|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 8/7/2008 3:11:13 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1508
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
I have said, I don't have he authority to do that. Ha Torah provides for due process.
Which is what? If you feel that strongly about it, someone ought to inititate it. If not you, then who? Apparently, no one feels strongly enough about it to do what just is as much a part of the Torah as the command to observe the Sabbath.
First of all, you are not living in my community and therefore, I can not hold you accountable for the community standards. Second, there needs to be two witnesses. I personnally have not witnessed nor heard from witnesses that you have not kept Shabbat. Third, this needs to be heard and judged by the community. Finally, fourth, I do not believe the government of the USA would permit it.
quote:
quote:
We see in context that this applies to those in the community who are poor. If it applied to everybody in all circumstances, then no one could make a living farming, or be in the food industry. Now,there are other verses about not...
Very well then. I was out of context. But I see that you can see context when you want to.
I always try to take context into consideration.
quote:
In any event, when scanning through the Penteteuch, I was struck by how many of the commandments are temple related, even if indirectly--because some of the involve offering sacrifices, which ultimately link to the Temple.
Since we are obviously in a radically different Covenant system, that ought to demonstrate that much of that you cannot possibly observe properly. Since the OT predicted a time when the God would make a New Covenant, it ought to be obvious that it is now.
I do not accept the premise that "we are obviously in a radically different Covenant system". The difference I see is that Ha Torah is written on our hearts and I believe Adonai is fulfiiling that, literally as we speak. However, as I said, if you are truly interested in how to observe Torah, I would be happy to go through it with you in some logical fashion in the proper thread. In fact, I have started a thread in the misc. folder on the general forum for those who wish to discuss how one can live a Torah lifestyle.
quote:
quote:
No, there is no record of a direct command to not work on Shabbat before it was written by the finger of Adonai on Sinai. However, there was not direct command to not commit adultry, steal, bear false witness or honor one's father or mother either. Do you believe Adonai found those acceptable before Sinai?
No. But many of those (we can address particulars if you want) were regarded as evil before the Mosaic Covenant was made. Paul interprets the purpose of the Law which was to reveal mankind as sinful. Express commandments were intended to demonstrate mankind's general sinfulness.
That is indeed a purpose of Ha Torah, but there were(are) other purposes for the various commandments, but again, except as it regards keeping Shabbat, that is for another thread.
quote:
Obviously, some things were added to the Law that were not moral issues. like mixing linen and wool threads together.
But the moral issues are addressed more specifically in the NT than even before the law. Joseph knew that committing adultery with Potipher's wife was evil. Joseph's brethren knew that selling him into slavery and lying about it were evil. But working on the Sabbath prior to Moses is NEVER called evil, either before the Law nor after.
This all depends on how one defines "moral". I personally do not make differentiations between "moral", "dietary" and "ceremonial" laws. I keep Shabbat because Adonai commanded it. If you do not believe that applies to you, that is your parogative. Your last sentence is a bit confusing, you say "prior to Moses" and then you say, "either before the Law nor after". The Law you usually refer to is that portion transcribed by Moshe(Moses), so could you clarify?
quote:
Previously, I was speaking with regard to the history of the church in Acts. I know that Acts itself never says why. Romans 14, however, infers strongly. If they do regard a day "as unto the Lord," we can infer that they are doing so out of reverence. Likewise, the person who "does not regard the day" does it for exactly the same reason: reverence.
I know that people generally continue to do things out of habit. That is human nature. For there to be a controversy about the issue and for Paul to write about it, then there must have been people in both groups. I don't think it is speculative to believe there were people in two groups--those who believed they were supposed to and those who did not believe they had to.
Do you disagree that there were at least two groups? Or are you merely being argumentative?
Yes, there are two groups, however, this talks of disputed issues and as with the issue in Acts 15 regarding access to Ha Torah, there are two ways of looking at this. Just as there is a dispute about eating meat offered to idols, there could also be disputes regarding acknowledging the days the pagans recognize.
quote:
quote:
It also does not say that people did so out of habit. Repeat, we are not told that. So it is not speculation when I said we aren't told that. As you followed your statement with the qualification that "the inference I gather from that is that they continue.", so I said, "nowhere does Paul say he kept it out of any other reason than to honor Adonai." You infer ignorance, I infer righteous intent. Now let's look at your other reasons why Paul went to Synogogue
Let's analyze that a bit, shall we?
"One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind." (Romans 14:5 NASB) We are told directly that there were at the very least two groups of people. One group held some days in higher esteem than other days. This isn't the Sabbath?
To continue the possibility above, this could refer to those Jews who did not do business on the holidays of the romans out of practicality being looked down on by Gentiles who were sensitive about the observance of such holidays.
quote:
Since, I assume, you believe that virtually every one (let's say 90%) of those of the early church observed the Saturday/Sabbath. You do believe that, don't you? Don't you believe some of those whom Paul spoke of did observe the Sabbath even though they didn't feel they had to? What was their reason then? Generally, Jews had done so their entire life. If they suddenly decide they don't have to, are they or are they not likely to continue--particularly since (assuming you believe everyone else did) everyone else did?????
This presumes that some are seeking not to keep Shabbat. It is possible that the Gentiles wanted access to Ha Torah which is in the Synogogues and they were being kept out. The Gentiles could also be finding fault, as I stated above, with those who went along with the customs of the land as a practicality, like the fourth of July.
quote:
quote:
1 Cor. 9:20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law)....
ROFLOL! You're kidding right? Paul uses the word Law in a different sense in the two different places. Paul was not saying he was still under the OT Law. He was saying that he was under the law of Christ. That is not the same thing. Being free from the OT law did not make him lawless, as some might suggest.
I am saying, "the law of Christ" isn't a totally different law but it Ha Torah as clarified by Yeshua. We are free from the condemnation of Ha Torah and the application of it as interpreted by many who misinterpreted it before Yeshua.
quote:
quote:
Where is it that Yeshua "did away" with Shabbat observance?
I never said He did. Is it necessary for Him to address our controversy directly for us to have a valid opinion? He never addressed homosexuality either. Should we hold to the view of some that it was OK? Or can His apostles speak for Him?
If Yeshua believed the commandments regarding homosexuality needed clarification, he would have said so, as He did with Shabbat. If Shabbat was not important, why would He bother clarifying the commandment.
quote:
What He did was to fulfill the OT Law. His apostles revealed to us that we are free from the Law. We have righteousness apart from the Law (Rom 3:19,28).
Yeshua removed the condemnation of the law, but we are not assured that we will be free from acting in a responsible fashion. Your wife may forgive you for not remembering your anniversary, but that doesn't mean that you are not expected to remember it.
quote:
"Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--(Col. 2:15)"
Yes, no one is to make an eternal judgement regarding anything. Ones salvation is not dependant on these things, which is the context of Paul's argument. If the USA were to do away with speed limits, there would be no criminal penalties regarding speeding. However, the person would still be subject to the increased fuel consumption and risk of accidents.
quote:
I don't know at what point God revealed to Paul that we were freed from the Law. It could very well be that he continued to observe it because he felt he must for quite a while. After all, Peter still felt he was under the Law's dietary rules all the way up to Acts chapter 9-11. But then he turned around and acted confused as Paul discusses in Galatians 2:11.
The fact that Paul continues to keep Shabbat, combined with the fact that not keeping Shabbat would be a 180 degree shift, requiring a clear revelation from Adonai, leads me to believe believe that Paul is talking about eternal condemnation, as the context suggests, and not proper living.
quote:
I think Romans 14 is pretty clear. I don't know what's so unclear about it unless you want to be in denial. Many of your "inferences" would have to be in direct contradiction to a much clearer statement in Romans 14. I ask for a direct command on those things because otherwise your "inferences" don't make a heck of a lot of sense .
Romans 14 is not talking about Shabbat, it is talking about food. Now I have discussed and am willing to continue to discuss the definition of food in the appropriate thread. There is a direct command, but you insist it no longer applies. Until I am convinced of that, I will keep Shabbat and tell anyone who asks that I think it is the right thing to do.
quote:
Come off it! If someone is cursed by not doing it, then they are not obeying God. What other sense or nonsense can one make of it? That, frankly, is a proverbial fence sitter. Either stand up and say that you believe we have to or stand up and say that you believe we don't have to. <tongue in cheek>: Is we or ain't we?</tongue in cheek> We cannot possibly "be cursed" for not doing it and at the same time not "have to" keep it--ALL CHRISTIANS!!!
A curse is not necessarily eternal damnation. One does not "need" to keep the Shabbat for salvation. However, one can not expect to receive the benefits of Shabbat and avoid the inconveniences of not keeping Shabbat if one does not keep it. Is that more PC?
quote:
quote:
quote:
What your interpretation involves is eisegesis. That's where you import your own ideas into the text in order to interpret it from preconceived notions.
You mean like, dispensationalism and replacement theology?
Indeed, sometimes that is so. . .
If you didn't get my point, I was saying, you are carrying your own baggage into the discusssion. So let's just stick to the argument and not cloud the issue with high sounding words unless it is necessary.
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 8/7/2008 3:22:42 PM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 8/7/2008 5:48:44 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1508
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Bluethread said
quote:
Until I am presented with Scripture (new or old) that invalidates those blessings and curses, I will put my faith in the commandment of Adonai.
Galatians 3
12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM."
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"--
14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
Hebrews 8:13
"When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
Let's look at the context.
Gal. 3:10 "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."
We see Paul is talking about a curse and that is the curse that falls on anyone who does not observe all of the commandments perfectly. If He was refering to all bad things that happen to one for not doing as Adonai requires, Paul could not tell us that we are accountable for anything. i.e. murder does no harm to the murderer, adultry does no harm to the adultorer and stealing does no harm to the thief. It is generally understood that people who do these things harm themselves as well as others. It is the same with Shabbat, not keeping Shabbat will not hinder our access to The Spirit of Adonai, but it will, as I understand Scripture, greave that Spirit within us and do us harm.
Again in context,
Hebrews 8:10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 11 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." 13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
The new covenant is that Adonai will write His laws on our hearts not remove them from consideration. As we continue to discuss these things as guided by Adonai's Spirit the need for the written Torah will not be necessary. In fact, there may come a time when this will happen miraculously, but, I don't see that it has happened yet. Even then, this does not mean we do not need to do as Adonai requires. It just means that we can not claim ignorance when we choose to rebell.
So, neither of these writings invalidate the Sabbath.
I'll grant you this. Keeping Shabbat without acknowledging The Spirit of Adonai is obsolete. Though Adonai was longsuffering with those who kept it that way, He now requires all to acknowledge His Spirit. On the other hand the faith that acknowledges The Spirit of Adonai, but rejects what He requires is a dead faith, as Yacov(James) tells us.
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 8/7/2008 6:00:39 PM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 8/7/2008 6:00:57 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1827
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
First of all, you are not living in my community and therefore, I can not hold you accountable for the community standards. Second, there needs to be two witnesses. I personnally have not witnessed nor heard from witnesses that you have not kept Shabbat. Third, this needs to be heard and judged by the community. Finally, fourth, I do not believe the government of the USA would permit it.
But you are not holding ANYONE accountable. Do you mean to tell me in all of your community you have never observed anyone breaking the Sabbath?
quote:
I do not accept the premise that "we are obviously in a radically different Covenant system". The difference I see is that Ha Torah is written on our hearts and I believe Adonai is fulfiiling that, literally as we speak. However, as I said, if you are truly interested in how to observe Torah, I would be happy to go through it with you in some logical fashion in the proper thread. In fact, I have started a thread in the misc. folder on the general forum for those who wish to discuss how one can live a Torah lifestyle.
Just a few of the differences.
1) Literal circumcision was a commandment under the law. It is not required now.
2) No one offers animal sacrifices now.
3) No Levitical and Aaronic priests are ministering, temple or no temple.
4) We are not required to follow the Law's dietary requirements. All foods are clean, no foods are unclean. Romans 14.
You've got to be kidding when you say that we are NOT in a radically different Covenant system.
quote:
This all depends on how one defines "moral". I personally do not make differentiations between "moral", "dietary" and "ceremonial" laws. I keep Shabbat because Adonai commanded it.
mor·al
1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral
Murder (taking the life of an innocent human) is always wrong. It is a timeless, universal ethic of conduct, whether there is a law against it or not in whatever society we live in. Mixing wool and linen threads in the same garment or putting a muzzle on an ox at the plow are not moral issues, even though the Mosaic Law forbids them both. It is true that the Law does not differentiate between them.
But morality (conduct of right and wrong) predates and postdates the Mosaic Law.
quote:
If you do not believe that applies to you, that is your parogative.
I believe God says that it doesn't apply to me.
quote:
Your last sentence is a bit confusing, you say "prior to Moses" and then you say, "either before the Law nor after". The Law you usually refer to is that portion transcribed by Moshe(Moses), so could you clarify?
See the comment above.
Here you say you keep the Sabbath because God commanded it but you said in post 2912 "I don't feel I must keep Sabbat." Would you like to explain the contradiction? And no, I will not buy the answer that there is no contradiction, so please to try to snow-ball me.
quote:
To continue the possibility above, this could refer to those Jews who did not do business on the holidays of the romans out of practicality being looked down on by Gentiles who were sensitive about the observance of such holidays.
Your illogic is getting fuzzy. I don't know where you get that unless it is wishful thinking or not. We have primarily 2 groups, Paul says so. Some keep special days and some don't keep special days. Either is permissible. In our current New Covenant, God makes no demands on us regarding days, no matter how strongly one feels about them.
People certainly feel pressure to keep or to not keep but Paul is saying that is not from God.
quote:
This presumes that some are seeking not to keep Shabbat.
It is not a presumption. It is what Paul says: "One man regards one day day above another, another [man] regards every day alike..." (Romans 14:5) What's so difficult to understand about that?
quote:
It is possible that the Gentiles wanted access to Ha Torah which is in the Synogogues and they were being kept out. The Gentiles could also be finding fault, as I stated above, with those who went along with the customs of the land as a practicality, like the fourth of July.
Sure, it's possible. But since Paul doesn't mention it, why complicate the discussion by attempting to add to the text??
quote:
I am saying, "the law of Christ" isn't a totally different law but it Ha Torah as clarified by Yeshua. We are free from the condemnation of Ha Torah and the application of it as interpreted by many who misinterpreted it before Yeshua.
That's not what Paul says. You say you try to be in context. Now, I expect you to put your money where your mouth is. Please don't cloud the discussion by interjecting interpretations completely absent from the text. The word "Law" is used in different senses in the NT. Paul is saying he isn't lawless (antinomian). he cannot be saying that he is under the law and not under the law at the same time unless he means different things by the word law.
Paul spoke of Gentiles who "have not the Law," isn't he using the word law in another sense? (Romans 2:14). Here are seven examples of the different sense in the way the term "law" is used in the Bible. Paul's use in 1 Cor 9:21. Please read the article and learn. If you intend to bog the discussion down with such OUT OF CONTEXT, then, frankly you aren't even trying to have a reasonable and logical discussion.
QUOTE
1. This term is used of the entire Old Testament.
2. It is used with such terms as the prophets, and writings...
3. It is especially used of the first five books of the Old Testament..
4. The term is used of the entire specific Mosaic code
5. The term is used of the Ten Commandments
6. Law is used of a principle, force or influence that impels one to action or behavior
7. It is used of law in general
By: J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=880
UNQUOTE
quote:
If Yeshua believed the commandments regarding homosexuality needed clarification, he would have said so, as He did with Shabbat. If Shabbat was not important, why would He bother clarifying the commandment.
To reiterate. The Sabbath is not commanded anywhere but in a Law context. Homosexuality and a number of sexual sins are condemned many places in the Bible.quote:
Yeshua removed the condemnation of the law, but we are not assured that we will be free from acting in a responsible fashion. Your wife may forgive you for not remembering your anniversary, but that doesn't mean that you are not expected to remember it.
Suppose (God forbid) we were to divorce. What obligation would she have over my memory of our anniversary? So long as we are married, I had better not forget it! If I were under the Mosaic Law, then I had better not omit the obligation for observing the Sabbath. But that has changed.
There is an marriage analogy in Romans 7:1-4
"Therefore, my brethren you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that you might bear fruit for God." (verse 4 NASB)
"But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound...." (verse 6)
I am not under the Law.
quote:
Yes, no one is to make an eternal judgement regarding anything. Ones salvation is not dependant on these things, which is the context of Paul's argument. If the USA were to do away with speed limits, there would be no criminal penalties regarding speeding. However, the person would still be subject to the increased fuel consumption and risk of accidents.
Let's address my point biblically, shall we? What does the scripture say?quote:
The fact that Paul continues to keep Shabbat, combined with the fact that not keeping Shabbat would be a 180 degree shift, requiring a clear revelation from Adonai, leads me to believe believe that Paul is talking about eternal condemnation, as the context suggests, and not proper living.
I did not agree that "Paul continues to keep Shabbat..." Scripture does not say that he continued to keep it.
quote:
Romans 14 is not talking about Shabbat, it is talking about food. Now I have discussed and am willing to continue to discuss the definition of food in the appropriate thread. There is a direct command, but you insist it no longer applies. Until I am convinced of that, I will keep Shabbat and tell anyone who asks that I think it is the right thing to do.
He talks about both the Sabbath AND dietary laws. So Romans 14 DOES discuss the Sabbath. Even if he did not, he certainly says essentially the same thing in Col. 2:16.
When he is talking about "esteeming a day above another," he is talking about keeping the sabbath. If "esteeming a day" isn't talking about the Sabbath, then what is he talking about, pray tell? I would suggest that this is an opportunity to redeem your reputation concerning your ability to determine context.
quote:
A curse is not necessarily eternal damnation. One does not "need" to keep the Shabbat for salvation. However, one can not expect to receive the benefits of Shabbat and avoid the inconveniences of not keeping Shabbat if one does not keep it. Is that more PC?
Not really. You keep saying "curse." You do not specify any NT passage that either condemns nor addresses an "inconvenience" of not keeping the Sabbath. What passage are you talking about? Is this more of your made up stuff?
quote:
If you didn't get my point, I was saying, you are carrying your own baggage into the discussion. So let's just stick to the argument and not cloud the issue with high sounding words unless it is necessary.
You were inferring that I have some eschatological baggage of my own that I don't want to face. The term "eisegesis" (in case you don't know) is a legitimate theological term that refers to a person's attempt to interpret a passage according to one's preconceived notions. It's importing one's ideas into the text so as to make the text say something the author never intended to say. You have been doing that a lot.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 8/8/2008 8:18:07 AM >
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 8/7/2008 6:09:42 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1827
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
We see Paul is talking about a curse and that is the curse that falls on anyone who does not observe all of the commandments perfectly. If He was refering to all bad things that happen to one for not doing as Adonai requires, Paul could not tell us that we are accountable for anything. i.e. murder does no harm to the murderer, adultry does no harm to the adultorer and stealing does no harm to the thief. It is generally understood that people who do these things harm themselves as well as others. It is the same with Shabbat, not keeping Shabbat will not hinder our access to The Spirit of Adonai, but it will, as I understand Scripture, greave that Spirit within us and do us harm.
You cannot possibly make sense by saying that not keeping the Sabbath will grieve the Spirit but continue to allow us access to God at the same time.
We're under a curse but not under a curse?
quote:
...Paul could not tell us that we are accountable for anything. i.e. murder does no harm to the murderer, adultry does no harm to the adultorer and stealing does no harm to the thief.... Do you believe that the only scriptural condemnation of murder or adultery are in the Law? That there are no NT condemnations of it?
quote:
The new covenant is that Adonai will write His laws on our hearts not remove them from consideration. As we continue to discuss these things as guided by Adonai's Spirit the need for the written Torah will not be necessary. In fact, there may come a time when this will happen miraculously, but, I don't see that it has happened yet. Even then, this does not mean we do not need to do as Adonai requires. It just means that we can not claim ignorance when we choose to rebell.
It has happened now. We are in the New Covenant now. God's will is written on my heart now.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 8/7/2008 7:04:13 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1508
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Odeliya
Dear BlueT, with all love, hope you dont think we ganged up on you here, but i personally wont let you get away with this statement without additional explanation  
Not out of desire to argue, but you thorougly intrigued me with this blessings/curses. I would love to know what you meant and why you think so. Esp the curses part. Elaborate, please.
You in particular are not ganging up. Unlike many others, this is a very productive question.
First of all it is a defining act. We are called to be a peculiar(holy) people. This is tied to the mark of the Spirit in the believing communities of the first century CE. How they love one another. The concept of love in the Scriptures is always, as far as I know, connected to actions in a relationship and not how one feels. The essense of Shabbat is the setting appart of a time for building charitable(loving) relationships. When we work we can not give our full attention to Adonai and others. Therefore, the primary blessing we receive from Shabbat is the development of community.
If one does not do this at the appointed times, we lose our distinctiveness and Adonai does not get the credit. There are many who act lovingly on "the weekend", valatine's day, thanksgiving day and christmas day. However, Adonai does not always get credit on these days. Even if one accepts the argument that we redeem these times when we hold our convocations then, historically, this has not been the case. As the Scriptures tell us, (2 Kings 17) "They worshiped other gods 8 and followed the practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before them, as well as the practices that the kings of Israel had introduced. 9 The Israelites secretly did things against the Lord their God that were not right."
Therefore, the curse that, "whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people." comes to pass even if there is no trial or public execution. The only difference is that it takes longer to learn the lesson and more damage is done to the community.
If one ignores, the other half of the commandment regarding working six days, we lose the blessing that Adonai gave us when He cursed the ground for our sakes. Such an one becomes slothful and, as happened when we lived hundreds of years, "every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time."
These are the blessings and curses that come to mind immediately. This would be a good study. I'll get back to you. By the way, if you are really interested in the benefits of Shabbat and how it can be done, I have started a thread in the misc. folder of the general forums.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 11:27:51 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1076
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Blue Thread the wayyou are writing in your posts would have me to think you have some RCC blood in you. Not to think there is anything wrong with that. As Graham akaLarry wrote how can you have mercy and a curse at the sametime?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 2:15:49 PM
|
|
|
p.progress
Posts: 150
Joined: 12/23/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
ORIGINAL: sunshinesoprano
Do you really think that Christ gave His life so that we'd fight over this stuff? Do you really think He would deny someone entrance to Heaven that accepted His gift because we were worshipping Him on the wrong day?
Get real.
I'm here to learn and to discuss. The forums have allowed me to explore things and to better understand His word. If you don't like this venue, then you don't have to comment. To me, it's better than sitting around staring at the Bible having only my own thoughts which admittedly could very be wrong at times.
So far as I know, no one has suggested that heaven would be denied to anyone for the day on which they worship. Frankly, I have said that God is not displeased in the least and will not curse nor abandon anyone for worshiping on Saturday or Sunday.
No doubt that there is some fighting going on 'over this stuff' at times, and it ought to be addressed when it occurs. But I also learn and have learned, by these exchanges, like you have GrahamCracker - even the 'biting' and 'devouring' kinds. Yet I don't want that to continue either, I just attempt to learn as much as I can from it.
And if I get out of hand (out of the Spirit, it could rightly be referred to), and begin biting and devouring those who fail to see that EVERYTHING ('OMG') THAT ROLLS OFF 'MY' TONGUE IS 'FLAWLESS', PRISTINELY PURE & 'TRUE'... [please, I hope you can tell that my tongue is firmly implanted in my check here]...Well then, please forgive me for this weakness of mine.
Thankfully, I do not see this to be my present condition - for if I did, I would certainly be guilty of being proud and knowing nothing...certainly nothing as I ought to know it. If I though do appear to THINK this way of myself; and two, ACT this way - I would hope you and others would forgive me. Forgive me, but don't fail to correct, reprove and rebuke me either...'cause I need to learn to be respectful and kind, as much if not more than I need to 'defend all the other things I think I ALREADY 'KNOW'.
But I am here, as well like you GC, to learn and to do all that which entails when "iron sharpeneth iron". And this is I have found a wonderful medium (the forums) to do so - not perfect, but highly profitable if for no one else then at least myself many times in such exchanges.
But I am here not only to 'sharpen' myself and others with 'my' understanding - which is limited in so many things and ways, nor to also 'sharpen' for the purpose of 'debate'. But I'm here to sharpen my own skills, and to have them sharpened by others - those I believe in many cases I can rightly call my brothers in Christ (or Messiah), so that I might then be better equipped ('sharpened'), sufficiently so, so that I might be able to discover where it is that I am NOT "rightly dividing the Word of Truth". Then hopefully be able and willing to chose to shed myself of the erroneous notions I am certain to be hold presently, and thinking them to be the truth.
I am not as I have said before certain and clear that the sabbath is required by God to be 'kept' by believers within the new covenant.
I am certain that the first day of the week ('sunday') is NOT a new sabbath, or the 'Lord's Day', nor a day required to be kept in substitute of the sabbath. I see this and know this to be so, by the contexts in which the expressions "the first day of the week" are found. Not one of which either communicates by words any direct or implied command that any of this is so. Certainly no direct command is given to support this contention; but neither is there any passage in the gospels, the Acts or the epistles that contains any 'implied' 'command' - not sufficient in degree to make it clear that indeed 'Sunday' is now the day of rest, the Lord's Day or any kind of 'Christian Sabbath' (including Acts 20:7).
I see that the sabbath was kept by the disciples before they were disciples of Christ; after they became disciples and apostles of Christ, and even after the death of the Lord (the Testator); and even on and beyond the Day of Pentacost by the believers. I see that as it was Christ's and Paul's custom (as well as all other disciples and apostles) to go into the synagogues on the sabbath, the seventh day - not on the first day, to reason with others of course, but that was only part of the reason they were found in the temple or the various synagogues on that day. Neither Jesus or the apostles were ONLY going to the temple or the synagogues to try to evangelize others. It was the command of God to rest on that day, and they rested - from normal work activites. And instead, their activies then centered around what is talked of in Isaiah 58:13-14 and I believe in Malachi 3:16:
"If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, [from] doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking [thine own] words:"
"Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken [it]."
"Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard [it], and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name."
And by my read of the natural and fullest contextually consideration of what was occuring just hours beforehand even back some 24 hours or so, I see that "the disciples" in Troas, who it says "...And..." "...came together to break bread..." - came together NOT in a normal or regular fashion, "...upon the first [day] of the week...", but did so for a very special occasion: that of Paul's presence among them. And I believe that because Paul had planned to leave at sunrise, the following morning (on the 1st day, the light part of the 1st day), this is why they came together on the first day...THE FIRST PART OF THE 1ST DAY...that is to say, the NIGHT part of the 1ST DAY; THIS IS WHY "Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."
They were going to make the most of their opportunity having Paul there among them. They had no problem after a good sabbath 'rest' day [that began the day before at (friday) sunset], to continue their gathering together INTO the NEXT day - the 1ST DAY of the WEEK, the DARK PART of the 1ST DAY; that started at sunset JUST AFTER the END OF the seventh day (Sat. evening).
So AFTER their 7TH DAY rest and gathering together, they continued meeting together in a 'last time' special event, meeting with, seeing and hearing the apostle Paul - who had definite plans to leave at sunrise; which he did some hours later, at sunrise the beginning of the DAY PART of the 1ST DAY, AFTER he preached through the whole of the NIGHT PART of the 1ST DAY (interrupted only by the fall of Eutychus, and their eating together).
So it is here that we can see something interesting, in that when we would think of Sunday, we would think Paul might be walking or traveling to some 'church' to 'preach' there on Sunday MORNING. But instead we see that Paul is beginning a long laborous walk, some 10-15 plus miles to Assos, to meet up with Luke and the other brothers who "went before" by "ship...there intending to take in Paul...".
"And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul: for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot.
"And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene." [Act 20:13-14]
Where is the case for 'Sunday Worship' here in this passage? There is none - not at all. Not UNLESS one is prepared to claim now that we are required on Saturday night to meet (or 'go to church')! And then ONLY at midnight Saturday night, are we to 'break bread', then continue to 'be in church' until Sunday morning! If Acts 20 is to be claimed the proof-text that establishes the pattern for the NT Church meeting; then lets get it right! Lets do JUST AS IT IS LAID OUT in the record of Acts, and stop the fudging here and there - claiming we are to dump the 7th day sabbath, and 'keep' the 1st day JUST AS IT IS WRITTEN in the book of Acts!
It is clear that Paul left the brethren and the meeting in Troas at sunrise Sunday morning (our time), and that the meeting started at sometime AFTER the sun set the evening before - that puts it AFTER the end of the 7TH DAY. And that this places the time of this (special) meeting at the beginning of the NIGHT phase of the 1ST DAY.
I say that there is no evidence whatsoever to draw the conclusion, the kinds of conclusions that are being claimed this passage teaches...NO let me rephrase that and say the kinds of COMMANDS that are being asserted by those who claim new testament saints (believers) are to consider and 'keep' the first day of the week as the supposed 'Christian Sabbath', 'rest day', day to gather together - and 'keep' it sacred or holy, AS the 7th day 'WAS' to be kept holy for sacred use.
But I have to say that, IF there is a day to keep it has to be the 7th day, not the 1st or the 2nd or any other of the days of the week. That is IF there is a day to be kept holy at all.
Yet I have to say here that I am not convinced that there is, and haven't for some years now that the 7th day is to be 'kept' by NT believers. But I am ready to be shown that I have missed some things about this whole subject.
But, here I must say as well, that the usual arguments I hear repeatedly from different quarters, do not provide sufficient evidence to out weigh the passages that I admit, I am not convinced either by the 'other side', prove that the 7th day is nolonger to be observed. Is that confusing?
I am not convinced that Romans 14 is speaking about or including the 7th day Sabbath day. I'm also not convinced that the issue therein is between clean vs. unclean meat, but rather perhaps limited contextually to that of herbs vs. clean meat.
I am not convinced I have heard all the light and that there is nothing left to be known and discovered as to what Paul meant by "every day alike", in "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]". That is I am not fully convinced either way: That in this expression, Paul was not merely including but even REFERING TO the 7th day in his statements; or that this phrase "every day" has to do with every other day save the weekly 7th day - I see some evidence for this in the Torah, but I am not completely certain this is so in every case. I need more evidence either way.
I am not here to push any agenda, I hope I have grown up and out of doing this sort of thing, though I might be viewed as such. I just want the truth...the facts of the truth. The truth is better than a lie. Not a deep truism, but for me this is profound. I look to you all to help me and one another to come to "one mind" and "one heart" about this subject as well as all other subjects the scriptures wish to reveal the will of God to us all about.
I don't want to be dishonored for my present understanding, as it is not set in concrete - not on this subject at least. Nor will I long allow it, or that of me towards another herein this forum. Let us help one another to grow and peel of the 'crust' of our own imaginations that encase our minds and hearts, and come to the knowledge of the Holy (One: Christ).
As Paul said, "Though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing... ...charity suffereth long, [and] is kind... ...charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up... ...doth not behave itself unseemly... ...is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil..."
So let move on to perfection, but do it 'lawfully' - which is to say, "...faith which woreth by love..."
Now, who has some detailed info on the theory that "every day" is excluding the 7th day?
And who has some info that proves that Paul could not have been comparing herbs to clean meats, but really meant that all animals and their meat are now pronounced clean and sanctified?
This latter question is only important as it has contextual significance with regard to the phrase "every day" that is said to be including the 7th day - or specifically discussing it.
Got to go.
< Message edited by p.progress -- 8/8/2008 3:10:18 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 4:31:39 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1076
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
To the previous long-long post. I am sorry we have answered out those thing in which you write about.
Let us again continue with you last thought. What may I tell you was the words God used on the children of Israel when they came to the border of the Jordan River? Because of your lack of faith or believe in what he told them to do. They was not 'allowed to enter into his rest or sabbath.
Which if you take the words of the anointed one. You will see he talks as he is the rest for us. Please this for the children of Israel to show them who they were to believe or trust in when he told them what to do. So he set one day aside so that they could learn to trust him and not themselves.
I am going to kill my computer for it keeps stopping while I am writing
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 4:39:20 PM
|
|
|
LBolt
Posts: 958
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
|
p.progress, your understanding of Romans 14 seems to be pretty accurate. As far as "NT believers" observing Sabbath, I believe that there are more than enough scriptures in the Bible to conclude that Sabbath was, is and shall be in effect and that we as believers should observe it. Which is why I asked the question in my last post to you whether or not you believe that the "NT" trumps the "OT." The writers of the epistles and gospels wouldn't have stated as such and when press with a issue, they'd refer to the authority of the TaNaKH for teaching and instruction.
_____________________________
Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding...she shall give to thine head an ornament of grace..---Proverbs 4:7
www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-60604-743-9
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 5:59:32 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1827
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
p. progress saidquote:
No doubt that there is some fighting going on 'over this stuff' at times, and it ought to be addressed when it occurs. But I also learn and have learned, by these exchanges, like you have GrahamCracker - even the 'biting' and 'devouring' kinds. Yet I don't want that to continue either, I just attempt to learn as much as I can from it.
People would be mistaken if they thought there was anything personal in my words. I am taking people to task for what appears to be blatantly inconsistent views. What am I to make of Jesus and John the Baptist calling the Pharisees "generations of vipers, white washed tombs," or Paul referring to the Galatians as "O, foolish Galatians" or James referring to those in his readership audience "O, thou fool" (James chapter 2)?
Paul pronounced anathema to those teachers of the Law who deceived the Galatians.
I would be happy to refrain from strong language if they wouldn't be so evasive. Frankly, with regard to Romans 14, I have gotten several different answers from the Sabbatarians. If the first answers were so good, why did they abandon them and attempt new ones?
quote:
I am not as I have said before certain and clear that the sabbath is required by God to be 'kept' by believers within the new covenant.
I am certain that the first day of the week ('sunday') is NOT a new sabbath, or the 'Lord's Day', nor a day required to be kept in substitute of the sabbath. I see this and know this to be so,....
Rather than press the issue in an area that you are admittedly not prepared to declare a position (or backing off from a position you formerly have taken), let me give you a web site I found the other day. The pastor who wrote these articles/sermons addresses a number of doctrines from a similar POV as mine. However, he has apparently studied a great deal more than I have.
http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/home.htm
Like me, he feels that the Law itself has already been fulfilled in us through the work of Christ on the cross (as the scripture says). He feels, as I do, that many of the scriptural prophecies predicted the "End of the Law Age" for Judah and Israel. On the face of it, there being no priesthood, no temple, no requirement for circumcision, no requirement from Jesus or the apostles to stone Law violators, etc--how can anyone seriously say that we are still under the Law?
quote:
I see that as it was Christ's and Paul's custom (as well as all other disciples and apostles) to go into the synagogues on the sabbath, the seventh day - not on the first day, to reason with others of course, but that was only part of the reason they were found in the temple or the various synagogues on that day. Neither Jesus or the apostles were ONLY going to the temple or the synagogues to try to evangelize others.
Trouble is, there is no suggestion in the book of Acts that Paul or the apostles considered the requirements of the Sabbath to be in effect. Toward the end of his life, he wrote Romans. I don't know how long it took for the entire effect of the Law's fulfillment and the New Covenant to be taking effect, but it is certainly clear from his words that the requirements for observing the Sabbath were no longer in effect.quote:
Where is the case for 'Sunday Worship' here in this passage? There is none - not at all. Not UNLESS one is prepared to claim now that...
I think that I have already declared that there is no scriptural obligation to keep either Saturday or Sunday. I suppose we could find passages where they met at different times during the week--if we wanted to press it. I see no problem with churches deciding that they would prefer to meet regularly on Saturday or regularly on Sunday. God doesn't obligate us to observe any particular day of the week.quote:
I am not convinced that Romans 14 is speaking about or including the 7th day Sabbath day. I'm also not convinced that the issue therein is between clean vs. unclean meat, but rather perhaps limited contextually to that of herbs vs. clean meat.
So, what is the context of a man esteeming a certain day above another? Exactly how would it have entered into their minds if not with regard to the law. Paul already spoke of unclean and clean foods in the very same chapter. Exactly what is there in the context that takes it out of the realm of observing the law?
We know part of the context IS about the Law. Where does the context change to remove Law discussion out of the mix?
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 8/8/2008 6:54:32 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 6:10:18 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1827
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LBolt
p.progress,......to you whether or not you believe that the "NT" trumps the "OT." The writers of the epistles and gospels wouldn't have stated as such and when press with a issue, they'd refer to the authority of the TaNaKH for teaching and instruction.
LBolt,
1) Has any of the Law been fulfilled, even the sacrifices?
1-a. Will we offer animal sacrifices in heaven?
1-b. Will we circumcise infants in heaven?
1-c. Will there be Aaronic or Levitical priests in heaven?
1-d Should there be earthly priests now?
2) Is there any such "in between state" where we are neither completely in the Old Covenant nor completely in the New Covenant spoken of in scripture anywhere?
If your answer is "no" to the first question, please explain why we are not obligated to circumcise our male infants. If you believe that there is some scriptural justification for an in-between state of the covenants, where is it spoke of or otherwise prophesied by Jeremiah or one of the other prophets--to the effect that we haven't arrived at Jeremiah 31's prophesy of the New Covenant?
3) Will there ever be a time when the Law passes away?
4) Would you care to interpret Matthew 5:17-18 for us and explain its importance to the current discussion?
5) What did Paul mean when he said he was a minister of a new covenant? (2 Cor. 3:6) Does that mean we are still in the old covenant? Is so, how did Paul become a minister of the new one?
Would anyone want to take a shot at these questions?
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 8/8/2008 9:36:48 PM >
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 8/8/2008 7:15:14 PM
|
|
|
p.progress
Posts: 150
Joined: 12/23/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
To the previous long-long post. I am sorry we have answered out those thing in which you write about.
Let us again continue with you last thought. What may I tell you was the words God used on the children of Israel when they came to the border of the Jordan River? Because of your lack of faith or believe in what he told them to do. They was not 'allowed to enter into his rest or sabbath.
Which if you take the words of the anointed one. You will see he talks as he is the rest for us. Please this for the children of Israel to show them who they were to believe or trust in when he told them what to do. So he set one day aside so that they could learn to trust him and not themselves.
I am going to kill my computer for it keeps stopping while I am writing
Dear mcleod.
I'm very sory, but it took me several reads, and I'm not sure that I fully or precisely understand what you are trying to say. But I think I now understand some of what you've said to me. But please correct me if I'm wrong here. Nevertheless, I'll comment as if I did 'get' what you were saying right. Here though is my interpretation of what you meant:
Do you mean:
"To the previous long-long post. I am sorry we have answered out those thing in which you write about."
To the previous very, very, very, long, ever so too long post. I am sorry my dear friend, perhaps you're new to this forum and so are not aware that everything you've laboriously went over, has been said already before by others. [I added some extra interpretive musings in the above]
"Let us again continue with you last thought."
But let us - me - pick up on and comment on what you said at the end:
"What may I tell you was the words God used on the children of Israel when they came to the border of the Jordan River?
May I tell you what God said to Israel, when they came to the banks of the river Jordan?
"Because of your lack of faith or believe in what he told them to do. They was not 'allowed to enter into his rest or sabbath."
He said due to their [wicked] unbelief & disobedience to what he commanded them to do, they were not allowed to enter his rest - or 'sabbath'.
"Which if you take the words of the anointed one. You will see he talks as he is the rest for us. "
Which if you take what Christ said. You will see... [sorry, but this is incoherent to me]
"Please this for the children of Israel to show them who they were to believe or trust in when he told them what to do."
[Sorry this I also do not understand at all]
"So he set one day aside so that they could learn to trust him and not themselves."
So he set one day aside so that they could learn to trust in him and not in themselves.
I'd like to respond and amen what you've said, or question, or correct it perhaps; but can't do so, until I am sure of what you've said. P.P.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 8/9/2008 12:12:06 AM
|
|
|
p.progress
Posts: 150
Joined: 12/23/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
p. progress saidquote:
No doubt that there is some fighting going on 'over this stuff' at times, and it ought to be addressed when it occurs. But I also learn and have learned, by these exchanges, like you have GrahamCracker - even the 'biting' and 'devouring' kinds. Yet I don't want that to continue either, I just attempt to learn as much as I can from it.
People would be mistaken if they thought there was anything personal in my words. I am taking people to task for what appears to be blatantly inconsistent views. What am I to make of Jesus and John the Baptist calling the Pharisees "generations of vipers, white washed tombs," or Paul referring to the Galatians as "O, foolish Galatians" or James referring to those in his readership audience "O, thou fool" (James chapter 2)?
Only have a minute here GC,
But I wanted to assure you in case you are wondering by my comments above, that I was not myself referring to you...If I see that you are fighting, biting or devouring - rather than, merely correcting, instructing, even reproving or rebuking (which requires at times to be stronger than at other times); than I'll call you on that, as I hope you'll be faithful to do the same. I am not against nor afraid to 'call a spade a spade', when I see that samething you are speaking about. So feel free to challenge as you think fit in your opinion. I'll attempt to give you room where I think you or others are being out of balance (according to my own perspective), but are no overly so. I can't address the things you spke of herein as yet, but hope I might have time tomorrow.
I am very serious when I say I am only interested in the truth, whatever that be. And I am apt enough I believe to se it when it comes into view. I hope I can run by you what I presently think and don't think about the Romans 14 passages. Bye
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Sabbath - One Stop Thread - 8/9/2008 5:40:57 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1827
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
Only have a minute here GC,
But I wanted to assure you in case you are wondering by my comments above, that I was not myself referring to you...If I see that you are fighting, biting or devouring - rather than, merely correcting, instructing, even reproving or rebuking (which requires at times to be stronger than at other times); than I'll call you on that, as I hope you'll be faithful to do the same. I am not against nor afraid to 'call a spade a spade', when I see that samething you are speaking about.
p.progess,
I am not attempting to be mean spirited nor do I believe that is my tone. Neither am I attempting to duplicate the harsh words used by Jesus and the apostles and John the Baptist.
One of the limitations of the forums is that we cannot tone down our words with differing inflections in our sounds or our facial expressions, emoticons notwithstanding.
quote:
So feel free to challenge as you think fit in your opinion. I'll attempt to give you room where I think you or others are being out of balance (according to my own perspective), but are no overly so. I can't address the things you spke of herein as yet, but hope I might have time tomorrow.
I am very serious when I say I am only interested in the truth, whatever that be. And I am apt enough I believe to se it when it comes into view. I hope I can run by you what I presently think and don't think about the Romans 14 passages. Bye
Sure. I have noticed a tendency in these discussions for people who believe very sincerely that they understand the Bible well that:
1) They limit themselves to certain passages or verses and have serious gaps in their knowledge of others. For example, the Law keepers and Sabbatarians don't seem to know the NT very well. They quote generously from the OT.
2) There are differences in people's method of hermaneutics. That is to say that use a different method of interpreting the Bible than I do. They are apt to center on isolated veses regardless of context. I have also noticed some get rather esoteric in their interpretations---to the extent that it is impossible to know where they are going. Frankly, I don't think they know either. In that sense Paul said there are people "desiring to be teachers of the law but knowing not they say nor whereof they affirm..."
Take a look at the article and others in the same series in the link I gave you earlier.
< Message edited by GrahamCracker -- 8/9/2008 5:52:41 AM >
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
