Total Posts:103|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Sabbath or no Sabbath?

Gracealone
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 9:54:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I believe the NT gives evidentual support for a continual observance of the Sabbath. What are your thoughts on the issue? (Give scriptural support)
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 10:38:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Story book confirms Sabbath Day is not binding!

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: {in meat...: or, for eating and drinking} {respect: or, part} 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. (Col. 2:16-17) KJV (My Bold)

& In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8:13) KJV (My Bold)

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col. 2:14) KJV (Story book
Gracealone
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 1:37:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 10:38:30 PM, Composer wrote:
Story book confirms Sabbath Day is not binding!

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: {in meat...: or, for eating and drinking} {respect: or, part} 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. (Col. 2:16-17) KJV (My Bold)

& In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8:13) KJV (My Bold)

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col. 2:14) KJV (Story book

I appreciate the input. Do you know of any articles on the issue that you primarily refer to?
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 5:24:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 1:37:47 AM, Gracealone wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:38:30 PM, Composer wrote:
Story book confirms Sabbath Day is not binding!

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: {in meat...: or, for eating and drinking} {respect: or, part} 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. (Col. 2:16-17) KJV (My Bold)

& In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8:13) KJV (My Bold)

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col. 2:14) KJV (Story book

I appreciate the input. Do you know of any articles on the issue that you primarily refer to?
Articles are just some one's opinion!

I thought those claiming to be a believer considered their Story book the Superior & ultimate benchmark?

IF they do then that settles the matter!

IF they don't then they aren't genuine bible Story book believers!
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 5:55:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 9:54:38 PM, Gracealone wrote:
I believe the NT gives evidentual support for a continual observance of the Sabbath. What are your thoughts on the issue? (Give scriptural support)

The Sabbath was a part of the Old Covenant, the handwriting of ordinances, which was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross. One had as well offer animal sacrifices, practice polygamy, observe the Jewish feast days, etc as to observe the weekly Sabbath
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Yi
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 6:31:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well I am Believed , That Christian Should Obey the Sabbath for the reason that Lord Jesus Christ said in the Book of Mark 2:27 it 'said : Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Lord Jesus Christ spoke this verse during the Time when he was on earth , and now what His conclusion at verse 28 it ' said : So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Who is the Lord of the Sabbath based on verse 28 The Son of Man . Who is the Son of Man ? We Know that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of Man ....That why we have a reason to Obey the Sabbath . Because According to the Lord Jesus Christ the Sabbath was made for man. ^_^
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 8:07:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 6:31:37 AM, Yi wrote:
Well I am Believed , That Christian Should Obey the Sabbath for the reason that Lord Jesus Christ said in the Book of Mark 2:27 it 'said : Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Lord Jesus Christ spoke this verse during the Time when he was on earth , and now what His conclusion at verse 28 it ' said : So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Who is the Lord of the Sabbath based on verse 28 The Son of Man . Who is the Son of Man ? We Know that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of Man ....That why we have a reason to Obey the Sabbath . Because According to the Lord Jesus Christ the Sabbath was made for man. ^_^
What don't you understand to ignore -

In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8:13) KJV (My Bold)

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col. 2:14) KJV Story book
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 10:20:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 6:31:37 AM, Yi wrote:
Well I am Believed , That Christian Should Obey the Sabbath for the reason that Lord Jesus Christ said in the Book of Mark 2:27 it 'said : Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Lord Jesus Christ spoke this verse during the Time when he was on earth , and now what His conclusion at verse 28 it ' said : So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Who is the Lord of the Sabbath based on verse 28 The Son of Man . Who is the Son of Man ? We Know that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of Man ....That why we have a reason to Obey the Sabbath . Because According to the Lord Jesus Christ the Sabbath was made for man. ^_^

That's fine if you practice circumcision as a religious rite, offer animal sacrifices to God above at the appointed times, endorse polygamy. By the way, the Jewish Law was still in force when Jesus said what He did in Mark 2: 27. I bet nobody said any such thing after the crucifixion, did they?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Gracealone
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 10:40:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 5:24:12 AM, Composer wrote:
At 11/23/2013 1:37:47 AM, Gracealone wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:38:30 PM, Composer wrote:
Story book confirms Sabbath Day is not binding!

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: {in meat...: or, for eating and drinking} {respect: or, part} 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. (Col. 2:16-17) KJV (My Bold)

& In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8:13) KJV (My Bold)

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col. 2:14) KJV (Story book

I appreciate the input. Do you know of any articles on the issue that you primarily refer to?
Articles are just some one's opinion!

I thought those claiming to be a believer considered their Story book the Superior & ultimate benchmark?

IF they do then that settles the matter!

IF they don't then they aren't genuine bible Story book believers!

Well, it is true that it would be their opinion, yet every interpretation that one could give on a scripture would be one's own opinion on the matter, such as yours. I ask for articles of reference because one may have valid reasoning for their position.
It is true as well that Scripture is the 'ultimate benchmark,' but that does not mean that what scripture says in black in white, is what it is. For instance, Christ gave his own body for the sacrifice of sins; thereby, he removes the necessity to offer animal sacrifices that God imposed in the beginning, because Christ has satisfied forever what an animal sacrifice could never do for an eternal lifetime, thus we reason out how that no longer is an imposition because of what Christ has done. So it is with the discussion of the Sabbath. Once again, though your an atheist, your input is still appreciated simply because it gives me objections to reason out. -Gracealone-
Gracealone
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 10:43:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 6:31:37 AM, Yi wrote:
Well I am Believed , That Christian Should Obey the Sabbath for the reason that Lord Jesus Christ said in the Book of Mark 2:27 it 'said : Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Lord Jesus Christ spoke this verse during the Time when he was on earth , and now what His conclusion at verse 28 it ' said : So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Who is the Lord of the Sabbath based on verse 28 The Son of Man . Who is the Son of Man ? We Know that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of Man ....That why we have a reason to Obey the Sabbath . Because According to the Lord Jesus Christ the Sabbath was made for man. ^_^

Thanks for the input. That is a valid point raised to those who oppose it. I am no seventh day adventist; rather, I am a Protestant with a puritan theological leaning. What is your understanding of Colossians 2? (just for input)
Gracealone
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 10:46:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 5:55:47 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/22/2013 9:54:38 PM, Gracealone wrote:
I believe the NT gives evidentual support for a continual observance of the Sabbath. What are your thoughts on the issue? (Give scriptural support)

The Sabbath was a part of the Old Covenant, the handwriting of ordinances, which was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross. One had as well offer animal sacrifices, practice polygamy, observe the Jewish feast days, etc as to observe the weekly Sabbath

If I may ask, how could the sabbath have been part of the Old Covenant if the observance of the Sabbath preceded the Covenant made at Mt. Sinai? (Exodus 16)
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 11:10:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 10:46:45 AM, Gracealone wrote:
At 11/23/2013 5:55:47 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/22/2013 9:54:38 PM, Gracealone wrote:
I believe the NT gives evidentual support for a continual observance of the Sabbath. What are your thoughts on the issue? (Give scriptural support)

The Sabbath was a part of the Old Covenant, the handwriting of ordinances, which was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross. One had as well offer animal sacrifices, practice polygamy, observe the Jewish feast days, etc as to observe the weekly Sabbath

If I may ask, how could the sabbath have been part of the Old Covenant if the observance of the Sabbath preceded the Covenant made at Mt. Sinai? (Exodus 16)

No, the Sabbath did not precede the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai. Moses, looking back upon creation by inspiration, said that God rested on the Sabbath and that God hallowed the Sabbath. But there is no evidence from Gen 1: 1 until Exodus 20 that any group of people kept the Sabbath. In Exodus 16, God gave the Israelites a little "proof test" and states the same in Exo 16: 4:

"Then said Jehovah unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or not."

The Law hadn't been given yet at that point. This was just a little preliminary test to see if they'd follow it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Gracealone
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 11:32:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 11:10:53 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:46:45 AM, Gracealone wrote:
At 11/23/2013 5:55:47 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/22/2013 9:54:38 PM, Gracealone wrote:
I believe the NT gives evidentual support for a continual observance of the Sabbath. What are your thoughts on the issue? (Give scriptural support)

The Sabbath was a part of the Old Covenant, the handwriting of ordinances, which was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross. One had as well offer animal sacrifices, practice polygamy, observe the Jewish feast days, etc as to observe the weekly Sabbath

If I may ask, how could the sabbath have been part of the Old Covenant if the observance of the Sabbath preceded the Covenant made at Mt. Sinai? (Exodus 16)

No, the Sabbath did not precede the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai. Moses, looking back upon creation by inspiration, said that God rested on the Sabbath and that God hallowed the Sabbath. But there is no evidence from Gen 1: 1 until Exodus 20 that any group of people kept the Sabbath. In Exodus 16, God gave the Israelites a little "proof test" and states the same in Exo 16: 4:

"Then said Jehovah unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or not."

The Law hadn't been given yet at that point. This was just a little preliminary test to see if they'd follow it.

That is an interesting view, and I appreciate it. If Moses knew that God set apart the seventh day and made it holy, how could we not say that it was observed since the beginning with Adam? I don't believe that the argument from silence either proves your position, nor does it affirm mine. But, taking what you said, that Moses knew of the Sabbath institution, is it not possible -despite scripture being silent- that Adam may actually have observed it, given that Adam was there at the declaration of the seventh day sanctification?

*Note* The babylonians preceded the existence of Israelites, and they in their history celebrated the 7th day as a day of rest.
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 11:46:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 11:32:03 AM, Gracealone wrote:
At 11/23/2013 11:10:53 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:46:45 AM, Gracealone wrote:
At 11/23/2013 5:55:47 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/22/2013 9:54:38 PM, Gracealone wrote:
I believe the NT gives evidentual support for a continual observance of the Sabbath. What are your thoughts on the issue? (Give scriptural support)

The Sabbath was a part of the Old Covenant, the handwriting of ordinances, which was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross. One had as well offer animal sacrifices, practice polygamy, observe the Jewish feast days, etc as to observe the weekly Sabbath

If I may ask, how could the sabbath have been part of the Old Covenant if the observance of the Sabbath preceded the Covenant made at Mt. Sinai? (Exodus 16)

No, the Sabbath did not precede the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai. Moses, looking back upon creation by inspiration, said that God rested on the Sabbath and that God hallowed the Sabbath. But there is no evidence from Gen 1: 1 until Exodus 20 that any group of people kept the Sabbath. In Exodus 16, God gave the Israelites a little "proof test" and states the same in Exo 16: 4:

"Then said Jehovah unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day's portion every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or not."

The Law hadn't been given yet at that point. This was just a little preliminary test to see if they'd follow it.

That is an interesting view, and I appreciate it. If Moses knew that God set apart the seventh day and made it holy, how could we not say that it was observed since the beginning with Adam? I don't believe that the argument from silence either proves your position, nor does it affirm mine. But, taking what you said, that Moses knew of the Sabbath institution, is it not possible -despite scripture being silent- that Adam may actually have observed it, given that Adam was there at the declaration of the seventh day sanctification?

*Note* The babylonians preceded the existence of Israelites, and they in their history celebrated the 7th day as a day of rest.

"You came down also upon mount Sinai, and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them right ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and made known unto them your holy sabbath, and commanded them commandments, and statutes, and a law, by Moses your servant" (Neh 9: 14)

Nehemiah, centuries later, looks back to Exodus 20 and says that God made known unto them (the Israelites) the holy sabbath. It seems to me that they should have already known about it, shouldn't they - that is, if there had been such a thing.

Moses later said in Deutronomy: "Jehovah our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Jehovah made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day" (Deuteronomy 5:2-3)

Then later, Ezekiel said, "So I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them my statutes, and showed them my ordinances, which, if a man does, he shall live in them. Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am Jehovah who sanctifies them" (Ezekiel 20:10-12)

If the Sabbath had been intended for all since the beginning, how in the world could it be a sign between God and Israel?

Couple all of that with the fact that nobody is presented as keeping the sabbath as a religious day between Gen 1: 1 and Exodus 20, and I think any argument for keeping the sabbath is very weak. By the way, one can very easily argue from silence. If not, then I could just say that I believe that prior to the giving of the Law, men worshiped on Thursday nights. You can't prove they didn't. That's not quite how it works, though.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Gracealone
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 12:45:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"You came down also upon mount Sinai, and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them right ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and made known unto them your holy sabbath, and commanded them commandments, and statutes, and a law, by Moses your servant" (Neh 9: 14)

Looking at Neh 9:14. Does not this scripture indicate that the Sabbath institution was not made at Mt. Sinai, but rather God was only making known the Sabbath institution? That is, the Sabbath had already been instituted at creation, but for the Israelites, the Sabbath was simply being 'made known' to them, that they may sanctify it just as how God expected the 7th day to be sanctified in the beginning?

Nehemiah, centuries later, looks back to Exodus 20 and says that God made known unto them (the Israelites) the holy sabbath. It seems to me that they should have already known about it, shouldn't they - that is, if there had been such a thing.
I believe my previous response answers this. It is a valid point to make that they probably did not observe it prior to Mt. Sinai, yet it does not prove that it's observance did not begin with Adam to Seth. The Gospel says "the Sabbath was made for Man" indicating that God created the Sabbath with Man (Mankind, not jews only) in mind. Thus, Adam would have known about a day of rest that was instituted for him and his offspring. (the line of Seth was the only pure line)

Moses later said in Deutronomy: "Jehovah our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Jehovah made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day" (Deuteronomy 5:2-3)

I agree that this covenant was not made with Abraham and his sons. But that does not mean that the Sabbath was never known to him; it just means that that specific covenant was not made with their ancestors. It is as though to say, if God never told Abraham "thou shalt not murder," then Abraham never obeyed it, because it was never spoken to him in the covenant that God made with him. (I am not saying Abraham observed it, I am simply saying that this scripture reference does not prove he did not know about it).

Then later, Ezekiel said, "So I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them my statutes, and showed them my ordinances, which, if a man does, he shall live in them. Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am Jehovah who sanctifies them" (Ezekiel 20:10-12)

If the Sabbath had been intended for all since the beginning, how in the world could it be a sign between God and Israel?

I believe the Sabbath would indeed serve as a sign between God and Israel, for every time they would observe it, it would signify their redemption by God. The sabbath was primarily to recall creation (Ex 20), but God further used it to serve as a sign to recall their redemption by God.

Couple all of that with the fact that nobody is presented as keeping the sabbath as a religious day between Gen 1: 1 and Exodus 20, and I think any argument for keeping the sabbath is very weak. By the way, one can very easily argue from silence. If not, then I could just say that I believe that prior to the giving of the Law, men worshiped on Thursday nights. You can't prove they didn't. That's not quite how it works, though.

What matters more to me is not as to whether what day you want to argue, of course, by tradition I'd say thursday is wrong, but rather that the 1 day in 7 is set apart for God. That's ultimately the issue. I wouldn't exert my time fighting with someone who feels fully convinced that thursday is the true day according to the scriptures. I believe that as long as the 4th command is obeyed, ultimately that is what matters. Taking this in mind, the 7th day is not assigned a certain day technically, but since tradition has it at the 7th day for jews, and the Puritans believed the 1st day was the new 7th day, it is fulfilled in either case. Of course, I believe on the revelational side of the Sabbath, the first day of the week is not the new 7th day but that the 7th day of the Jews remains as the only sanctified 7th day.
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 1:18:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 12:45:02 PM, Gracealone wrote:
"You came down also upon mount Sinai, and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them right ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and made known unto them your holy sabbath, and commanded them commandments, and statutes, and a law, by Moses your servant" (Neh 9: 14)

Looking at Neh 9:14. Does not this scripture indicate that the Sabbath institution was not made at Mt. Sinai, but rather God was only making known the Sabbath institution? That is, the Sabbath had already been instituted at creation, but for the Israelites, the Sabbath was simply being 'made known' to them, that they may sanctify it just as how God expected the 7th day to be sanctified in the beginning?

To me, that makes positively no sense - and it seems to me that you are merely scrambling for something to say. The Sabbath was either made known as a day of worship prior to Mt Sinai - or it wasn't. July 4 is celebrated country-wide as the Independence Day. Congress cannot convene now and "make known" that July 4 is to be celebrated as the Day of Independence. It's already known.


Nehemiah, centuries later, looks back to Exodus 20 and says that God made known unto them (the Israelites) the holy sabbath. It seems to me that they should have already known about it, shouldn't they - that is, if there had been such a thing.

I believe my previous response answers this. It is a valid point to make that they probably did not observe it prior to Mt. Sinai, yet it does not prove that it's observance did not begin with Adam to Seth. The Gospel says "the Sabbath was made for Man" indicating that God created the Sabbath with Man (Mankind, not jews only) in mind. Thus, Adam would have known about a day of rest that was instituted for him and his offspring. (the line of Seth was the only pure line)

You are correct that there is not a shred of evidence that anybody observed the Sabbath prior to Exodus 20. If one so desires, I suppose he could concoct inferential evidence - not necessary inferences, but inferential evidence - that folks on the back side of Exodus 20 observed the Sabbath.

Moses later said in Deutronomy: "Jehovah our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Jehovah made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day" (Deuteronomy 5:2-3)

I agree that this covenant was not made with Abraham and his sons. But that does not mean that the Sabbath was never known to him; it just means that that specific covenant was not made with their ancestors. It is as though to say, if God never told Abraham "thou shalt not murder," then Abraham never obeyed it, because it was never spoken to him in the covenant that God made with him. (I am not saying Abraham observed it, I am simply saying that this scripture reference does not prove he did not know about it).

Abraham was amenable to the same moral laws that everyone else, including Cain, was under. However, there is nothing moral or immoral about keeping the Sabbath.

Then later, Ezekiel said, "So I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them my statutes, and showed them my ordinances, which, if a man does, he shall live in them. Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am Jehovah who sanctifies them" (Ezekiel 20:10-12)

If the Sabbath had been intended for all since the beginning, how in the world could it be a sign between God and Israel?

I believe the Sabbath would indeed serve as a sign between God and Israel, for every time they would observe it, it would signify their redemption by God. The sabbath was primarily to recall creation (Ex 20), but God further used it to serve as a sign to recall their redemption by God.

The creation days were a type or figure of the Sabbath, but there is no decree to anyone to observe the Sabbath primarily to recall creation.

Couple all of that with the fact that nobody is presented as keeping the sabbath as a religious day between Gen 1: 1 and Exodus 20, and I think any argument for keeping the sabbath is very weak. By the way, one can very easily argue from silence. If not, then I could just say that I believe that prior to the giving of the Law, men worshiped on Thursday nights. You can't prove they didn't. That's not quite how it works, though.

What matters more to me is not as to whether what day you want to argue, of course, by tradition I'd say thursday is wrong, but rather that the 1 day in 7 is set apart for God. That's ultimately the issue. I wouldn't exert my time fighting with someone who feels fully convinced that thursday is the true day according to the scriptures. I believe that as long as the 4th command is obeyed, ultimately that is what matters. Taking this in mind, the 7th day is not assigned a certain day technically, but since tradition has it at the 7th day for jews, and the Puritans believed the 1st day was the new 7th day, it is fulfilled in either case. Of course, I believe on the revelational side of the Sabbath, the first day of the week is not the new 7th day but that the 7th day of the Jews remains as the only sanctified 7th day.

You are under no obligation to keep the 4th command, or any of the rest of the ten commandments. They never were given to a Gentile: they were given to Jews and only Jews. As it turns out, nine of the ten commandments are repeated in substance in the New Testament with the notable exception of the 4th. The 4th commandment, by the way, was a primary source for all of those long, drawn-out rules ... endless rules ... which endeavored to determine what constituted "work". After Exodus 20, the Gentiles remained under the old Patriarchal System while the Israelites were separated off as a chosen people, descendents of Seth. The descendents of Noah through Japheth and Ham were never under the covenant of Exodus 20. It bore no significance to them.

At any rate, someone can probably see Sabbath worship by the old patriarchs prior to Moses - if they have determined that they are going to see it. Such a person will search in vain for any concrete evidence of Sabbath observance prior to God "making known" the Sabbath to the descendants of Noah through Abraham who was through Shem. Nobody can find a Hammite or a Japhetite keeping the Sabbath. Nobody can find Noah keeping the Sabbath. It is a sign between God and Israel, a sign which was typified in the creation, but is not a memorial of it. Mankind was never obligated to keep the Sabbath as a memorial of the creation.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Gracealone
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 3:06:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 1:18:40 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/23/2013 12:45:02 PM, Gracealone wrote:
"You came down also upon mount Sinai, and spoke with them from heaven, and gave them right ordinances and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and made known unto them your holy sabbath, and commanded them commandments, and statutes, and a law, by Moses your servant" (Neh 9: 14)

Looking at Neh 9:14. Does not this scripture indicate that the Sabbath institution was not made at Mt. Sinai, but rather God was only making known the Sabbath institution? That is, the Sabbath had already been instituted at creation, but for the Israelites, the Sabbath was simply being 'made known' to them, that they may sanctify it just as how God expected the 7th day to be sanctified in the beginning?

To me, that makes positively no sense - and it seems to me that you are merely scrambling for something to say. The Sabbath was either made known as a day of worship prior to Mt Sinai - or it wasn't. July 4 is celebrated country-wide as the Independence Day. Congress cannot convene now and "make known" that July 4 is to be celebrated as the Day of Independence. It's already known.

Why become upset? If you are really going to be reasonable about this discussion, then you will not overlook key words that give a valid point. When God says that he made known his Sabbath; it is no different than if the Scriptures said; 'you made known to them your secret.' The implication is clear, to make known his secret implies that he already had a secret, and because they had not known about it; he now makes his secret known.
Making something known does not mean to create or make. Your analogy makes my point. If everyone already knew that independence day was to be celebrated, then there would be no need for Congress to reveal it. Israel on the other hand, if they had forgotten it's institution due to the fall of man, and fallen men forsook it's institution and thereby the Sabbath was a lost institution to be celebrated, it would make perfect sense for God to reveal it to those who would join themselves to Him by covenant. It would be necessary for God to reveal something he commanded to be celebrated.
Again, if Congress made it mandatory that every man celebrate independence day, and all americans caught amnesia. Then it would be reasonable for congr. 2 mk knwn
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 3:40:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 9:54:38 PM, Gracealone wrote:
I believe the NT gives evidentual support for a continual observance of the Sabbath. What are your thoughts on the issue? (Give scriptural support)

All us saints learn that the Jewish "Sabbath day" is only a tradition but the real Sabbath day rest is what us saints live for eternity. The rest of God's people will live in God's Sabbath day rest in the next age after their flesh perishes in this age. The flesh of us saints were changed during this age to have the invisible Old Covenant "veil" removed so that we could receive God's hidden knowledge within His mind. We have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 2
10: God has revealed to us ( we sinless saints ) through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
11: For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
12: Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.
13: And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.
14: The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
15: The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
16: "For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
Gracealone
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 3:44:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago


Nehemiah, centuries later, looks back to Exodus 20 and says that God made known unto them (the Israelites) the holy sabbath. It seems to me that they should have already known about it, shouldn't they - that is, if there had been such a thing.

I believe my previous response answers this. It is a valid point to make that they probably did not observe it prior to Mt. Sinai, yet it does not prove that it's observance did not begin with Adam to Seth. The Gospel says "the Sabbath was made for Man" indicating that God created the Sabbath with Man (Mankind, not jews only) in mind. Thus, Adam would have known about a day of rest that was instituted for him and his offspring. (the line of Seth was the only pure line)

You are correct that there is not a shred of evidence that anybody observed the Sabbath prior to Exodus 20. If one so desires, I suppose he could concoct inferential evidence - not necessary inferences, but inferential evidence - that folks on the back side of Exodus 20 observed the Sabbath.

You did not address my case on Jesus' statement.

Moses later said in Deutronomy: "Jehovah our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Jehovah made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day" (Deuteronomy 5:2-3)

I agree that this covenant was not made with Abraham and his sons. But that does not mean that the Sabbath was never known to him; it just means that that specific covenant was not made with their ancestors. It is as though to say, if God never told Abraham "thou shalt not murder," then Abraham never obeyed it, because it was never spoken to him in the covenant that God made with him. (I am not saying Abraham observed it, I am simply saying that this scripture reference does not prove he did not know about it).

Abraham was amenable to the same moral laws that everyone else, including Cain, was under. However, there is nothing moral or immoral about keeping the Sabbath.

The Sabbath is moral by reason of command, and by reason that it is not right that we do not seperate ourselves from worldly matters to render pure dedicated worship to God. It is our obligation to give God a proportion of time to set aside all things to render our day in complete devotion to things that please him. If you do not render time with him (of which all believers desire to spend time with him anyway) then it is complete displeasure to him. Suppose I said, ' I don't feel obligated to pray in adoration of God,' that is absurd though, of course if I am a lover of God, then I will render my love to him through meditation, the godly soul yearns to spend time with God. If a man does not render love to God to communicate to him ever, would you believe he is a true lover of God?


Then later, Ezekiel said, "So I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them my statutes, and showed them my ordinances, which, if a man does, he shall live in them. Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am Jehovah who sanctifies them" (Ezekiel 20:10-12)

If the Sabbath had been intended for all since the beginning, how in the world could it be a sign between God and Israel?

I believe the Sabbath would indeed serve as a sign between God and Israel, for every time they would observe it, it would signify their redemption by God. The sabbath was primarily to recall creation (Ex 20), but God further used it to serve as a sign to recall their redemption by God.

The creation days were a type or figure of the Sabbath, but there is no decree to anyone to observe the Sabbath primarily to recall creation.
I don't find the Sabbath as a type of anything. It is not a type, it does not point foward, it points back to creation, where God instituted it (Ex. 20). The 10 commandments are perpetual and binding on all believers. Does not the law show us our sin? Does not paul speak of the commandments in this way; "I would not have known covetting is wrong unless the law had said 'thou shall not covet," (Romans). In the same way, I would not have known breaking the 7th day sabbath was a sin, unless the law had said "Remeber the Sabbath day to keep it holy.

Couple all of that with the fact that nobody is presented as keeping the sabbath as a religious day between Gen 1: 1 and Exodus 20, and I think any argument for keeping the sabbath is very weak. By the way, one can very easily argue from silence. If not, then I could just say that I believe that prior to the giving of the Law, men worshiped on Thursday nights. You can't prove they didn't. That's not quite how it works, though.

What matters more to me is not as to whether what day you want to argue, of course, by tradition I'd say thursday is wrong, but rather that the 1 day in 7 is set apart for God. That's ultimately the issue. I wouldn't exert my time fighting with someone who feels fully convinced that thursday is the true day according to the scriptures. I believe that as long as the 4th command is obeyed, ultimately that is what matters. Taking this in mind, the 7th day is not assigned a certain day technically, but since tradition has it at the 7th day for jews, and the Puritans believed the 1st day was the new 7th day, it is fulfilled in either case. Of course, I believe on the revelational side of the Sabbath, the first day of the week is not the new 7th day but that the 7th day of the Jews remains as the only sanctified 7th day.

You are under no obligation to keep the 4th command, or any of the rest of the ten commandments. They never were given to a Gentile: they were given to Jews and only Jews. As it turns out, nine of the ten commandments are repeated in substance in the New Testament with the notable exception of the 4th. The 4th commandment, by the way, was a primary source for all of those long, drawn-out rules ... endless rules ... which endeavored to determine what constituted "work". After Exodus 20, the Gentiles remained under the old Patriarchal System while the Israelites were separated off as a chosen people, descendents of Seth. The descendents of Noah through Japheth and Ham were never under the covenant of Exodus 20. It bore no significance to them.

If the 10 commandments are not binding, could I commit murder without being obligated to abstain from murder?
What is your view when Paul sais in 1 Corinthains 7:19
"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God"
At any rate, someone can probably see Sabbath worship by the old patriarchs prior to Moses - if they have determined that they are going to see it. Such a person will search in vain for any concrete evidence of Sabbath observance prior to God "making known" the Sabbath to the descendants of Noah through Abraham who was through Shem. Nobody can find a Hammite or a Japhetite keeping the Sabbath. Nobody can find Noah keeping the Sabbath. It is a sign between God and Israel, a sign which was typified in the creation, but is not a memorial of it. Mankind was never obligated to keep the Sabbath as a memorial of the creation.

What I meant about recalling creation was that the basis for the Sabbath institution was the creation account. "Rember the sabbath day, to keep it holy...FOR in six days the Lord made heavens, the sea and all that is in them, and Rested on the seventh day; THEREFORE the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy"
So every time an Israelite observed it, they would recall creation indirectly. The other aspect is that the Sabbath was made for us (man). So it was not restricted to Jews. The reason it became a sign of redemption was because a Jew, in coming to worship God on his holy day, would also remember that God redeemed them, thus the sabbath serve
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 6:06:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 5:24:12 AM, Composer wrote:
At 11/23/2013 1:37:47 AM, Gracealone wrote:
At 11/22/2013 10:38:30 PM, Composer wrote:
Story book confirms Sabbath Day is not binding!

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: {in meat...: or, for eating and drinking} {respect: or, part} 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. (Col. 2:16-17) KJV (My Bold)

& In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away. (Heb. 8:13) KJV (My Bold)

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Col. 2:14) KJV (Story book

I appreciate the input. Do you know of any articles on the issue that you primarily refer to?
Articles are just some one's opinion!

I thought those claiming to be a believer considered their Story book the Superior & ultimate benchmark?

IF they do then that settles the matter!

IF they don't then they aren't genuine bible Story book believers!

At 11/23/2013 10:40:05 AM, Gracealone wrote:
Well, it is true that it would be their opinion, yet every interpretation that one could give on a scripture would be one's own opinion on the matter, such as yours.
I thought the bible Story book god claimed it wasn't the ' author of confusion? '.

However your response confirms the opposite? (1 Cor. 14:33) KJV Story book

At 11/23/2013 10:40:05 AM, Gracealone wrote:
I ask for articles of reference because one may have valid reasoning for their position.
Again proving some if not a myriad of reasons why passages can be interpreted differently which is actually adding to the confusion as the passage is written ' as is '.

At 11/23/2013 10:40:05 AM, Gracealone wrote:
It is true as well that Scripture is the 'ultimate benchmark,' but that does not mean that what scripture says in black in white, is what it is.
Again your response only confirms ambiguity = Confusion as to its meaning?

At 11/23/2013 10:40:05 AM, Gracealone wrote:
For instance, Christ gave his own body for the sacrifice of sins; thereby, he removes the necessity to offer animal sacrifices that God imposed in the beginning, because Christ has satisfied forever what an animal sacrifice could never do for an eternal lifetime, thus we reason out how that no longer is an imposition because of what Christ has done.
A clear case of your Confusion!

Deut. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20 REFUTE your analysis! i.e. jebus (nor any one else) can ' pay the price / substitute / atone for some one else!

At 11/23/2013 10:40:05 AM, Gracealone wrote:
So it is with the discussion of the Sabbath. Once again, though your an atheist, your input is still appreciated simply because it gives me objections to reason out. -Gracealone-

Sabbath Day is not binding says Story book! (Story book evidence already provided by me!)

Cheers!
Yi
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 7:12:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 10:20:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:31:37 AM, Yi wrote:
Well I am Believed , That Christian Should Obey the Sabbath for the reason that Lord Jesus Christ said in the Book of Mark 2:27 it 'said : Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Lord Jesus Christ spoke this verse during the Time when he was on earth , and now what His conclusion at verse 28 it ' said : So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Who is the Lord of the Sabbath based on verse 28 The Son of Man . Who is the Son of Man ? We Know that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of Man ....That why we have a reason to Obey the Sabbath . Because According to the Lord Jesus Christ the Sabbath was made for man. ^_^

That's fine if you practice circumcision as a religious rite, offer animal sacrifices to God above at the appointed times, endorse polygamy. By the way, the Jewish Law was still in force when Jesus said what He did in Mark 2: 27. I bet nobody said any such thing after the crucifixion, did they?

Here in my Country How many times I answer the Issue of Colossians 2:16 it said: Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. Before that you using this verse against to my position you should my study what does't a Evangelical Scholar said on this verse . Because the Bible will contradict it self , You Know why ? In Hebrews 4: 9-10 it said : here remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God"s rest also rests from their works,[a] just as God did from his. This rest is referring on Genesis 2:1-3 When God rest in His work during creation time , Now if you will use Colossians 2:16 refute my Stand that verse is a not Evidence to proof that a Christian Should no obey the 7th Sabbath . Why ? Because based on Albert Barns Bible Commentary on Colossians 2:16 it said : Or of the Sabbath days - Greek, "of the Sabbaths." The word Sabbath in the Old Testament is applied not only to the seventh day, but to all the days of holy rest that were observed by the Hebrews, and particularly to the beginning and close of their great festivals. There is, doubtless, reference to those days in this place, since the word is used in the plural number, and the apostle does not refer particularly to the Sabbath properly so called. There is no evidence from this passage that he would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. It so very clear statement that verse is not a Evidence to Proof that the 7th Sabbath is not still in Christian Era...I think before that you raise a Objection I advice you should must Study How many Sabbath in the Bible . That is All
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 8:57:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 7:12:23 PM, Yi wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:20:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:31:37 AM, Yi wrote:
Well I am Believed , That Christian Should Obey the Sabbath for the reason that Lord Jesus Christ said in the Book of Mark 2:27 it 'said : Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Lord Jesus Christ spoke this verse during the Time when he was on earth , and now what His conclusion at verse 28 it ' said : So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Who is the Lord of the Sabbath based on verse 28 The Son of Man . Who is the Son of Man ? We Know that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of Man ....That why we have a reason to Obey the Sabbath . Because According to the Lord Jesus Christ the Sabbath was made for man. ^_^

That's fine if you practice circumcision as a religious rite, offer animal sacrifices to God above at the appointed times, endorse polygamy. By the way, the Jewish Law was still in force when Jesus said what He did in Mark 2: 27. I bet nobody said any such thing after the crucifixion, did they?

Here in my Country How many times I answer the Issue of Colossians 2:16 it said: Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. Before that you using this verse against to my position you should my study what does't a Evangelical Scholar said on this verse . Because the Bible will contradict it self , You Know why ? In Hebrews 4: 9-10 it said : here remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God"s rest also rests from their works,[a] just as God did from his. This rest is referring on Genesis 2:1-3 When God rest in His work during creation time , Now if you will use Colossians 2:16 refute my Stand that verse is a not Evidence to proof that a Christian Should no obey the 7th Sabbath . Why ? Because based on Albert Barns Bible Commentary on Colossians 2:16 it said : Or of the Sabbath days - Greek, "of the Sabbaths." The word Sabbath in the Old Testament is applied not only to the seventh day, but to all the days of holy rest that were observed by the Hebrews, and particularly to the beginning and close of their great festivals. There is, doubtless, reference to those days in this place, since the word is used in the plural number, and the apostle does not refer particularly to the Sabbath properly so called. There is no evidence from this passage that he would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. It so very clear statement that verse is not a Evidence to Proof that the 7th Sabbath is not still in Christian Era...I think before that you raise a Objection I advice you should must Study How many Sabbath in the Bible . That is All
Bottom-Line: The NT teaches a new ministry & better replacing the old! (Heb. 8:6 & 7) bible Story book

The OLD relied on strict adherence to various Laws whereas the NT took that away for a ministry of Grace!

I am NOT offering support for the bible Story book, it is ALL 100% human concocted regarding many Historical MYTHICAL characters like e.g. Moses, Abraham, Pauly, Apostles & jebus!

Personally the bible is a proven self-contradicting book of BS with smatterings of History included to try to give some semblance to the BS written & devised by those authors that put it together!

We also know that the NT itself has been corrupted, so having NO original copies it is all virtually only worthy of the recycle-bin!

Griesbach:
"The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced, than any other book."

Hug:
"the New Testament has had the peculiar fate of suffering more by intentional alterations than the works of profane literature"

Colwell:
"The majority of the variant readings in the New Testament were created for theological or dogmatic reasons."

Ehrman:
Ehrman's recent book on the subject is entitled "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture". Its title speaks for itself.

So if any of you dupes wishes to embrace a self-contradicting & BS Story book, then I can't stop your foolishness, I can only continue to expose it as I successfully do!
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 9:28:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 7:12:23 PM, Yi wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:20:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/23/2013 6:31:37 AM, Yi wrote:
Well I am Believed , That Christian Should Obey the Sabbath for the reason that Lord Jesus Christ said in the Book of Mark 2:27 it 'said : Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Lord Jesus Christ spoke this verse during the Time when he was on earth , and now what His conclusion at verse 28 it ' said : So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." Who is the Lord of the Sabbath based on verse 28 The Son of Man . Who is the Son of Man ? We Know that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of Man ....That why we have a reason to Obey the Sabbath . Because According to the Lord Jesus Christ the Sabbath was made for man. ^_^

That's fine if you practice circumcision as a religious rite, offer animal sacrifices to God above at the appointed times, endorse polygamy. By the way, the Jewish Law was still in force when Jesus said what He did in Mark 2: 27. I bet nobody said any such thing after the crucifixion, did they?

Here in my Country How many times I answer the Issue of Colossians 2:16 it said: Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. Before that you using this verse against to my position you should my study what does't a Evangelical Scholar said on this verse . Because the Bible will contradict it self , You Know why ? In Hebrews 4: 9-10 it said : here remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God"s rest also rests from their works,[a] just as God did from his. This rest is referring on Genesis 2:1-3 When God rest in His work during creation time , Now if you will use Colossians 2:16 refute my Stand that verse is a not Evidence to proof that a Christian Should no obey the 7th Sabbath . Why ? Because based on Albert Barns Bible Commentary on Colossians 2:16 it said : Or of the Sabbath days - Greek, "of the Sabbaths." The word Sabbath in the Old Testament is applied not only to the seventh day, but to all the days of holy rest that were observed by the Hebrews, and particularly to the beginning and close of their great festivals. There is, doubtless, reference to those days in this place, since the word is used in the plural number, and the apostle does not refer particularly to the Sabbath properly so called. There is no evidence from this passage that he would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. It so very clear statement that verse is not a Evidence to Proof that the 7th Sabbath is not still in Christian Era...I think before that you raise a Objection I advice you should must Study How many Sabbath in the Bible . That is All

Ummm ... I never brought up Col 2: 16 as best I recall, but you did - evidently because you wanted to discuss it, then you advise: "before that you raise a Objection I advice you should must Study How many Sabbath in the Bible." How do you know that I didn't already know all about it? In fact, there was practically nothing in your post that I didn't already know. At any rate, I never mentioned Col 2: 16 as an objection to keeping the sabbath.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 10:04:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anna: Nehemiah, centuries later, looks back to Exodus 20 and says that God made known unto them (the Israelites) the holy sabbath. It seems to me that they should have already known about it, shouldn't they - that is, if there had been such a thing.

Gracealone: I believe my previous response answers this. It is a valid point to make that they probably did not observe it prior to Mt. Sinai, yet it does not prove that it's observance did not begin with Adam to Seth. The Gospel says "the Sabbath was made for Man" indicating that God created the Sabbath with Man (Mankind, not jews only) in mind. Thus, Adam would have known about a day of rest that was instituted for him and his offspring. (the line of Seth was the only pure line)

Anna: You are correct that there is not a shred of evidence that anybody observed the Sabbath prior to Exodus 20. If one so desires, I suppose he could concoct inferential evidence - not necessary inferences, but inferential evidence - that folks on the back side of Exodus 20 observed the Sabbath.

Gracealone: You did not address my case on Jesus' statement.


Anna: That's because you didn't have a case. Jesus said, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." You concluded that since Jesus did not say "made for the Israelites" that the Sabbath was made for mankind in general and observed all the way back to Adam and Seth. Then you follow up: "Adam would have known about a day of rest that was instituted for him and his offspring". That's a pretty far-fetched conclusion based upon Jesus's simple statement.

Jesus was simply addressing the Sabbath in the context of speaking to the religious leaders of old covenant Israel and the interpreters of the Law of Moses in His day. He was telling them as old covenant people how they should apply the law of the Sabbath with mercy and thought to human need. And he was telling them he had the authority to define how they should observe the Sabbath - and that the Sabbath was given to men for the benefit of men, not vice versa.

I have a question, although it won't be answered: does "given to man" ever mean "given only to the nation of Israel"? And Part B: Do you think that every time the scriptures say "provided for man" ... "given to man" ... "instituted for man" ... etc ... that the phrases mean "for or to mankind in general"? Now that's your argument, basically, and I'd like to see your answers.

Anna: "Abraham was amenable to the same moral laws that everyone else, including Cain, was under. However, there is nothing moral or immoral about keeping the Sabbath.

Gracealone: The Sabbath is moral by reason of command, and by reason that it is not right that we do not seperate ourselves from worldly matters to render pure dedicated worship to God.

Anna: The observance or lack thereof of dedicating either the Sabbath or the first day of the week to the worship of God is not a matter of morality. Do you contend that an atheist is immoral by virtue of the fact that he works on Saturday and Sunday? There is no such thing as "moral by reason of command".

Gracealone: It is our obligation to give God a proportion of time to set aside all things to render our day in complete devotion to things that please him. If you do not render time with him (of which all believers desire to spend time with him anyway) then it is complete displeasure to him.

Anna: That may all be true, but the lack of doing so does not make one an immoral person.

Gracealone: Suppose I said, ' I don't feel obligated to pray in adoration of God,' that is absurd though, of course if I am a lover of God, then I will render my love to him through meditation, the godly soul yearns to spend time with God. If a man does not render love to God to communicate to him ever, would you believe he is a true lover of God?

Anna: Irregardless, the observance of the Sabbath ... or the first day of the week ... or a Tuesday morning ... or a Friday is not an act of morality. There are plenty of things that are morally right, but religiously wrong. There are also a number of things that are morally neutral, but religiously correct. It is not morally wrong to offer a fatted calf to God, but it is religiously wrong.

I repeat: There is not a shred of evidence that anybody observed the Sabbath prior to Exodus 20. None. There is no evidence that Noah observed the Sabbath.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Gracealone
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 12:26:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 10:04:26 PM, annanicole wrote:
Anna: Nehemiah, centuries later, looks back to Exodus 20 and says that God made known unto them (the Israelites) the holy sabbath. It seems to me that they should have already known about it, shouldn't they - that is, if there had been such a thing.

Gracealone: I believe my previous response answers this. It is a valid point to make that they probably did not observe it prior to Mt. Sinai, yet it does not prove that it's observance did not begin with Adam to Seth. The Gospel says "the Sabbath was made for Man" indicating that God created the Sabbath with Man (Mankind, not jews only) in mind. Thus, Adam would have known about a day of rest that was instituted for him and his offspring. (the line of Seth was the only pure line)

Anna: You are correct that there is not a shred of evidence that anybody observed the Sabbath prior to Exodus 20. If one so desires, I suppose he could concoct inferential evidence - not necessary inferences, but inferential evidence - that folks on the back side of Exodus 20 observed the Sabbath.

Gracealone: You did not address my case on Jesus' statement.


Anna: That's because you didn't have a case. Jesus said, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath." You concluded that since Jesus did not say "made for the Israelites" that the Sabbath was made for mankind in general and observed all the way back to Adam and Seth. Then you follow up: "Adam would have known about a day of rest that was instituted for him and his offspring". That's a pretty far-fetched conclusion based upon Jesus's simple statement.

You know, first off I'd say for a Christian you have extreme PRIDE, Pride that God condemns, no humility whatsoever. I wonder how godless your congregation is, seeing that it would be a shame to make known your church, for they might be ashamed of your conduct toward other brethren.
Yet despite your manifest sin, I will still dialogue for the sake of learning of opposing views. My conclusion is logical. If God made the sabbath for mankind and therefore it orginated at creation, and adam was there at its declaration, then it is not a far fetched conclusion to say that Adam would have known about it. Why would God make it for 'man,' and not reveal to the first 'man,' that the 7th day is a day of rest and worship?

Jesus was simply addressing the Sabbath in the context of speaking to the religious leaders of old covenant Israel and the interpreters of the Law of Moses in His day. He was telling them as old covenant people how they should apply the law of the Sabbath with mercy and thought to human need. And he was telling them he had the authority to define how they should observe the Sabbath - and that the Sabbath was given to men for the benefit of men, not vice versa.

As I spoke in one of my prior arguements, the sabbath was 'made known' at Mt. Sinai, it was not 'made' at Mt. Sinai; rather, it was made at creation according to EX and GEN. Jesus rebuked their understanding of how the sabbath was to be observed, and the way they observed it was so burdensom that their view always condemned men. To this view, Jesus corrects their understanding of the sabbath and then reminds them that the sabbath was 'made' for man, that is, the sabbath was made for mankinds benefit, whereas the jews flipped the proper intention of the Sabbath to be that the creation of man was the benefit for the sabbath. The sabbath was a day of delight according to Isa., but the Jews turned the sabbath into a burden through their absurd legalism.

I have a question, although it won't be answered: does "given to man" ever mean "given only to the nation of Israel"? And Part B: Do you think that every time the scriptures say "provided for man" ... "given to man" ... "instituted for man" ... etc ... that the phrases mean "for or to mankind in general"? Now that's your argument, basically, and I'd like to see your answers.

Depends on the context. If your referring to the Sabbath I'd say no it does not restrict it to mean the nation of Israel. For instance, gentiles were expected to observe the sabbath by reason that they joined themselves to the Lord, but they were not excused from observing it despite it 'being a sign' between God and Israel.

"Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, 'the Lord will surely seperate me from His people,'... Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, everyone who keeps from profaining the sabbath AND holds fast my covenant; even those I will bring to my holy mountain..." (Isa 56:5-6)
Thus, the sabbath was binding aside from the covenant itself. As long as the foreigner joined himself to the Lord (as we are), he was morally obligated to celebrate the sabbath.

Part B is a little confusing. But like I said, it depends on the context. Saying 'I did this for you' is not the same as saying 'I did this to you'. I think you might need to elaborate on your question, I don't know if I properly understood what you were getting at.

Anna: "Abraham was amenable to the same moral laws that everyone else, including Cain, was under. However, there is nothing moral or immoral about keeping the Sabbath.

Gracealone: The Sabbath is moral by reason of command, and by reason that it is not right that we do not seperate ourselves from worldly matters to render pure dedicated worship to God.

Anna: The observance or lack thereof of dedicating either the Sabbath or the first day of the week to the worship of God is not a matter of morality. Do you contend that an atheist is immoral by virtue of the fact that he works on Saturday and Sunday? There is no such thing as "moral by reason of command".

I would say that an Atheist is immoral in the same way I would say he is immoral for worshiping his atheistic philosophy (idolatry). There are moral obligations by reason of command, for instance, supposing Adam and Eve ate from a fig tree, would it be wrong for them to eat a fig? (of course not) But, if God said; 'do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil' (for the sake of my point, the tree of knowledge of good and evil is actually a fig tree), and Adam decided to eat from it, he has sinned by reason of command, not by reason of the fruit itself. When God commands something, it then becomes a moral obligation to adhere. If it wasn't moral, then Adam did not sin.

Gracealone: It is our obligation to give God a proportion of time to set aside all things to render our day in complete devotion to things that please him. If you do not render time with him (of which all believers desire to spend time with him anyway) then it is complete displeasure to him.

Anna: That may all be true, but the lack of doing so does not make one an immoral person.
In the same way one commandment if violated and renders you a transgressor, so it is with the sabbath. And God is against transgressors.

Gracealone: Suppose I said, ' I don't feel obligated to pray in adoration of God,' that is absurd though, of course if I am a lover of God, then I will render my love to him through meditation, the godly soul yearns to spend time with God. If a man does not render love to God to communicate to him ever, would you believe he is a true lover of God?

Anna: Irregardless, the observance of the Sabbath ... or the first day of the week ... or a Tuesday morning ... or a Friday is not an act of morality. There are plenty of things that are morally right, but religiously wrong. There are also a number of things that are morally neutral, but religiously correct. It is not morally wrong to offer a fatted calf to God, but it is religiously wrong.

I repeat: There is not a shred of evidence that anybody observed the Sabbath prior to Exodus 20. None. There is no evidence that
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 1:44:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
GraceAlone: "You know, first off I'd say for a Christian you have extreme PRIDE,"

Anna: Well, you are entitled to your opinion, as am I. And my opinion is that you aren't quite sure if you are a Christian or a Jew - and you actually sound more like a Seventh-Day Adventist than a Christian.

Gracealone: Pride that God condemns, no humility whatsoever. I wonder how godless your congregation is, seeing that it would be a shame to make known your church, for they might be ashamed of your conduct toward other brethren.

Anna: Jesus said, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" - and you've somehow concluded, without the slightest evidence, that old Adam and Seth kept the sabbath. Someone points out how far-fetched that is, and you say the person lacks humility for not saying, "Oh, excuse me, you have a point." LOL

Anna: " I have a question, although it won't be answered: does "given to man" ever mean "given only to the nation of Israel"? And Part B: Do you think that every time the scriptures say "provided for man" ... "given to man" ... "instituted for man" ... etc ... that the phrases mean "for or to mankind in general"? Now that's your argument, basically, and I'd like to see your answers.

Gracealone: Depends on the context. If your referring to the Sabbath I'd say no it does not restrict it to mean the nation of Israel. For instance, gentiles were expected to observe the sabbath by reason that they joined themselves to the Lord, but they were not excused from observing it despite it 'being a sign' between God and Israel.

"Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, 'the Lord will surely seperate me from His people,'... Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, everyone who keeps from profaining the sabbath AND holds fast my covenant; even those I will bring to my holy mountain..." (Isa 56:5-6)
Thus, the sabbath was binding aside from the covenant itself. As long as the foreigner joined himself to the Lord (as we are), he was morally obligated to celebrate the sabbath.

Part B is a little confusing. But like I said, it depends on the context. Saying 'I did this for you' is not the same as saying 'I did this to you'. I think you might need to elaborate on your question, I don't know if I properly understood what you were getting at."


Anna: It's not confusing.

Part B: Do you think that every time the scriptures say "provided for man" ... "given to man" ... "instituted for man" ... etc ... that the phrases mean "for or to mankind in general"? Now that's your argument, basically, and I'd like to see your answers.

If you see the phrase "given to man" ... "instituted for man" .. "established for man" ... "organized for man" ... "provided to man" ... does the word "man" always mean mankind in general? Either it does, or it doesn't. If you say, "Oh, it depends on the context" - then that's the same as saying, "The phrase 'given to man' does not always mean mankind in general."

Notice your first answer:

"I have a question, although it won't be answered: does "given to man" ever mean "given only to the nation of Israel"?

Now look at this:

Gracealone: "Depends on the context. If your referring to the Sabbath I'd say no"

Anna: But I didn't ask anything about the Sabbath, did I? I simply asked if the phrase "given to man" EVER, EVER, EVER mean "given only to the nation of Israel? Your answer, by the way, carries the implication that it does! Then you proceed to plead that it doesn't - when it applies to the Sabbath.

I'll ask again, "When the phrase 'given to man' or its equivalents is employed, does the 'man' always mean 'mankind in general'?" It's either yes or no. If 'yes', then you have quite a few passages to explain. If 'no', then why throw up the passage as some sort of proof of something? Giving the answer "it depends on the context" is, by the way, the same as saying, "No."

Gracealone: "When God commands something, it then becomes a moral obligation to adhere."

Anna: Very well. Is it your obligation to teach people that repentance and baptism are unto - with a view forward to - the remission of one's sins? That's what Peter said in Acts 2: 38,

"Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Is it your moral obligation to tell people that they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, whatever it may be, only after they have repented and been baptized?

What I'm wondering is: if you tell a man that he receives the remission of his sins before baptism, when we all know that Peter said we are baptized unto the remission of sins, are you immoral?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 6:35:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Gracealone: " Saying 'I did this for you' is not the same as saying 'I did this to you'."

Anna: Huh? I never said it did. Whether it means the same is of no consequence. The question was, "Do phrases like 'made for man' ... 'given to man' ... 'established for man' ... 'taken from am' ... and all similar phraseology always mean to or for mankind in general?" You are taking Jesus's statement in Mark 2 in which He employs the phrase "made for man" and concluding that it must mean mankind in general due to the use of that phrase.

You may say, "No, it doesn't always mean 'mankind in general' - but it does in this case, based upon other considerations." That's fine. We need to study these "other considerations" and see if they hold up. As soon as someone says, "No, but ... " regarding Mark 2, he loses the passage as a proof text of anything. I think as we examine these "other considerations", we'll find that there's nothing to them.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Gracealone
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 9:58:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 1:44:46 AM, annanicole wrote:
GraceAlone: "You know, first off I'd say for a Christian you have extreme PRIDE,"

Anna: Well, you are entitled to your opinion, as am I. And my opinion is that you aren't quite sure if you are a Christian or a Jew - and you actually sound more like a Seventh-Day Adventist than a Christian.
I'm a Protestant. All seventh day adv. are sabbaterians, but not all sabbaterians are in the denomination of seventh day adv.

Gracealone: Pride that God condemns, no humility whatsoever. I wonder how godless your congregation is, seeing that it would be a shame to make known your church, for they might be ashamed of your conduct toward other brethren.

Anna: Jesus said, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" - and you've somehow concluded, without the slightest evidence, that old Adam and Seth kept the sabbath. Someone points out how far-fetched that is, and you say the person lacks humility for not saying, "Oh, excuse me, you have a point." LOL

What denomination are you?

Anna: " I have a question, although it won't be answered: does "given to man" ever mean "given only to the nation of Israel"? And Part B: Do you think that every time the scriptures say "provided for man" ... "given to man" ... "instituted for man" ... etc ... that the phrases mean "for or to mankind in general"? Now that's your argument, basically, and I'd like to see your answers.

Gracealone: Depends on the context. If your referring to the Sabbath I'd say no it does not restrict it to mean the nation of Israel. For instance, gentiles were expected to observe the sabbath by reason that they joined themselves to the Lord, but they were not excused from observing it despite it 'being a sign' between God and Israel.

"Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, 'the Lord will surely seperate me from His people,'... Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord, To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, everyone who keeps from profaining the sabbath AND holds fast my covenant; even those I will bring to my holy mountain..." (Isa 56:5-6)
Thus, the sabbath was binding aside from the covenant itself. As long as the foreigner joined himself to the Lord (as we are), he was morally obligated to celebrate the sabbath.

Part B is a little confusing. But like I said, it depends on the context. Saying 'I did this for you' is not the same as saying 'I did this to you'. I think you might need to elaborate on your question, I don't know if I properly understood what you were getting at."


Anna: It's not confusing.
Well, if I understood I suppose I wouldn't be. It may not be conf. to you because you know what your asking, yet I do not.

Part B: Do you think that every time the scriptures say "provided for man" ... "given to man" ... "instituted for man" ... etc ... that the phrases mean "for or to mankind in general"? Now that's your argument, basically, and I'd like to see your answers.
I am going to say no, 'man' does not always me mankind.

If you see the phrase "given to man" ... "instituted for man" .. "established for man" ... "organized for man" ... "provided to man" ... does the word "man" always mean mankind in general? Either it does, or it doesn't. If you say, "Oh, it depends on the context" - then that's the same as saying, "The phrase 'given to man' does not always mean mankind in general."

Notice your first answer:

"I have a question, although it won't be answered: does "given to man" ever mean "given only to the nation of Israel"?

Now look at this:

Gracealone: "Depends on the context. If your referring to the Sabbath I'd say no"

Anna: But I didn't ask anything about the Sabbath, did I? I simply asked if the phrase "given to man" EVER, EVER, EVER mean "given only to the nation of Israel? Your answer, by the way, carries the implication that it does! Then you proceed to plead that it doesn't - when it applies to the Sabbath.

I'll ask again, "When the phrase 'given to man' or its equivalents is employed, does the 'man' always mean 'mankind in general'?" It's either yes or no. If 'yes', then you have quite a few passages to explain. If 'no', then why throw up the passage as some sort of proof of something? Giving the answer "it depends on the context" is, by the way, the same as saying, "No."

Gracealone: "When God commands something, it then becomes a moral obligation to adhere."

Anna: Very well. Is it your obligation to teach people that repentance and baptism are unto - with a view forward to - the remission of one's sins? That's what Peter said in Acts 2: 38,

"Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

Is it your moral obligation to tell people that they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, whatever it may be, only after they have repented and been baptized?

What I'm wondering is: if you tell a man that he receives the remission of his sins before baptism, when we all know that Peter said we are baptized unto the remission of sins, are you immoral? Baptism does not bring about the remission of sins, but repentence does. I don't find this txt commanding the wording but I would say that we cannot withhold the truth that men must turn from their sins to be saved. Joel Olsteen is an example of not giving the truth.

On the second response, if you wish to examine my case for why Jesus' statement is man and not israel only, then that will be fine.
annanicole
Posts: 19,792
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 3:58:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Gracealone: "On the second response, if you wish to examine my case for why Jesus' statement is man and not israel only, then that will be fine."

Anna: Part of your case was Mark 2: 27 concerning which you said that the Sabbath was given to mankind in general. You said if Jesus had wanted to convey the idea that it was given to the Jews only, He would have said so. Then you said that "given to man" could in fact refer to the Jews only.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Gracealone
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 9:38:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 3:58:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
Gracealone: "On the second response, if you wish to examine my case for why Jesus' statement is man and not israel only, then that will be fine."

Anna: Part of your case was Mark 2: 27 concerning which you said that the Sabbath was given to mankind in general. You said if Jesus had wanted to convey the idea that it was given to the Jews only, He would have said so. Then you said that "given to man" could in fact refer to the Jews only.

I believe you misquoted me on Jesus. I did not say the sabbath was 'given' to man, but that it was made.
As for the discussion on 'man,' you misunderstood my position, let me clarify what I said. When I said that 'man' can mean something other than 'mankind,' I was saying, for instance, when 'Man' is used as a collective noun, it means mankind, both male and female; such as 'God made Man in his own image, "male and female" he created them'. As a common noun, it can mean male gender; such as, 'there was a man sent by God.'
Unless there is either some key word to signify 'man' as Israel, it would need to have a relative clause or possessive, such as; "'MEN' of Israel (Possesive), or "the man WHO was Israeli.."
The last two would be the only way to determine if man is speaking with reference to Israelis or Jews. The other is key word, as in, "The Lord will raise up a prophet AMONG you, that is, from your countrymen", this indicates the prophet is not just any prophet (muhammed,) but that it will be a prophet who is an Israeli.

Thus,knowing that the Sabbath originates back to creation,

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and MADE it holy. (Exodus 20:11 NASB)

So when Jesus says that the Sabbath was MADE for Man, I notice to things, the seventh day was MADE to be a Sabbath at Creation (gen 2) and two, because of the absence of a relative clause and man being a possessive noun, along with the absence of key words; the statement can only mean "mankind," based on the grammatical structure, and because the Sabbath was only "made known" to Israel and EX 20 gives the basis for the reason the Sabbath even exist, which points back to creation where everything else was made.