the only proper way to use it or to understand scripture. It's a word grossly misinterpretted and misapplied on this site by most everyone I've read. To most of them it simply means

interpretting by the methods I approve of

and

[getting the same meaning I do out of the passages

[Guest Cephas]

So, you're arguing for 'esoteric knowledge' in order to properly understand the Bible? Special Knowledge, special training, special methods, special understanding or insight, special keys?

You really enjoy being difficult, eh?

No. I've said nothing of the sort. I'll try to explain it in simpler terms for you. What I am saying is that the Bible has a context. It must be understood in the context it is given.

You are repeating assumptions based on post-biblical theology and greek philosophical concepts. There are a 40,000 denominations based on varying theological interpretations. Are they all correct?

Of course not...

So our only real source of truth is the Bible....not commentary.

Our only true comparison is to the original community who actually walked with Yeshua and formed the first faith community in Jerusalem. We should not have to go even one generation later for an example of what the Lord intended the Assembly to be. By the way, they observed Sabbath on the Sabbath and assembled (had "church") every chance they could, day or night.

It wouldn't stay this way for long though....

The ECF (early church fathers) were all gentiles who didn't understand the hebraic foundation of the New Covenant scriptures. Many of them were anti-semetic men with a bigotry against jews as a matter of historical record. They couldn't read hebrew or aramaic...and many of them couldn't even read greek! They wrote not a single verse of scripture yet they changed the course of christendom with their version of a "christian talmud" called "Theology".

This would be like a football player telling us how to play baseball using an NFL rulebook.

Everything after the scriptures were finished is commentary and open to debate. I value the opinions of the great christian theologians throughout history but they were no more authorized to understand the bible than you or I...so the actual text of the Bible is all I will consider authorative.

Hermeneutics, now there's a grossly misused and misunderstood word on this board!!! There are those on this board that it's useless to discuss anything with. They've picked up on a big word, Hermeneutics, and think because they can say the word that they somehow are the only ones who know the only proper way to understand scripture. It's a word grossly misinterpretted and misapplied on this site by most everyone I've read. To most of them it simply means

interpretting by the methods I approve of

and [getting the same meaning I do out of the passages