Clean and unclean foods

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
All I see are some passages that never indicate God stating the Sabbath is now nothing of significance. If God instituted it (as a memorial to creation) then God is the only one that can un-institute it. Even as a memorial to freeing His people from bondage, it still stands that it is He that frees us from bondage to the law that condemns us apart from His grace.

Christ did good on the Sabbath. Since we are Christians, we should do as he did...do good on the Sabbath. Never did he belittle the day, but clarified it's keeping.

I don't think you've misused your mod-ship.

Don't have time atm to go into more. I will probably on Monday.
.
.

[Canuckster1127]

.
.
All I see are some passages that never indicate God stating the Sabbath is now nothing of significance. If God instituted it (as a memorial to creation) then God is the only one that can un-institute it. Even as a memorial to freeing His people from bondage, it still stands that it is He that frees us from bondage to the law that condemns us apart from His grace.

Christ did good on the Sabbath. Since we are Christians, we should do as he did...do good on the Sabbath. Never did he belittle the day, but clarified it's keeping.

I don't think you've misused your mod-ship.

Don't have time atm to go into more. I will probably on Monday.
.
.

1. God appears in the original giving to have made its significance to Israel and related primarily to the Exodus with the appeal to creation as an analogy not a foundation or memorial to it. The significance in that regard is to a specific people in a specific time, not the Church today.

2. If you want to argue the value of a Sabbath in terms of a regular day of rest and worship, I agree with you, but that value is not lessened by worshipping on Sunday, (or any other day for that matter.) I see that as on par with arguing there are benefits to following dietary law as guidelines today in terms of health.

3. Christ did not clarify its keeping. He diminished it by violating the ceremonial law in order to obey a higher law and fulfill the purpose He came for. It's significant that of all the 10 commandments there is no specific place in the NT where it is reinstated although the remaining 9 were.

[BavarianWheels]

1. God appears in the original giving to have made its significance to Israel and related primarily to the Exodus with the appeal to creation as an analogy not a foundation or memorial to it. The significance in that regard is to a specific people in a specific time, not the Church today.

Interesting take…wrong on a few accounts.

1. The original foundation is that of creation having written it as such in stone. Those tablets were carried, at God's request/demand, in the ark of the covenant and the people knew how they originally read.
2. If God told them later to obey these because he brought them out of bondage, this hardly removes it's original purpose He wrote. Or do you think God made a mistake in His reasoning for the 10 Commandments? Does God even make mistakes? Ya…I don't think so either.
3. If it is only for Israel, then why does Galatians clearly state that “those who believe are children of Abraham…” If all who believe are children of Abraham…what does that make us today? It goes on to say that the gospel was announced in ADVANCE…meaning that the means to salvation hasn't changed. It's always been through faith (then in a promise now in the promise fulfilled)

If you would, read Galatians 2 and 3 you'll notice that Paul never says observing the law is wrong, but rather by observing the law no one will be justified (Gal. 2:16) Paul never depreciates the law (as you state Christ “diminished” it). Paul clearly maintained that God's law is “holy, righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12) But you say Christ “diminished” His own law. Interesting…and isn't it you that has in your signature here on this forum, “Be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are farfetched…” ? What is totally farfetched is the thinking that God would violate His own law. I suggest you rethink your assumption here. Jesus (God) didn't violate His own law, but clarified it. In fact, Jesus challenged those accusing Him of sin to prove Him guilty. (John 8:46) It was the legalistic Jews that assumed (as you) He violated the law/sinned. Jesus later says he himself even keeps God's word. As such, Paul's argument of “by observing the law” is against legalistic use of the OT law that made the observance of the law the basis for salvation. (Gal. 2:15,16) Clearly he says righteousness is not gained through the law. I agree. So which part of that law does Paul hold up as “holy, righteous and good”? 9 of 10? Interesting God would make 10 laws and one would be less than “holy, righteous and good”.

Further, the thinking that we've been released from keeping the law is also farfetched when Paul clearly states we were redeemed from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13) by becoming a curse for us. The curse being death as the law points at our sin. Just prior to that Paul states, “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse.” (Gal. 3:10) further establishing it is legalism, or salvation through law as being under the curse.

As I alluded to above, even if God's meaning behind the law (or the Sabbath) was because of Him redeeming Israel from bondage in Egypt, Paul reiterates this same thinking here in Galatians as a bondage to sin under law. Bondage as a slave to sin and not freed to that bondage having died in Christ. So how does one die to the law as Paul did and yet hold that law as “holy, righteous and good”? Paul doesn't just say, “9 of the 10 are holy, righteous and good…the other one is useless.” If fact all are “holy, righteous and good” as they are all God's word.

2. If you want to argue the value of a Sabbath in terms of a regular day of rest and worship, I agree with you, but that value is not lessened by worshipping on Sunday, (or any other day for that matter.) I see that as on par with arguing there are benefits to following dietary law as guidelines today in terms of health.

I don't argue the Sabbath as a “regular” day of rest and worship…I argue that the Sabbath is God's chosen day of rest and worship specifically by His own mouth and only written word. Worshiping on Sunday is not a sin unless you've replaced God's day with your own day…be it Sunday or any day other than the Sabbath. It is a tradition of man handed down to “celebrate the resurrection” which neither Jesus nor any disciple states to do so. I think IF Jesus had wanted to establish Sunday as His new “Sabbath” He would've said so. Jesus' silence in this regard speaks volumes.

3. Christ did not clarify its keeping. He diminished it by violating the ceremonial law in order to obey a higher law and fulfil the purpose He came for. It's significant that of all the 10 commandments there is no specific place in the NT where it is reinstated although the remaining 9 were.

Christ NEVER violated His own laws. Again…the Jews THOUGHT He was violating it, but that was through their legalistic thinking of the law being the means to salvation. To even think God would violate His own law is to deny He is God…God being infallible. To say there is a “higher” law than God's law is silly. Christ fulfilled a higher purpose of the law…being exactly what humanity from Adam couldn't fulfil…perfect keeping of the law. Christ died having never violated ANY of God's law. If He had, He would've died for nothing as the law would've cursed Him also.

It is somewhat true to say Jesus didn't come out and speak of the Sabbath in words such as, “I say the Sabbath is still binding.” However He did clarify it's keeping. He mentioned, “…it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” (Matt. 12:12) Jesus healed physically and spiritually…and ironically the NT records all this activity on Sabbaths. Ask yourself why? Why didn't the NT writers include Jesus deeds during the week? Not only did most of Jesus' ministry get recorded as being on the Sabbath, or as was His custom…but Jesus also died on preparation day (Friday) and just before the Sabbath. Christ, in His act of redemption, also rested on the Sabbath in death and was raised in the early morning hours of Sunday…well that's when the ladies came to the tomb…while it was still dark. (John 19:31-42 and John 20:1) Jesus spoke to Mary…and He told her, “Mary…since I've risen on this first day of the week, go and tell my brothers that this first day of the week is to be kept as my new holy day…” Not even close. In fact Jesus makes no mention of the days significance or of it being a new holy day. Did He forget? Could He have been a bit dazed still from just rising from the dead and forgot to mention the all important new holy day? What an opportunity God missed to make known his new holy day!! In fact He tells her, “Do not hold me for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead and tell the boys that I'm returning to my Father, your God.” (John 20:17) But wait…at death don't we go to heaven? Hmm…how did Jesus not go to heaven? Where was He? I suppose that's another subject.

I suppose the next argument here is that Christ appears to the disciples as they were gathered together on Sunday evening. Not likely.

1. To them, Sunday evening was Monday.
2. The NT doesn't mention this as being a worship gathering, but because they were gathered for fear and behind locked doors in fear of the Jews (John 20:19) they didn't even realize Christ would rise again…much less be gathering in celebration of His resurrection.
3. Jesus appears to two of them while they were walking in the country. (Mark 16:12) (Luke 24:13-27)
4. Jesus appears to the eleven while they were eating (Mark 16:14) and rebuked them for their lack of faith…I don't think that was a gathering of worship.
5. Jesus, while speaking to the two walking to Emmaus from Jerusalem (Luke 24:13) they urge Jesus (they don't know He was Jesus- Luke 24:18) to stay as (Sunday) evening was near. (Luke 24:28,29) Jesus broke bread with them. Jesus broke bread on Sunday evening…that being early Monday. If breaking bread is tantamount to a worship service and thus seen as a sign of a new holy day…and Monday is the day you should be worshipping…not to mention everyday is a holy day since every day bread is broken to eat .
6. Jesus broke bread and disappeared (Luke 24:30,31) Hardly a service…and who among you break bread every Sunday at church???

Another argument is based on Acts 20:7-12 where they're gathered together on the first day of the week to break bread. Paul speaks to the people (seemingly a sermon…hmm could be a good argument for keeping Sunday instead of Sabbath.) but then it states that Paul intended to leave the next day (Acts 20:7) If breaking bread (assumed as always being the ceremony of communion according to the Sunday proponents) made a worship day, wouldn't Jesus breaking bread with the two in Luke 24:28,29 also make it a holy day? That was Sunday evening…or in their reckoning…MONDAY! Back in Acts 20, on the first day of the week…it is said that the meeting began on Saturday evening (being early Sunday) and that Paul preached until midnight and planned to travel during the daylight hours of Sunday thus making Sunday as a day of travel in Paul's eyes.. However the argument is that it was daylight hours of Sunday and that Paul preached (and broke bread) until daylight Monday…well then that sets another day as holy…that being MONDAY! Furthermore, Christ held communion on Thursday night…or Friday morning! Now we have God, by the act of breaking bread, seemingly making another day holy…Friday! So, so far we have Thursday/Friday, Sunday, and Monday as days of breaking bread. Hardly substantiates the keeping of the new Sunday holy day over the God breathed Sabbath holiness. You have at least two other days to contend with. At least we know for sure the correct worship day is not Tuesday or Wednesday!

So not only did Jesus clarify the keeping of the Sabbath in His life and ministry here on earth, doing good, healing, preaching…but also in death. He established it in His living. As Christians...our lives should emulate Christ's...not as slaves, but as sons and daughters serving now the One we call Father.

This thread is not a Sabbath vs. Sunday debate, but it seems to go there along with the dietary laws and their significance. They are only significant if your intention is to follow God's words and find that He doesn't make laws for no reason, but rather there is good council in following them. They are kept in a different light as the Sabbath...specifically the Sabbath being part of God's 10 Commandments written by His own hand, in stone, and given to His people...that by belief we, as Abraham, receive the gift through faith and are then children of Abraham...Israel. (Gal 3:6-9)

So the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath...

Jesus' words. No where does he mention that the Sabbath was for Jews only.
.
.

[Canuckster1127]

1. The original foundation is that of creation having written it as such in stone. Those tablets were carried, at God's request/demand, in the ark of the covenant and the people knew how they originally read.

Why? Because you say so? This is specious reasoning and ignores that you were presented with direct passages from Scripture that any can read above. The rationale for the Sabbath was presented by God to the Israelites as a remembrance of the exodus. It was not presented to all mankind as a remembrance of the creation. If you believe otherwise, present your scripture making your point and be sure to point where the audience of any universal claims were not Isrealites. It's not enough for you to project your convictions in this regard upon the original audience. You need to demonstrate your point with more than simply repeating your already addressed claim with some authority other than yourself.

2. If God told them later to obey these because he brought them out of bondage, this hardly removes it's original purpose He wrote. Or do you think God made a mistake in His reasoning for the 10 Commandments? Does God even make mistakes? Ya…I don't think so either.

This is an appeal to inference that ignores what you were shown earlier directly from the Scripture not as an additional reason but the foundational reason.

3. If it is only for Israel, then why does Galatians clearly state that “those who believe are children of Abraham…” If all who believe are children of Abraham…what does that make us today? It goes on to say that the gospel was announced in ADVANCE…meaning that the means to salvation hasn't changed. It's always been through faith (then in a promise now in the promise fulfilled)

This demonstrates what you've been dancing around prior to this. You appear tosee the church as an extension of Israel and therefore subject to the laws of the Old Testament. Unfortunately, when you take this view you don't have the luxury of picking and choosing which laws you want to keep and which one's you don't. Your appeal to the 10 commandments as all 10 being moral laws was disproven by the demonstration that 9 of the 10 are asserted and reinstated but the Sabbath commandment is not. Quite the opposite in fact. Christ didn't command it. Christ didn't keep it and was in fact accused of breaking it and you were shown Scripture where that claim was shown to in fact be true. Further, the early church had the opportunity to reassert it at the Council of Jerusalem and didn't. You cannot make a direct claim to the NT for following it other than general inference that tortures the context and then selectively picks and chooses what you'll follow and what you won't.

isn't it you that has in your signature here on this forum, “Be on guard against giving interpretations of Scripture that are farfetched…” ? What is totally farfetched is the thinking that God would violate His own law.

Attack the messenger if that's the best you can do. You have yet to explain how the Jews who accused Jesus of Breaking the Sabbath by healing and ording the man to carry his mat were wrong.

As I alluded to above, even if God's meaning behind the law (or the Sabbath) was because of Him redeeming Israel from bondage in Egypt, Paul reiterates this same thinking here in Galatians as a bondage to sin under law. Bondage as a slave to sin and not freed to that bondage having died in Christ. So how does one die to the law as Paul did and yet hold that law as “holy, righteous and good”? Paul doesn't just say, “9 of the 10 are holy, righteous and good…the other one is useless.” If fact all are “holy, righteous and good” as they are all God's word.

Paul is referring the OT Law in General in what it's purpose was and how it was fulfilled in Christ. If you make an appeal on that basis you don't have the luxury of taking it out of context to apply to only the 10 commandments, you then have to strain at the gnat and swallow the camel of all the law.

Christ NEVER violated His own laws. Again…the Jews THOUGHT He was violating it, but that was through their legalistic thinking of the law being the means to salvation.

It's remarkable how you know what the Jews of the Old Testament were thinking and what these Jews in the New Testament were thinking. The passage says nothing about salvation in that regard. It speaks simple to the breaking of the sabbath by doing work on it. You've been given 2 passages from the OT that address the issue directly that show that those Jews assertions were correct on the basis of the Old Testament Law both from Exodus and the Prophets and you have not addressed them.

Now, if you have anything new to say, I will exercise patience and grant you that courtesy. Please have the courtesy to address the issues unless all you have is to attack me personally as you appear to be more frustrated that I've raised issues directly tied to scripture and then when your response is not able to address that directly you aim for me personally. I try not to allow that to take place when I see it directed to others, and I'm not obligated to tolerate when it is directed to me either, although I'll likely tolerate it longer.

I and others have watched for weeks as others have started several threads designed to argue for legalistic issues of this nature and we've granted a great deal of leeway despite some of these issues clearly coming from groups (I'm not singling out Adventism in this group and I believe by and large Adventism, while legalistic stays on the right side of salvation in this regard) and frankly it is not the purpose or emphasis of this board and as evidenced already in this thread, it leads to personal attacks, self-righteousness based on human effort and I think also tends to drive others away who are seekers looking to address other issues.

I respect that you think differently. There's been no shortage of opportunity to convince others as to either position. I don't see any productive value to continuing this thread.

I give you the last word. Use it as you will and this thread will then be closed.

Regards,

Bart

[BavarianWheels]

I give you the last word. Use it as you will and this thread will then be closed.

You (or anyone else) have yet to produce one word from God that the Sabbath is removed from His law and will. You've been given multiple examples of how Christ lived the example...where He neglected opportunity after opportunity to establish a new holy day. You've been shown the texts that alluded to the first day of the week and how weak those texts are for establishing a new day of worship. You know yourself God doesn't change but insist God has changed. It is you that accuses Jesus of (violating) breaking His own laws when most of Christendom agrees He didn't, but rather clarified His intentions within those laws. You have been shown that Exodus 20:8-11 directly establishes God as Creator and rested on the seventh day...THEREFORE... As Creator...it doesn't say He created only the Jew...but all mankind. Jesus further utters that "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath" yet you,

It was not presented to all mankind as a remembrance of the creation. If you believe otherwise, present your scripture making your point and be sure to point where the audience of any universal claims were not Isrealites.

But Christ's words are not enough for you. Not even that of the Creator of "Therefore..."

You have been shown that by calling me inconsistent it is you that is inconsistent when you promote the keeping of ANY of the 10 when by your own words we are no longer under law (by which you assume to mean we're not to keep God's law) and then from the other side of your mouth promote the keeping of only 9. You have been shown that the two laws Christ puts forth as the most important of the Law are Love God and love you neighbor...and neglect the next text of Mark 12:33 where Jesus acknowledges a wise answer (Mark 12:34) in that they are more important than "all burnt offerings and sacrifices" (shows which were least important...none of which were in the 10) which flys in the face of your assumption in that I must, holding to one, must hold all the 10 PLUS the ceremonial. You ignore Christ acknowleging the poor widow (Mark 12:42-44) and didn't tell His disciples that she was doing wrong by coming and putting offerings in the temple treasury, but told His disciples it was what she gave...and that it was from the heart and all she had which was commendable. Jesus didn't tell the woman to stop...but showed it was her love for God, giving all she had, that was good. It is you that ignores Christ in His words of warning that when the end comes...that your flight not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. (Matt. 24:20) Of course Christ, being God, forgot the Sabbath, in the last days, would be abolished...didn't He? Oh...but Matthew was writing to the Jews only...how ironic since our Savior is a Jew Himself...not to mention Paul saying that anyone who believes is a child of Abraham. (Gal. 3:7)

Now instead of picking up your Bible and showing me (and other readers) where God changed the day. You say, "why because you say so?"...and I give you God's words and you say I'm making the claim of myself? LOL. Those are God's words He wrote on those tablets of stone...not me. Not only do you accuse me of giving my own words, but you accuse Christ of not keeping the Sabbath.

Christ didn't keep it and was in fact accused of breaking it and you were shown Scripture where that claim was shown to in fact be true.

You showed no such text showing Christ never kept the Sabbath. All you showed is that according the the Jewish rendering of Sabbath-keeping, He was breaking the Sabbath. You ignore Christ being Lord of the Sabbath...and if anyone knows the keeping of it, He does. I also remember a few words of "as was His custom..." I'm not sure but that might have something to do with the Sabbath also.

Attack the messenger if that's the best you can do. You have yet to explain how the Jews who accused Jesus of Breaking the Sabbath by healing and ording the man to carry his mat were wrong.

They weren't wrong in their rendering of keeping the Sabbath. They were wrong in how Christ, being Lord of the Sabbath, meant the Sabbath to be kept and ultimately showed their rendering to be against His. No attack on the messenger...but if you feel attacked, sorry.

Paul is referring the OT Law in General in what it's purpose was and how it was fulfilled in Christ. If you make an appeal on that basis you don't have the luxury of taking it out of context to apply to only the 10 commandments, you then have to strain at the gnat and swallow the camel of all the law.

Nope...only that which is God's only hand writing given to man. You ignore Paul in his words that "the law is holy, righteous and good." (Rom. 7:12) not only that but he also says the law is spiritual. (Rom. 7:14)

It's remarkable how you know what the Jews of the Old Testament were thinking and what these Jews in the New Testament were thinking. The passage says nothing about salvation in that regard. It speaks simple to the breaking of the sabbath by doing work on it.

Not remarkable. It's a fact that the Jews thought Jesus was breaking the Sabbath in "working"...It's remarkable you don't know this.

You've been given 2 passages from the OT that address the issue directly that show that those Jews assertions were correct on the basis of the Old Testament Law both from Exodus and the Prophets and you have not addressed them.

Oh I've mentioned the reasoning. You just ignore conveiniently.

Deut. 5:15 surely mentions being slaves and therefore... I've also mentioned a few times that all humanity has been slaves of the curse of the law and Christ has redeemed us from that slavery also. God "adding" a reason to keep the Sabbath as a reminder of their deliverance from bondage to Egypt is no different than a reminder that Christ work on the cross was deliverance from the bondage of slavery to sin and thus to the curse of the law. Just because God mentions this "additional" reason does not remove His primary or initial reason having stated it in Exodus 20:8-11 especially having written them with His own hand on the tablets of stone.

Exodus 31:16, 17 says, "The Israelites..." and I have stated that Paul has said, "all who believe are Abraham's children" (Acts 13:26, Gal 3:7) then in the same text YOU give, it reestablishes the reason as God being the Creator. I'm not sure what you're trying to say when it is clear both reasons are God's reasons. Christ mentioning the Sabbath being for man...further establishes the Sabbath commandment.

Now, if you have anything new to say, I will exercise patience and grant you that courtesy. Please have the courtesy to address the issues unless all you have is to attack me personally as you appear to be more frustrated that I've raised issues directly tied to scripture and then when your response is not able to address that directly you aim for me personally. I try not to allow that to take place when I see it directed to others, and I'm not obligated to tolerate when it is directed to me either, although I'll likely tolerate it longer.

There's nothing "new"...it's all in a book a few thousand years old. I haven't attacked you, you just have taken offense that I mention your sig quote. I've addressed your issues many times and here again. You've not raised any issue as of yet establishing by word of God (as He established the Sabbath initially) the new day of worship being any other day other than the Sabbath of the Old and New Testament. I've not aimed for you personally, but you hope everyone else reads it as such. If the mention of your sig quote really offends you that much, then here's my second apology...I'm sorry.

I and others have watched for weeks as others have started several threads designed to argue for legalistic issues of this nature and we've granted a great deal of leeway despite some of these issues clearly coming from groups (I'm not singling out Adventism in this group and I believe by and large Adventism, while legalistic stays on the right side of salvation in this regard)

If you think I'm arguing for legalistic keeping of any commandment...you've not read anything I've written. We cannot keep God's law (which ever part we each interpret as binding or not) as the law was never put in place as a means to salvation. It has always been a curse to humanity as it points to our sin. But now, after Christ's death, salvation has been opened with faith in His works. We are saved according to Christ's keeping of the law and are counted as righteous. Our state is sinful, our standing is righteous. It is Christ we believe in and it is His righeousness that is credited to us. We've died to the law (the law cannot condemn us...the curse is dead in Christ. He lives and we live in Him) and so the law is not our supervisor. Just like the child is taught as a child that which is good, but when the child becomes an adult, the parent is no longer the child's supervisor...having been taught to brush their teeth after every meal, morning and night does not as an adult become "abolished". Especially since there is no evidence God has given a new day as holy removing the day established at Creation, Mt. Sinai, the life of Christ, and in His death and has continued up to this day.

Many Adventists are admittedly legalistic, however just because there are a few "bad apples", doesn't mean the whole basket is rotten. Not all Adventists have an elitest mind-set in regard to the Sabbath. If you're not singling out Adventism, why mention it? There are at least a few different denominations that hold to the Sabbath. Adventists can't lay claim to the Sabbath as you take liberty in assuming. We Adventists have only been around a little more than 150 years or so...however, thank you for your vote of confidence in stating you think Adventism is on the right side.

and frankly it is not the purpose or emphasis of this board and as evidenced already in this thread, it leads to personal attacks, self-righteousness based on human effort and I think also tends to drive others away who are seekers looking to address other issues.

I've not personally attacked you. I've backed my beliefs with lots of scripture and at a point which you made, I showed it to be incorrect from the Bible. I alluded to your quote...and now for the third time I will apologize. I'm sorry for calling your quote to question.

If healty debate/discussion is not the purpose of this forum, what, I ask, is the meaning of all those different sections on the forum home page? I would hope this discussion/debate doesn't drive anyone away, but pushes others to dig into the scriptures to find the answer.

I give you the last word. Use it as you will and this thread will then be closed.

What a shame as this clean vs. unclean is a great topic that call much into question. If it is debate that causes the closing of threads...there is much work for you as a moderator to do the next time you log in.
.
.