|
|
Post by mrasell on May 4, 2010 0:49:42 GMT -8
Yeshua and the Apostles all kept Shabbat. But a later paganised and corrupt form of Christinity persecuted Jews and adopted the day of the sun. I've written an book entitled "Nehemiah the Sabbath Reformer" which tells of how he rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem under intense opposition. There is a deep spiritual lesson for us at the end of time, when the walls of God's law, will be rebuilt, especially Shabbat, the biggest hole made in the  . Shalom Marc Rasell |
|
|
|
Post by mrasell on May 17, 2010 1:47:37 GMT -8
Yeshua and Shabbat
a) Jesus attended the synagogue on the Sabbath (Mark 1:21; 6:2; Luke
4:31; 13:10) and the Gospel of Luke says it says it was His custom to do so (Luke 4:16). Jesus did not encourage people to break the Sabbath, He kept it Himself.
b) Speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus warned the Christians to flee when they saw the city surrounded (Luke 21:20-21). He counselled them to pray that their flight would not be on the Sabbath or in winter (Matt. 24:15-20), showing that the Sabbath was to be revered after His death. According to tradition, the Romans withdrew for a time, giving the Christians a chance to escape to Pella. When the Romans returned, a long siege ensued resulting in the destruction of the city in AD 70 and the massacre of many of the inhabitants.
c) Two of the earliest recorded healings on the Sabbath did not appear to be controversial:
The healing of the demoniac in the synagogue (Mark 1:21-28; Luke 4:31-37).
The healing of Peter's mother in law (Matt 8:14-17; Mark 1:29-34; Luke
4:31-40).
d) The plucking of grain of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:1-8):
As the disciples were passing through a field on the Sabbath, they picked a few ears of corn to satisfy their hunger. According to the oral tradition later codified in the Mishnah and Talmud this was classed as Sabbath breaking. Jesus saw nothing wrong with what the disciples had done because it did not violate God’s law but only the man made rules of the rabbis which Jesus said conflicted with God’s laws (Matthew 15:3-6; Mark 7:9-13).
e) Jesus’ statements: “the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day” (Matt. 12:8) and “the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27) affirm that the Sabbath is a blessing. The context of these statements revolves around the correct way to observe the Sabbath, not a call for the abolition of the Sabbath. The man made rules placed burdens on the Sabbath which God had not called the people to bear. God created light, water and the atmosphere to be blessings which we cannot do without; the Sabbath was one of those gifts given during Creation which is essential for mankind.
f) The controversial Sabbath healings:
One of the best examples of a controversial Sabbath healing is the healing of the man with a withered hand (Matt 12:9-14; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11). According to the oral tradition later codified in the Mishnah, a sick person could only be treated on the Sabbath if the condition was life threatening. Therefore, the Scribes and Pharisees viewed Jesus’ healings as unlawful and were looking for a pretext to accuse Him (Matt 12:10; Luke 6:7). Jesus responded by asking if they would pull an animal out of a pit on the Sabbath? (Matt 12:11-12), and “Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life or to kill?” (Mark 3:4). The rabbinical rules allowed helping an animal out of a pit but not healing a sick person. Jesus was saying, should we show less compassion to a human than an animal. Following the healing of the man with the withered hand, they plotted to destroy Him. Another example was a woman healed on the Sabbath from a crippling back condition. They would loose an animal on the Sabbath to drink water but thought it a sin to loose a women on the Sabbath from her ailment (Luke 13:10-15).
Jesus came to reform the Sabbath, not to abolish it. On the Sermon on the Mount He said plainly that He came not to destroy but to fulfil the law (Matthew 5:17-19). The word used for “fulfil” (pleroo) can be used either to mean abolish or to fill something up:
1. To fill something up – e.g. the Apostles with the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:52), Jesus with wisdom in childhood (Luke 2:40). Its common use outside of NT Greek would be to fill something, e.g. a bottle with water.
2. To complete something – e.g. the time is fulfilled (Mark 1:15), to fulfil what the prophets had spoken (Acts 3:18), to complete a task (Col 4:17), to finish speaking (Luke 7:1).
It is clearly being used with the first meaning; a dynamic translation of Matthew 5:17 based on the Greek might be: “do not suppose that I came to demolish the law and the prophets; I came not to demolish but to fill it up”. To interpret Matthew 5:17 as an abolition of the law is to make the sentence contradict itself.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught that it is not only a sin to murder but even being angry is a sin (Matt. 5:21-22); there is no suggestion that we are somehow free to commit murder. Jesus emphasised the perpetuity of the law by stating that those who teach others to break the least of these commandments will be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:19), meaning the least worthy to inherit eternal life. He could not have made a stronger statement regarding the importance of the moral law. To think that one can break the law and get away with it is the root of the original deception, when Satan told Eve she would not die if she ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17; 3:2-4).
|
|
|
|
Post by mrasell on May 17, 2010 1:53:40 GMT -8
A note about the Colossian Heresy:
Paul was not referring the the weekly Sabbath, because he omits the definite article.
The term "shadow" cannot be applied to the weekly Sabbath which was part of Creation, this term is only applied to the parts of the law dealing with animal sacrifices, or ceremonial Sabbaths which involved sacrifices.
The context of the Colossian heresy involved angelology, asceticism, and legalism. Trying to be saved through angel mediators, keeping ritual days, and denying the body, but salvation is only found in Yeshua.
None of this nullifies the weekly Sabbath or any of the 10 Words.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Ben Yosef on May 17, 2010 13:10:48 GMT -8
b) Speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus warned the Christians to flee when they saw the city surrounded (Luke 21:20-21). I would just like to point out that there was no group called "Christians" at this point in history. That group wasn't formed until much later. It's also worthy to note that Yeshua's emissaries [Apostles] were never called Christians, but were known as the Netzarim. These are two very distinct groups. Christianity has no Apostolic succession as they claim. They were a different group entirely, from the Netzarim who were Yeshua's talmidim. Shalom |
|
|
|
Post by ashedinahbatsaul on May 17, 2010 19:16:29 GMT -8
b) Speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus warned the Christians to flee when they saw the city surrounded (Luke 21:20-21). I would just like to point out that there was no group called "Christians" at this point in history. That group wasn't formed until much later. It's also worthy to note that Yeshua's emissaries [Apostles] were never called Christians, but were known as the Netzarim. These are two very distinct groups. Christianity has no Apostolic succession as they claim. They were a different group entirely, from the Netzarim who were Yeshua's talmidim. Shalom Wasn't Christianity a thing that Constantine made? I am a believer in YeShua. I love g-d, and I thank G-d for the holy Spirit. |
|
|
|
Post by mrasell on May 20, 2010 2:06:01 GMT -8
b) Speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus warned the Christians to flee when they saw the city surrounded (Luke 21:20-21). I would just like to point out that there was no group called "Christians" at this point in history. That group wasn't formed until much later. It's also worthy to note that Yeshua's emissaries [Apostles] were never called Christians, but were known as the Netzarim. These are two very distinct groups. Christianity has no Apostolic succession as they claim. They were a different group entirely, from the Netzarim who were Yeshua's talmidim. Shalom I agree that the church that formed later in church history was not representative of the original faith, because it became corrupted with pagan ideas and anti-semitism. However the name "Christian" was used from early times: "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Acts 11:26 |
|
|
|
Post by lawrenceofisrael on May 20, 2010 8:11:10 GMT -8
Actually the orthodox church claims to be the true successor of the apostles. It´s true that they have more truth in it then the catholics probably do but still they worship icons and claim that mount athos is the garden of mirjam (mary) which the monks have in there hands and no women are allowed to enter it etc. etc. etc.
The term christian was actually used by the enemies of the believers and the disbelievers in general to describe the believers but none of them would ever call himself a christian because not all of them spoke greek or latin.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrasell on May 26, 2010 5:58:40 GMT -8
The prophet Daniel foresaw the rise of the Catholic Church, and that it would persecute the saints. In Daniel 7, the little horn emerges following pagan Rome (the terrible beast). It seeks to change times and laws (Shabbat). This form of Christianity is also called the beast in Revelation, and the protestant reformers were united in identifying the papacy as the little horn, and many said it was the antichrist. More details about this are in my book "exploring the heavenly sanctuary" www.adventistenterprises.co.uk |
|
|
|
Post by lawrenceofisrael on May 26, 2010 23:49:31 GMT -8
Well it´s true that they´ve done good in stopping the worship of icons and indulgence but my fellow countryman martin luther nearly took out the letter of yakov ("james") from the scripture because it says that faith without works is dead and luther used to believe that if you only have faith that makes you a good person and saves you from the judgement.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrasell on May 27, 2010 4:54:16 GMT -8
Well it´s true that they´ve done good in stopping the worship of icons and indulgence but my fellow countryman martin luther nearly took out the letter of yakov ("james") from the scripture because it says that faith without works is dead and luther used to believe that if you only have faith that makes you a good person and saves you from the judgement. Luther himself stated that it was not his purpose to say that the 10 commandments were abolished. Although he was not a Sabbatarian, although that truth was to be restored at a later date. He took the church forward as far as it was able to go. There are two sides, legalism and antinomianism, neither are right. We are saved by grace, which produces good works, which prove our faith is genuine. This is where James comes in, for those who perhaps had twisted Paul's writings. Even Peter speaks of those who did that. Paul made it clear that faith does not abolished the law (Romans 3:31) and that the law is holy just and good (Romans 7:12). He said that we should not sin so grace can abound. and said those who live unrighteously will not inherit the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9-10). The problem we have today is that people are twisting Paul's writings until they are made to contradict what Jesus said, such as Matthew 5:17-19, that the law is not abolished. Or that we are judged by our works. However even Paul said we are judged by works in 2 Cor. 5:9-10. Its all about balance, and not going too far in either direction. Paul does distinguish between moral and ritual law in 1 Cor. 7:19. He indicates that ceremonial Sabbaths are not required (Col. 2:16-17), but never seeks to overturn the 10 Commandments or the weekly Sabbath. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrenceofisrael on May 27, 2010 11:04:24 GMT -8
He indicates that ceremonial Sabbaths are not required (Col. 2:16-17), but never seeks to overturn the 10 Commandments or the weekly Sabbath. i have to disagree. In verse 16 he talks about kosher food so it is about man made laws. Yes we are not supposed or not allowed to keep man made traditions ( im not talking about laws of our individual countries) but every good dead in the faith that seeks to please the creator is to be done for him and he is not pleased by unscriptural inventions. So we have to keep every single letter from the bible as far as we can. To Luther: As i said he made great improvements yet at the same time had antisemite tendencies and was responsible for the cold-blooded murder of hundreds of innocent farmers. What im trying to say is that having parts of your belief system correct doesnt make you an authentic believer. The orthodox christians have correct things in their beliefs as well yet are amongst the worst of the disbeliever. And i hereby clearly state my belief that everybody who follows the doctrine of the churches, whether they are from the three great denominations or pentecostal or whatever is a disbeliever and violator of the eternal commandments of the almighty ( this does not include those who call themselves christians but are on the right track,neither those who take out of the church which is good and reject what is wrong). Thus he lost his or never reached his salvation (may the almighty guide us and them to the truth). This is what i firmly belief and the almighty will jugde me on the ressurection day and ask me about it. may peace and blessings be upon all of us. |
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on May 27, 2010 13:56:48 GMT -8
There are two sides, legalism and antinomianism, neither are right. We are saved by grace, which produces good works, which prove our faith is genuine. Doesn’t antinomianism mean that faith alone is necessary to salvation. If so, then it is not the other side of the coin from legalism. Anarchy is. Antinomianism is only a statement of what must occur for salvation as seen in the following scripture: Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Antinomianism is not a statement of how you live your life once you are saved. The broader context of what we should do is seen in this scripture: Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. It is anarchy that we need to remove from christianity not antinomianism. |
|
|
|
Post by mrasell on May 28, 2010 1:33:21 GMT -8
antinomianism means there is no law, but if there is no law there is no sin according to Paul. And therefore there would be no need for a saviour.
Salvation implies that we recognise we have broken the law and need a saviour, take away the law and you also take away the saviour.
this is why above the ark of the covenant there was a mercy seat.
About Col. 2:16, I can see no merit in animal sacrifices, now that we have Christ who has superior blood to bulls and goats, and ministers in a superior temple, as a priest of the order of mechizedek. There is nothing wrong with observing special days, but these cannot earn us salvation. That was Paul's concern, these days were not required to be saved.
The weekly Sabbath is different, it began at Creation as part of the Creation. Man needs the Sabbath otherwise he becomes self centered, focused on his own works. So God made the seventh day holy Gen. 2:2-3.
|
|
|
|
Post by lawrenceofisrael on May 28, 2010 1:41:57 GMT -8
Yes moshiach is our offering that saves us from our sins. This by the way has nothing to do with other sacrifices that do not aim on purifiying the believer. The holy days of the almighty are obligatory eternally. If you do not keep them you sin, if you sin you transgress the law and leave the mercy you received and if you do that you´ll probably get punished.
what you said about shabbat. it´s not really only about one becoming self centered but man just needs it physically. Otherwise you´ll just get exhausted.
shalom
|
|
|
|
Post by mrasell on May 28, 2010 4:31:57 GMT -8
I've written something about the context of Col. 2:16 in my book:
One of the first elements points to a form of angelology. The Colossian heresy appears to have involved calling on angels as mediators between man and God (Col. 2:18). This is why Paul speaks of Jesus being over all principalities and powers (Col. 2:15), this kind of belief or angelology is known from Jewish writings of that era. Another element was strict adherence to certain diets and ascetic practices. In Colossians 2:16 the term “meat” is applied to all food, it is not confined specifically to unclean or clean foods; this appears to be an ascetic prohibition (Col. 2:21). The idea being if you punish your body enough you will get nearer to God. This stems from the Greek philosophy that material things are evil, so if you are very strict (Col. 2:23) and don’t eat certain foods and observed certain rituals and days you would become more holy and by calling on angel mediators in the spirit realm, they could help you in your spiritual journey. It sounds very similar to the modern New Age philosophy, but resulted in a religion that denied Christ as our personal Saviour. It was essentially an early form of Gnosticism, which focused more on knowledge but lacked true morality and in effect was salvation by works rather than in Christ. Given the context of this heresy, it seems unlikely that Paul was calling for the abolition of the weekly Sabbath. He was speaking against angelology, asceticism, and legalistic ritual practices. The solution was in Christ our Saviour, we don’t need angels, ascetic practices or to observe ritual days in order to be saved. What we should do however is to live a moral life (Col. Ch. 3) something the Gnostics often failed to do. We should put our faith not in strict diets, animal sacrifices or angels but in Christ.
It is clear that Paul endorsed the moral law and godly living (Romans 7:12; Titus 2:12) but at the same time did not want believers trying to their earn salvation by keeping days which involved animal sacrifices which were a shadow of things to come. There is nothing in the Epistle to the Colossians to countenance the abolition of the weekly Sabbath.
|
|
.
