The pre-creation existence of Jesus

reply to post by jmdewey60

"openeth the womb" is not a "Hebraism", heck that phrase simply means "born", any time a child is born the mother's womb is opened. And the phrase itself doesn't even claim a number to it, first, second, third.

The Word of God says Adam was the first man, the first created by God, the first man who had God as his Father. Jesus Christ was the 2nd Man, the 2nd created by God, the 2nd with God as His Father.

However Jesus Christ is also God's "firstborn Son", (highest in rank, benifitting from all the privileges and blessings, greatest born). Jesus Christ is also God's "only begotten" Son.

You cannot deny that when the Bible uses the term "firstborn" it can mean both the "first in numerical order", as well as the "greatest born of many that was not the chronological first born".

It can mean both, and does in different contexts.

One doesn't need to be a "scholar" to understand the Bible, it's written for men, everyone knows Adam was the FIRST man Created by God. We are all "sons of God", there is only one "only begotten Son" of the Living God (John 3:16).. that's Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

I am pleased you are acknowledging the existence of Hebraisms now at least. This is a good and right step, and will open up your eyes to what these Hebrews were saying when they wrote their epistles and Books of the Bible. (Except for Luke, he was a gentile)

reply to post by NOTurTypical

"openeth the womb" is not a "Hebraism", heck that phrase simply means "born", any time a child is born the mother's womb is opened. And the phrase itself doesn't even claim a number to it, first, second, third.

That's why it is a Hebraism, because there is no word meaning first, in the phrase. Taken together, the phrase takes on the meaning, first born, because the first child born of a woman was understood as opening her womb, where before the child was born, it had been closed. Once the first child is born, the mother's womb is forever in a state of being "open".
You and I may not think, scientifically, that is how it works. That doesn't matter because what is important to making the translation is that the Hebrews understood it that way.
Paul saying "first born" is not a term only understood by exploring the cultural background of the author and the peculiarities of the beliefs of that culture. Paul was speaking in Greek and writing in Greek and was a Roman citizen of an old Greek city so his culture was similar to our own. We can look at his statement concerning Jesus and understand it without delving into the esoteric. To us, it is straightforward and means what it says.

reply to post by jmdewey60
Does God's Word say Adam was God's first son? (Genesis 2:7)

Does God's Word also say Jesus Christ was God's "firstborn" of creation? (1 Timothy 3:16, Col. 1:15)


How do you propose settling this apparent contradiction without making God a liar?

Does the Word of God say King David was the firstborn? (Psalms 89:27)

Does the Word of God also say that Kind David was the youngest of his brothers?

How do you propose settling this apparent contradiction without making God a liar?

Does the Bible say Issac was Abraham's ONLY begotten son? (Hebrews 11:17-19)

Does the Bible also say that Ishmael was Abraham's first son?

How do you propose settling this apparent contradiction without making God a liar?

Does the Word of God call Manasseh the firstborn son of Joseph? (Genesis 41:51)

Does the Word of God call Ephraim Joseph's firstborn son? (Jeremiah 31:9)

How do you propose settling this apparent contradiction without making God a liar?


THIS hopefully will help you.

Answer the questions I ask of you. "Firstborn", "begotten", "father", "son", all all Hebraisms, they can either be taken figuratively or literally depending on the context they are used.

I hope you get this lesson my brother.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

THIS hopefully will help you.

Here's something on this web site that I found disturbing:

The question arises, If one who professes to be a Christian breaks, by accident or design, one of the least or the greatest of God's laws or commandments, does he automatically forfeit his eternal life and his salvation? The answer to this question is an emphatic NO!!! The reason: the Lord Jesus Christ took ALL my sins and bore them in his body on the cross, and then he went to hell in my place; and then rose from the grave for my justification.

Let's isolate the part, "the Lord Jesus Christ took ALL my sins and bore them in his body on the cross".
Nice little argument, but where does he get this from?

1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we may cease from sinning and live for righteousness. By his wounds you were healed.

According to Peter, Jesus died so we can be healed to stop sinning.
How does this answer the author's question?
Instead of supporting his thesis, it contradicts it.

This sort of flawed logic does not recommend itself to me and I would relegate the site to the status of light entertainment, and not an authoritative rebuttal to the teachings of what he calls cults.

reply to post by NOTurTypical
In an earlier post, you placed a link to an anti-Mormon web site, which I find questionable, also.
The author claims that an example of a Hebraism being used when using the word father is:

Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. (Acts 22:1, KJV)

According to the author, father here is meant to mean "someone who provided for their needs or protection;".
The John Gill Bible Commentary says:

Men, brethren, and fathers…
A common form of address used by the Jews;. . .
. . .and fathers, there being some among them, who might be men in years, and even members of the sanhedrim, and elders of the people, that were now got among the crowd: this shows how ready the apostle was to put up with affronts, and to forgive injuries done him:

These people who "had treated him so inhumanly, as to drag him out of the temple, and beat him so unmercifully" were not exactly giving Peter protection, but quite the opposite.
So what sort of logic is this author using here?
Nothing I would put my trust in, for determining what I should believe in.

reply to post by jmdewey60


You answered none of the questions I asked you.

Answer them all please.

And about the anti-LDS site, it was just to show some Hebraisms, I have no idea what denomination or faith you subscribe to.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Well, his personal beliefs on the doctrine of salvation is another matter, and I think they are wrong as well. But that's another subject tha(n) what he says about "Hebraisms". I merely pointed you there for that.

HERE is another website dealing with the same subject of Hebraisms.

(edit for spelling error)


[edit on 25-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Answer the questions I ask of you. "Firstborn", "begotten", "father", "son", all all Hebraisms, they can either be taken figuratively or literally depending on the context they are used.

I hope you get this lesson my brother.

apparently you like to ignore me.

is "beginning of all creation" a hebraism?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

You answered none of the questions I asked you.
Answer them all please.
And about the anti-LDS site, it was just to show some Hebraisms, I have no idea what denomination or faith you subscribe to.

The denomination I belong to is the Seventh-day Adventists.
I actually go to church every Saturday morning, so I am not someone who just uses the label.
I looked at the verses in your question, yesterday, until I finally had to go to sleep. I don't get your point or what you are asking, unless it is something like, "Why do some verses refer to Jesus as firstborn and others do not?"
That's just the way the Bible was written and I can't do anything about it.
As for my view of the trinity and all that, I am strictly Arian, which was the mainstream belief before Nicea, which was an abomination.
If you subscribe to the Athanasian Creed, I feel sorry for you, but you should not take the satanic teachings of that Creed to heart and feel like you have to persecute anyone else who does not subscribe to it.
Read the full Athanasian Creed and you will see that it was a device meant to cause division and persecution.
Do you think that it could in any way be the work of God?

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

You answered none of the questions I asked you.
Answer them all please.
And about the anti-LDS site, it was just to show some Hebraisms, I have no idea what denomination or faith you subscribe to.

The denomination I belong to is the Seventh-day Adventists.
I actually go to church every Saturday morning, so I am not someone who just uses the label.
I looked at the verses in your question, yesterday, until I finally had to go to sleep. I don't get your point or what you are asking, unless it is something like, "Why do some verses refer to Jesus as firstborn and others do not?"
That's just the way the Bible was written and I can't do anything about it.
As for my view of the trinity and all that, I am strictly Arian, which was the mainstream belief before Nicea, which was an abomination.
If you subscribe to the Athanasian Creed, I feel sorry for you, but you should not take the satanic teachings of that Creed to heart and feel like you have to persecute anyone else who does not subscribe to it.
Read the full Athanasian Creed and you will see that it was a device meant to cause division and persecution.
Do you think that it could in any way be the work of God?

Let me ask you a couple questions...

1. What do you think the Council of Nicea was convened for???
2. Why do you worship God on His commanded day of "REST"?
3. Isn't starting your car "kindling a fire"?
4. Why do you not worship God EVERY day of the week "in spirit"?

I'm not persecuting you, just asking questions... same thing you're doing to me. And I don't think there should be ANY divisions within the church of Christ.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Let me ask you a couple questions...

1. What do you think the Council of Nicea was convened for???
2. Why do you worship God on His commanded day of "REST"?
3. Isn't starting your car "kindling a fire"?
4. Why do you not worship God EVERY day of the week "in spirit"?

I'm not persecuting you, just asking questions... same thing you're doing to me. And I don't think there should be ANY divisions within the church of Christ.

You keep posting links to bashers, instead of any serious scholarship. People who feel it is their mission in life to prove other people "wrong", and that they shouldn't believe the way they do. What am I supposed to take from that?
1. The Council was to establish the authority of the Council, so there could be a hierarchical system to enforce compliance on issues that are a matter of conscience.
2. Oh, do you mean why am I worshiping instead of resting? Sabbaths were a time for gathering around the Tabernacle.
3. Oh, are you imposing Jewish Orthodoxy on me? How Christian of you! The Sabbath was made for man, man was not made for the Sabbath. My gasoline powered machine is a manner of convenience, not labor.
4. I worship God every day, but how my God is defined is by His Law which specifies a day to be set apart.

reply to post by jmdewey60

1. The Council was to establish the authority of the Council, so there could be a hierarchical system to enforce compliance on issues that are a matter of conscience.
2. Oh, do you mean why am I worshiping instead of resting? Sabbaths were a time for gathering around the Tabernacle.
3. Oh, are you imposing Jewish Orthodoxy on me? How Christian of you! The Sabbath was made for man, man was not made for the Sabbath. My gasoline powered machine is a manner of convenience, not labor.
4. I worship God every day, but how my God is defined is by His Law which specifies a day to be set apart.

1. That wasn't the only thing the council Addressed: Council of Nicea ~ Fact VS Myths

2. Perhaps it was a time for gathering around the tabernacle for people who lived a short distance away! What about every other thousands upon thousands of Jews who lived outside "a Sabbath day's journey" distance from the tabernacle??

The Sabbath was ALWAYS a "day of rest", not worship. Jews worshipped God every single day in all they did. And they were ONLY required by Mosaic law to appear at the temple once per year at passover.

3. You're exactly right, Jesus said the sabbath was made for man, not man made for the Sabbath. I couldn't agree more.

4. Paul said in Romans that with the death of Christ we are no longer justified by the Law, we are now justified by faith.

Since you bring us God's word can you tell me what God's standards are for someone who claimed to be on of his prophets? Do you remember what He said was to be done with "prophets" who were wrong even ONCE? Do you remember who God said these "prophets" got their messages from since it was NOT Him? Do you remember reading what God's Word said to do when one learns they have been listening to someone who tells a false prophecy?

Why is it so important to listen to God's Word completely as regards to the Sabbath, (which is impossible today), but not important to run away and stone to death a "prophet" who claimed to be God's and was wrong a single time??

Are you also aware that God forbids anyone to add to or take away from His Words?

I do NOT think there should be division withing the body of Christ, but I also believe the Word to expose false prophets and those teaching "other gospels" than the ones Paul and the apostles taught just as much.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]

reply to post by NOTurTypical
Division comes from one party telling everyone that they must come into conformity to their beliefs and practices.
The people not of the first party, are forced to form their own parties to protect themselves from the attacks of the first party.
People living under the other gods around the land of Canaan might be lucky if their god allowed them to rest one day out of ten. Another god might not feel so generous, and not give the people any rest. We are fortunate to live under a god who lets us have one day of rest out of seven. Would you like to throw that away? Seriously, think about it. Having to work every day for the rest of your life. You should feel thankful to God and accept his gift. And, it is more than a gift, it is a command.
People generally have to work every day to maintain a livelihood, so if they were to take a time to gather and worship God, it would be convenient to do it on the day that the law allows them to not have to be working that day.
I don't know what your line of reasoning is. Do you have an alternative solution you would like to offer. You seem to be good at making rather vague statements that leave an implied feeling of wrongness about whatever it is that I believe in. So what's your answer to it. You have the spirit of divisiveness because your overriding objective is to prove someone elses belief is wrong, and then you do not even say what it is that would be right.
So and So says, this is the way he does it. That's it? We should all follow So and So because he should be our example? You are testing the person I think is a good author to read. What test do you apply to your great leader? Is he a prophet? Does God speak his word through him?
You are not any better than anyone else, because you want people to do what you think is right. That's not how it should be. Everyone should be free to follow the dictates of their conscience, regarding how they think God is leading them, and if someone else does not agree with you, then that is their problem, to be worked out between them and God. If your job is to go around telling the people that Jesus died for that they are going to hell because they are not going to the same church you are, you are doing Satan's work and you forfeit your own salvation by denying that same salvation to others.



[edit on 27-10-2009 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Division comes from one party telling everyone that they must come into conformity to their beliefs and practices.

I agree with that point 100%, so why are the SDAs telling all Christians we must worship God on the 7th day of the week in light of Paul's, (actually the LORD's teaching by the Holy Spirit through the pen and ink of Paul), explicit teaching on the subject?? The first century Jewish converts to Christianity were arguing the EXACT same thing 2,000 years ago with the gentiles.

"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:" Colossians 2:16

Since we agree, then why is "one party (SDAs) telling everyone that they must conform to their beliefs and practices"???????

I don't care what day you meet with believers to praise and worship God together, neither do Christians because when a man regards that day special to the Lord then that man is honoring the Lord on that day.

"He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he does not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.” Romans 14:6

We agree my friend, sadly the SDA organization does not.

The people not of the first party, are forced to form their own parties to protect themselves from the attacks of the first party.

This is sad, Romans says "there should be no divisions among you, I'm sure the Lord is unhappy there are divisions among us as well. Every man should let any man worship God on any day that they regard to the Lord. Going to church is a day of worship, to gather with other brethren for fellowship and worship and praise.

More IMPORTANTLY, the Sabbath was created for the JEWS, for ISRAEL. Nowhere in the Word of God does it say the Sabbath was created for gentiles. Just the same as circumcision, it was never required of the gentiles, in fact Paul rebukes Peter for saying it does when they converted to Christianity. Any commandment from God to observe the Sabbath was ALWAYS commanded to the Jews and the nation of Israel.

Don't you think it's high time we stopped bickering over a day we as gentile were never commanded by God to observe in the first place?????? I sure do. Let every Christian honor any day he pleases to the Lord.

Would you like to throw that away? Seriously, think about it. Having to work every day for the rest of your life. You should feel thankful to God and accept his gift. And, it is more than a gift, it is a command.

I never said we should throw away a day of rest, but let's not confuse the day of rest with a day to meet with brethren for praise and worship. Secondly, it was only commanded for the JEWS and Israel to observe, just like circumcision. Can you provide where in the scripture it was ever required to be observed by gentiles? Or by someone in the NT to gentiles?
Do SDAs kill anyone who doesn't rest on the Sabbath like God ALSO COMMANDED regarding the observance of the Sabbath??? I highly doubt it, therefore even the SDAs are not doing as God commanded regarding the Sabbath. Remember, "to fail in one point is to fail the entire Law..."

People generally have to work every day to maintain a livelihood, so if they were to take a time to gather and worship God, it would be convenient to do it on the day that the law allows them to not have to be working that day.

That's a red herring, you moved from "what God commands" to "what we find convenient" to fit in with OUR schedules.

I don't know what your line of reasoning is. Do you have an alternative solution you would like to offer.

I think we should stop a 2,000 year old bickering contest and just do as Colossians 2;16 says and let every man worship God on any day that they regard to the Lord. Problem solved, follow the teaching of the inspired Word of God.

You have the spirit of divisiveness because your overriding objective is to prove someone elses belief is wrong, and then you do not even say what it is that would be right.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the SDAs claim that everyone must worship on the 7th day of the week??? We already know from the Word of God which is our only guide for doctrine that the Sabbath was commanded for the Jews and Israel only, just like circumcision. We already know that SDAs refuse to kill any people not keeping the Sabbath, so therefore on "keep the Sabbath" halfheartedly. Why can't we just do as Colossians 2:16 says????????

So and So says, this is the way he does it. That's it? We should all follow So and So because he should be our example?

God says that if ANY man claims to be a prophet of God and are wrong with a prophecy even one time there are to be labeled a "false prophet" and taken outside the city gates and stoned to death. Mrs. White claimed to be a prophet and offered prophecies that were false, therefore she is no prophet, she is a false prophet. I'm not suggesting the people should have stoned her to death in light of Jesus's teachings, but they should have immediately left her church right then and there.

You are testing the person I think is a good author to read. What test do you apply to your great leader?

If a man I like to read claims to be a prophet of God then the Bible already spells out the "test" for that prophet, he must be 100% accurate in every single prophecy, not failing a single test, not once. That is the test God gave us to divide true prophets from false ones.

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Jesus Christ Matthew 7:15

Is he a prophet?

Nope, and he never claimed to be one, he's just a leader, a pastor. However, if my pastor says something that is contrary to scriptures believe me, I'll get right up and walk out and not come back to that church. I've already done it to a couple churches.

"“But there were false prophets also among the people, teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” 2 Peter 2:1

Now, I'm fully prepared and always ready to take my own medicine, if ANY MAN tries to teach something contrary to scripture, or if ANY MAN makes a prophecy which he claims is "from God" and it fails to come to pass, I REJECT him and flee to another church. I want nothing to do with that man, he is an agent of the devil. God's prophets are and have always been 100% accurate each and every one. In fact that's how God told us to divide the true prophets from the false ones. And why he said to the Jews to take the false ones outside the city gates and stone them to death immediately.

Does God speak his word through him?

If the person is quoting scripture God absolutely does, if the man is making a prediction for the future who knows if it's God or not, the only way to tell is if the prophecy comes to fruition in exact detail perfectly, then you know he and his prophecies are from God.

You are not any better than anyone else, because you want people to do what you think is right.

Straw man, for one I'm just as much a sinner as the next guy. But also there is a completely different standard for a person claiming to be a "prophet of God", which I never have claimed such. And I want people to do what the Word says is right, I'm a Biblicist, "Sola Scriptura", I don't say something is "right" or "wrong' unless the Word backs it up.

That's not how it should be. Everyone should be free to follow the dictates of their conscience, regarding how they think God is leading them, and if someone else does not agree with you, then that is their problem, to be worked out between them and God.

I agree, but the Word also tells us to expose false teachings contrary to the Word. If I didn't expose false teachings and false prophets I would be an apostate.

If your job is to go around telling the people that Jesus died for that they are going to hell because they are not going to the same church you are, you are doing Satan's work and you forfeit your own salvation by denying that same salvation to others.

When have I EVER said some other Christian is going to Hell for a certain doctrine they believe or follow????? Never. One's salvation is through the atoning shed blood of Christ. The only people who will die in their sins are those who pass away without the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Other than that everyone's different doctrines will be settled straight once we get to heaven. That's the ONLY doctrine that matters in regards to salvation.

You do make points, but I'm doing what Paul said to do when teachings contrary to scripture are being spoken, we are supposed to identify and proclaim them to be contrary to the Word of God. It's ALL our jobs to do this, that isn't the "divisiveness" Paul speaks of. Paul is speaking of minor divisions within the church. Exposing false prophets is a big deal my brother.







[edit on 27-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]

reply to post by NOTurTypical

it was only commanded for the JEWS and Israel to observe, just like circumcision. Can you provide where in the scripture it was ever required to be observed by gentiles? Or by someone in the NT to gentiles?"

We are grafted into the tree of Israel through our relationship with Jesus. His God becomes our God. We become a grafted on branch. Do you claim to have a different God than the Jews?
John 4:22 "You people worship what you do not know. We worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews."
What do the Jews know? They know His Law.
Galatians 2:15 "We are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners,"
Why were they not sinners? Because they knew the law.
Psalms 119:155 "The wicked have no chance for deliverance, for they do not seek your statutes."
1 Corinthians 9:21 "To those free from the law I became like one free from the law (though I am not free from God’s law but under the law of Christ) to gain those free from the law."
Paul knows he is not free from obeying God's law, but is safe from the penalty of not perfectly following it, by being under grace.
The John Gill commentary on this verse says:

or "the law of God", the moral law; for though he was delivered from the curse and condemnation of it, and as a covenant of works, and the ministry of it by Moses, yet not from the matter of it, and obedience to it, as a rule of walk and conversation: and therefore his compliance with the Gentiles was not in anything that was contrary to the moral law;

reply to post by jmdewey60


We are grafted in to have a relationship and fellowship with the Father through Jesus Christ our Lord. But following the law in order to have that fellowship died with Christ Jesus. We live to God by Christ's righteousness, not our own.

What about Colossians 2:16, the Holy Spirit pretty much stated let no man judge you on anything, if you honor the Lord with it then it belongs to the Lord!!!

We all should be worshipping the Lord daily, no day is sacred above others anymore, if you choose Saturday to worship the Lord with other Christians go for it brother! if I choose Sunday to worship the Lord with other Christians, then we are BOTH right Colossians 2:16 says, because we are both honoring the Lord with one day out of the week to gather with fellow Christians in praise and worship to God.

We have been divided over this issue for 2,000 years, when all we had to do was follow what the Spirit said in Colossians 2:16. If you choose to gather on Saturday with other believers in Christ by all means do so, I could care less because your spirit is gathering unto the Lord. Likewise, let me worship God on Sunday with other people who also are gathering that day unto the Lord for worship. We are both right because we are both honoring that day to the Lord.

We need to be spending our energy trying to reach the lost instead of fighting over something that was answered perfectly in Colossians 2:16.

Agree??




[edit on 27-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I have to go with my SDA friend on this one. You misunderstand Colossians 2:16..

"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: which are a shadow of things to come ..." wrote the apostle Paul in Colossians 2:16-17 (KJV). This passage is often misinterpreted. What does it really say?

Paul was combating a local heresy. False teachers had introduced their own religious philosophy, which was a blend of Jewish and gentile concepts. Their distorted ideas were founded on human "tradition" and "principles of the world," not on the Word of God. Paul warned the Colossians to "beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ" (verse 8).

These false teachers introduced their own rules and regulations for their idea of proper conduct (verses 20-22). The content of Paul's warning to the Colossian church strongly indicates that these heretics were the forerunners of a major heresy that developed into gnosticism, which is a belief system that holds that secret knowledge (gnosis is Greek for "knowledge," hence the term gnosticism) can enhance one's religion. Gnostics claimed to be so spiritual that they disdained virtually everything physical, regarding it as beneath them.

The false teachers in Colossae rejected the physical—the perishable things that could be touched, tasted or handled (verses 21-22)—particularly when it related to worship. Their philosophy encouraged neglect of the physical needs of the body to attain heightened spirituality. In reality, however, their self-imposed religion did nothing of the sort and accomplished nothing in combating human nature. As Paul wrote, it was of "no value against the indulgence of the flesh" (verse 23).

The Christians in Colossae obeyed God. They kept His Sabbath and Holy Days, and they rejoiced on them, following biblical instruction (Deuteronomy 16:10-11, 13-14).

The heretics condemned the Colossian church for the manner in which the Colossians observed the Holy Days. Notice that they didn't challenge the days themselves. It was the physical enjoyment of them—rejoicing and feasting—that provoked the objections of these false teachers.

Notice Paul's words again: "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding [Greek meros, meaning 'part,' or 'regarding any portion of'] a festival or a new moon or sabbath" (Colossians 2:16).

Paul was telling the Colossians to ignore these heretics' judgments and criticisms about their enjoyment of the eating and drinking aspects of God's festivals.

Rather than showing disregard for the days God established as holy, Paul's comments in this passage confirm that the Colossian Christians—who were primarily gentiles (Colossians 2:13)—were observing the weekly Sabbath and Holy Days of God more than 30 years after Jesus Christ's death and resurrection.

Had they not been observing these days, the heretics would have had no basis for their objections to the eating and drinking aspects—the feasting portion—of the Sabbath and the Holy Days.


Aside from this misconception, the Sabbath was meant for more than just the Jews or Israel. It was quoted earlier the scripture stating that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. It said "man" not "Jew". Even from the opening of Genesis we see how important God thought of the 7th day. He sanctified it and made it holy. We also find in Genesis that Abraham followed God's Laws, Commandments, and Statutes. If this is the case, how was the 4th of God's great commandments followed by a non-Jew? Jews and Israel didn't exist in the time of Abraham. Jesus also called Himself "Lord of the Sabbath" which means "master" of the Sabbath.


God's laws are to be kept by the words of Jesus Himself:

Mattew 5:

"
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Until all is fulfilled, we are to all follow God's commandments. This includes commandment number 4. All christians I know believe in the "9 commandments" but disreguard the longest of all commandments, and the first one to be visibly established by God in Genesis. It is a time of worship and free of labor and everyday work. As you said, we should worship and recognize God every day. This doesn't take away from what the Sabbath truely is. Part of the commandment is to "Labor for 6 days". He actually tells us to work for 6 days out of the week and then rest the 7th day. Division in the sabbath came at the catholic councils when they wanted to have division between them and the jews. Also, they wanted to attract more pagans into catholicism by worshipping on the day of the sun, the day of pagan worship. The Sabbath was said to be made to make distinction between God's people and everyone else. One of the same reasons the "clean and unclean" foods law was introduced to the Israelites. The food aspect fits in with colossians 2 as well. In a pagan town like Colosse, there would be many foods deemed unclean in the bible like pork or shellfish. As the gentile and jewish christians were being ridiculed in Colosse, one reason would have been because they didn't partake in the unclean meats found in the markets.

Okay, I'll stop for now. Just though I'd bring in my two cents on this side discussion and come to the aid of JMDewey. I am not SDA either. I am a sabbath keeper though.

[edit on 10/28/2009 by Locoman8]

reply to post by NOTurTypical

We need to be spending our energy trying to reach the lost instead of fighting over something that was answered perfectly in Colossians 2:16.

I can't do that, based on this verse. Anyway, your little idea about getting along is something I probably agreed to before, but it is not something I am especially happy about. I think people should be free to think what they want, but I feel it is something people need to be informed about. Instead of going around condemning people, wholesale, information should be presented. The law of God is something I would of course take seriously. It really isn't even so much that I think people have to necessarily do something in particular, but it is about sovereignty, and us recognizing it as such, meaning, God has the right to make demands. If it happens to be about what day should be a sabbath, then let's give it to him. The only thing is, that He is specific, about which day it is. That's just a fact.
On this verse you quote, I am having a serious problem with it. It's to do with the word here translated as sabbath. It is used in this particular form of the word, to mean a day, outside of anything spiritual, just a day. If that is not bad enough, it seems that the word is used to designate days of the week. I found out that some of the verses that mention the first day of the week do not really say that. It uses this same Greek word from your verse and adds a one before it in the sentence, so you get a meaning of first with sabbath. So, I have to be very suspicious about the use of this word in your verse. Notice how it is thrown in with new moons? It makes it look like what Paul is saying is more like, "do not concern yourself with months and weeks and days". I do not see any indication that the word is being used to mean anything other than just weeks.




[edit on 28-10-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by Locoman8


Do you both kill people who do not keep the Sabbath as commanded by God?

Do you also go out of your house on the Sabbath? The Sabbath was commanded a day or REST, it was never commanded a day of gathering for worship:

""Bear in mind that the Lord has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out. So the people rested on the seventh day." Exodus 16:29-30

If either of you refuse to kill people who do not keep the Sabbath, or if you leave your homes instead of rest within them then you are NOT "keeping the Sabbath" as commanded by scripture, in fact you are VIOLATING the Sabbath as commanded by scripture.

You either can say "we keep the Sabbath commanded by God", or you can say"we do not keep the Sabbath commanded by God", you guys cannot do both at the same time.

Remember "to keep the entire law, yet fail in one part is to fail the ENTIRE law"

You cannot have your cake and eat it too, it's impossible to "keep the Sabbath" if you don't kill everyone who breaks the Sabbath, or if you leave your house to gather with other believers for worship. Failing to kill Sabbath-breakers and leaving ones residence is "breaking the Sabbath".

reply to post by jmdewey60


Read the link I provided above please, and as Christians let's spend our remaining times, thoughts, and energy trying to restore the lost to saving faith in our Lord Jesus Christ...

Every minor disagreement can and will be settled once and for all by the Lord in due time.

Every second we spend arguing over non-essential doctrines is time lost to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with someone who is lost.

No one from Adam till Moses kept the sabbath, the ENTIRE Mosaic Law gas only given to man to condemn him, to convict him of sin so that he would be drawn to seek a redeemer. With the law every man was condemned, and NONE were justified before God except for Christ.

If a man keeps every single letter of the law, yet fails just one, just once in his life, it's the exact same as failing every letter of the law one's entire life. By the Mosaic Law every man was condemned before God. That was God's plan when He gave the Law to Moses, to condemn man, not to justify man.




[edit on 28-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]