Actually Thomas, to follow your suggestion is not wise in this case because they have taught non-adherence to God's Laws and instead have taught adherence to man's traditions...and, by definition, have become false prophets and we are not to fear them.
We are instructed to do what God instructs, however!
To not teach believers to keep the sabbath day is to become one who will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.
Peace, dmatic
Sabbath Observance: 3 Views
Rick_C wrote:
Peace, dmatic
Rick, do you know if all these so-called reputable scholars are sabbath keepers? Are any of them obedient to Gods' commandments? If not, according to scripture, they are liars and the truth is not in them. You may follow them if you wish, but why would you want to?"The Lord's day" in Revelation is considered by all reputable scholars to be indicative of a Sunday.
Peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Those "destructive heresies" certainly came about with the gnostics. Their teachings were being spread even in the apostle John's day; he warned against those who would deny that Christ had come in the flesh. The gnostics said that Jesus only appeared to be a man; he was really God who manifested himself to look human.dmatic wrote:Another point, about those writings of the so-called early church. Paul warned throught the Holy Spirit that certain men would creep in unaware, arising from their own number and introduce destructive heresies, as soon as he was gone. Obvioulsy this has happened, so to take what those writers did and taught is suspect.
...Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. 2 Timothy 2:18
They held, like the later gnostics, that if you have true knowledge of Christ, your soul goes to heaven when you die. They believed that going to heaven at death is your personal resurrection.
However, Justin Martyr and other "pre-Nicene fathers" were not heretics. They were with the main, universal Church of Christ.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Plus the command includes a directive to work on the other six days! Are you doing that?
So if the Lord took YOU out of Egypt then YOU must follow the Sabbath because God connected the two events by using the word "therefore."
Yes, I am.
Are you suggesting, Steve, that only commands we actually hear with our own ears, from the voice of God, are to be kept by us? Are you saying that each of us is free to just do whatever we think we hear God telling us to do?
dmatic, I'm suggesting the Sabbath command was for the people who God took out of Egypt. Now if you want to extend "out of Egypt" to mean also "out of sin" then from your prespective , you should follow the Sabbath but i don't see a definitive connection.
I previously said to you that IMO Jesus did not keep the Sabbath and you were very much taken aback but keep in mind a couple of things.
1. Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath.
2. The Sabbath was made for man not the other way around.
3. John the Apostle himself said that Jesus broke the Sabbath , "This is why the jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath" John 5.18
4. On another occassion Jesus said he works everyday just as his Father does.
I believe our rest is in Christ himself , no longer in a day per se.
So if the Lord took YOU out of Egypt then YOU must follow the Sabbath because God connected the two events by using the word "therefore."
Yes, I am.
Are you suggesting, Steve, that only commands we actually hear with our own ears, from the voice of God, are to be kept by us? Are you saying that each of us is free to just do whatever we think we hear God telling us to do?
dmatic, I'm suggesting the Sabbath command was for the people who God took out of Egypt. Now if you want to extend "out of Egypt" to mean also "out of sin" then from your prespective , you should follow the Sabbath but i don't see a definitive connection.
I previously said to you that IMO Jesus did not keep the Sabbath and you were very much taken aback but keep in mind a couple of things.
1. Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath.
2. The Sabbath was made for man not the other way around.
3. John the Apostle himself said that Jesus broke the Sabbath , "This is why the jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath" John 5.18
4. On another occassion Jesus said he works everyday just as his Father does.
I believe our rest is in Christ himself , no longer in a day per se.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Thomas,
Re: the game.
I got the winner & point spread pretty close, eh?
But I don't bet on games any more, which goes without saying, to me, anyway.
Re: Acts 15
I don't think Sabbath observance was an issue. If you read in Acts, Paul met in the synagogues with Jews and the "God-fearers" on Sabbath days.
While it could be argued that "Sabbath observance wasn't required" in that it isn't mentioned in the Acts 15 Letter; this is an "Argument from Silence", imo, and therefore, invalid. If it had been an issue to the Jerusalem church, they would have specifically addressed it (primarily at issue was circumcision, and how much of the law the believing-God-fearers were required to observe).
In other words, the normative practice of the God-fearers was to meet in the synagogues on Sabbaths just like Jews did, which wasn't a problem needing to be addressed in the Acts 15 Letter.
Anyways, my imos, and thanks for your replies,
Rick
Re: the game.
I got the winner & point spread pretty close, eh?
But I don't bet on games any more, which goes without saying, to me, anyway.
Re: Acts 15
I don't think Sabbath observance was an issue. If you read in Acts, Paul met in the synagogues with Jews and the "God-fearers" on Sabbath days.
While it could be argued that "Sabbath observance wasn't required" in that it isn't mentioned in the Acts 15 Letter; this is an "Argument from Silence", imo, and therefore, invalid. If it had been an issue to the Jerusalem church, they would have specifically addressed it (primarily at issue was circumcision, and how much of the law the believing-God-fearers were required to observe).
In other words, the normative practice of the God-fearers was to meet in the synagogues on Sabbaths just like Jews did, which wasn't a problem needing to be addressed in the Acts 15 Letter.
Anyways, my imos, and thanks for your replies,
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Hola dmatic:
If I am to keep the law , I am to keep every point of the Law , but I have no way of knowing what those points are. Without a defining code of Law , the Law becomes completely arbitrary. Or , better to say , the Law is written in my heart and is a matter of my own concience.
And yet I cannot be allowed to define what God instructs on my own. To do so is anarchy-antinomian. I must submit to a Christian body which determines God's instruction. Which body ?
RCC? SDA ? UCC ? UMC ? Lutheran ? AoG ? etc. ?
Thomas
Perhaps , yet you are advocating following the Torah Law while at the same time saying that the one body who was authorized to define that law should not be followed.Actually Thomas, to follow your suggestion is not wise in this case because they have taught non-adherence to God's Laws and instead have taught adherence to man's traditions...and, by definition, have become false prophets and we are not to fear them.
If I am instructed to keep the sabbath holy. Who , now , defines how I am to do this?We are instructed to do what God instructs, however!
If I am to keep the law , I am to keep every point of the Law , but I have no way of knowing what those points are. Without a defining code of Law , the Law becomes completely arbitrary. Or , better to say , the Law is written in my heart and is a matter of my own concience.
And yet I cannot be allowed to define what God instructs on my own. To do so is anarchy-antinomian. I must submit to a Christian body which determines God's instruction. Which body ?
RCC? SDA ? UCC ? UMC ? Lutheran ? AoG ? etc. ?
Thomas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Dios te bendiga y te guarde
I'm not sure what you mean. What was discussed at the council was if the Gentiles coming to Christ had to be circumcised and keep the "law of Moses". The Sabbath is part of the law of Moses. The commands given were said to be the only ones they were going to place on the Gentiles.Rick_C wrote:Thomas,
Re: the game.
I got the winner & point spread pretty close, eh?
But I don't bet on games any more, which goes without saying, to me, anyway.
Re: Acts 15
I don't think Sabbath observance was an issue. If you read in Acts, Paul met in the synagogues with Jews and the "God-fearers" on Sabbath days.
While it could be argued that "Sabbath observance wasn't required" in that it isn't mentioned in the Acts 15 Letter; this is an "Argument from Silence", imo, and therefore, invalid. If it had been an issue to the Jerusalem church, they would have specifically addressed it (primarily at issue was circumcision, and how much of the law the believing-God-fearers were required to observe).
In other words, the normative practice of the God-fearers was to meet in the synagogues on Sabbaths just like Jews did, which wasn't a problem needing to be addressed in the Acts 15 Letter.
Anyways, my imos, and thanks for your replies,
Rick
Acts 15:19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
It seems, at least to me that the question over Gentiles keeping the law of Moses was answered.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
Hola Rick:
In Acts 15 they were arguing primarily circumcision but also the Law of Moses. What that intailed we simply do not know. Nor do we know exactly what the Judeizers were advocating. The split which began at the death of Steven and grew , especially after AD 70 , was gradual. The Jews were forced to move into a Rabbinical form , because of the destruction of the Temple. The Christians moved away from Judaism as the Gentiles became a majority.
That makes it hard to give credence to those who advocate a return to early church practices. The Church was in a state of change the first century or two , so it's practices varied too wildly from year to year and location to location. It's not something you can pin down and determine a doctrine from.
Thomas
I agree with Sean on this:
You did good. I don't think we got the game here (maybe on cable) . The Carnival (Mardi Gras) started Sat. so the country is into drunkeness and debouchery until Wed. With no church retreat this year I'm just sitting it out at home , or rather snoozing in the hammok and playing with the parrot. (Ahh summertime !)Re: the game.
I got the winner & point spread pretty close, eh?
But I don't bet on games any more, which goes without saying, to me, anyway.
In Acts 15 they were arguing primarily circumcision but also the Law of Moses. What that intailed we simply do not know. Nor do we know exactly what the Judeizers were advocating. The split which began at the death of Steven and grew , especially after AD 70 , was gradual. The Jews were forced to move into a Rabbinical form , because of the destruction of the Temple. The Christians moved away from Judaism as the Gentiles became a majority.
That makes it hard to give credence to those who advocate a return to early church practices. The Church was in a state of change the first century or two , so it's practices varied too wildly from year to year and location to location. It's not something you can pin down and determine a doctrine from.
True , but at some point they began to "break bread" after sundown on Sat. (i.e. Sunday) , but I don't know at what time this started.In other words, the normative practice of the God-fearers was to meet in the synagogues on Sabbaths just like Jews did, which wasn't a problem needing to be addressed in the Acts 15 Letter
Thomas
I agree with Sean on this:
It seems, at least to me that the question over Gentiles keeping the law of Moses was answered.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Dios te bendiga y te guarde
Hello Sean
1. Most of the Gentile converts Paul and Barnabas "got" on their first missional journey were not regular Gentiles; they were God-fearers. I'm not saying every single one of them were but, from Acts, it appears they were a majority; they at least "felt free" to go to a synagogue {Acts 13:46-48}.
2. The Pharisaical-believers in Jerusalem wanted the God-fearers to become full Jewish converts; not just to be circumcised, but to obey the entire law (Acts 15:1).
3. God-fearers worshiped in the synagogues regularly...without becoming full Jewish-converts. (Also, the Court of the Gentiles, in the Temple, was "for" these same people).
4. Even the believing-Pharisees knew these God-fearers met in the synagogues; many of them on did so on every Sabbath. These Pharisees knew Paul and Barnabas had met them in synagogues.
5. Therefore, their attending the synagogues (on Sabbaths) wasn't at issue. The issue for the believing-Pharisees was: "We want them to become full-Jews" (and probably felt that if they didn't, they should be kicked out of the synagogues also, though it isn't said).
6. The Noahide Laws of Acts 15 omit most of the 614 laws in Mosaic Law (the law of Moses) that Jews were required to obey. But God-fearers were already obeying many, if not most of them, without becoming Jews.
7. What they did need to obey were the four things mentioned in the Letter. They could do this without becoming full-Jewish converts, the Council determined.
They weren't being "let off the hook" as far as Sabbath observance went for God-fearing Gentiles. For one thing, they didn't want to be let go (and would have never thought of stopping going to synagogue)! When Paul and Barnabas went back to the synagogues and read the letter, they rejoiced over it! (Acts 15:30ff).
So, the God-fearing Gentiles "kept the Sabbath" as they had been doing in the synagogues---but without becoming Jews---and their synagogue attendance wasn't a problem. If it were, the Council would have mentioned it, imo.
But of course, the believing-Pharisees would have liked things much otherwise....
Rick
IMOsYou wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. What was discussed at the council was if the Gentiles coming to Christ had to be circumcised and keep the "law of Moses". The Sabbath is part of the law of Moses. The commands given were said to be the only ones they were going to place on the Gentiles.
Acts 15:19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
It seems, at least to me that the question over Gentiles keeping the law of Moses was answered.
1. Most of the Gentile converts Paul and Barnabas "got" on their first missional journey were not regular Gentiles; they were God-fearers. I'm not saying every single one of them were but, from Acts, it appears they were a majority; they at least "felt free" to go to a synagogue {Acts 13:46-48}.
2. The Pharisaical-believers in Jerusalem wanted the God-fearers to become full Jewish converts; not just to be circumcised, but to obey the entire law (Acts 15:1).
3. God-fearers worshiped in the synagogues regularly...without becoming full Jewish-converts. (Also, the Court of the Gentiles, in the Temple, was "for" these same people).
4. Even the believing-Pharisees knew these God-fearers met in the synagogues; many of them on did so on every Sabbath. These Pharisees knew Paul and Barnabas had met them in synagogues.
5. Therefore, their attending the synagogues (on Sabbaths) wasn't at issue. The issue for the believing-Pharisees was: "We want them to become full-Jews" (and probably felt that if they didn't, they should be kicked out of the synagogues also, though it isn't said).
6. The Noahide Laws of Acts 15 omit most of the 614 laws in Mosaic Law (the law of Moses) that Jews were required to obey. But God-fearers were already obeying many, if not most of them, without becoming Jews.
7. What they did need to obey were the four things mentioned in the Letter. They could do this without becoming full-Jewish converts, the Council determined.
They weren't being "let off the hook" as far as Sabbath observance went for God-fearing Gentiles. For one thing, they didn't want to be let go (and would have never thought of stopping going to synagogue)! When Paul and Barnabas went back to the synagogues and read the letter, they rejoiced over it! (Acts 15:30ff).
So, the God-fearing Gentiles "kept the Sabbath" as they had been doing in the synagogues---but without becoming Jews---and their synagogue attendance wasn't a problem. If it were, the Council would have mentioned it, imo.
But of course, the believing-Pharisees would have liked things much otherwise....
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:13 am, edited 9 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth
Hi Thomas (Cleveland Browns next year)!
I'm not sure what Eusebius or others record on the actual "daily practices" of the church in Jerusalem. But they probably (?) observed The Lord's Day too; I need to look into this. Otherwise, there were some Jewish-Christian groups with Jerusalem origins who did not worship on The Lord's Day, being strict Sabbatarians. We don't know exactly when they became distinct groups. But I suspect some of their original leaders may have been in Jerusalem when Paul was there (above). They might be traced back to the believing-Pharisees of Acts 15:1 (?)!
Btw, 'good thing that mob got all riled up after Paul was arrested. Another good thing was finding out about the plot to kill him; otherwise, can you imagine Paul? actually going through with the animal sacrifices?
"May it never be!"
Praise God, the Lord delivered him out of this!
Rick
If you mean by "they" the Jewish-Christians in Jerusalem; I'm not familiar with this offhand. We know that the believing-Jews there continued to be "zealously" Law-observant (Acts 21:20). History tells us some of them continued to offer animal sacrifices, which was also demanded of Paul by James and the elders (Acts 21:17, 18, 24). These "brothers" is a reference to the Jewish-leaders of the church there, and possibly, indicative of the (physical) brothers of the Lord (?): The first 32 or so leaders (bishops) of the Jerusalem church were blood-relatives of Jesus.I wrote:In other words, the normative practice of the God-fearers was to meet in the synagogues on Sabbaths just like Jews did, which wasn't a problem needing to be addressed in the Acts 15 Letter
You replied:
True , but at some point they began to "break bread" after sundown on Sat. (i.e. Sunday) , but I don't know at what time this started.
I'm not sure what Eusebius or others record on the actual "daily practices" of the church in Jerusalem. But they probably (?) observed The Lord's Day too; I need to look into this. Otherwise, there were some Jewish-Christian groups with Jerusalem origins who did not worship on The Lord's Day, being strict Sabbatarians. We don't know exactly when they became distinct groups. But I suspect some of their original leaders may have been in Jerusalem when Paul was there (above). They might be traced back to the believing-Pharisees of Acts 15:1 (?)!
Btw, 'good thing that mob got all riled up after Paul was arrested. Another good thing was finding out about the plot to kill him; otherwise, can you imagine Paul? actually going through with the animal sacrifices?
"May it never be!"
Praise God, the Lord delivered him out of this!
Rick
Last edited by _Rich on Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth