Replies

The Sabbath was unique to "cultic" Israel. It has no bearing on the New Testament Christian. I will follow the teaching of Paul which he taught through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Colossians 2:16,17 - "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

A Sabbath discussion bump

The Sabbath was unique to "cultic" Israel. It has no bearing on the New Testament Christian. I will follow the teaching of Paul which he taught through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Colossians 2:16,17 - "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

Thanks for your input.

In Colossians, Paul wasn't referring to doing away with the 7th day sabbath...he was adressing criticism for HOW they were observing them, much the same was as Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for HOW he kept the sabbath. Here is an excerpt from an article titled Did the Apostle Paul Abolish the Sabbath?:

Colossians 2:16, 17: The main thrust of this passage is "let no man judge you." It doesn't say whether the Colossians were keeping the Sabbath festivals or not. For that matter, it also doesn't say whether they were eating and drinking.

The word translated "regarding" is not a preposition. Had the author, Paul, intended the meaning "regarding," he could have used the pronoun peri ("concerning") as in 1 Corinthians 8:1. Instead, he used the noun meros (from merizo, meaning "to cut"), which means "portion or part." So the meaning here is a part or portion or aspect of the observance of the Sabbath, new moon or festival. The problem in Colossae was likely gnosticism. The gnostics did not object to observing Holy Days, only the aspect of feasting (eating and drinking) to celebrate the days.

Notice also that the passage says these days are (not were) a shadow of things to come. Based on the tenses of the verbs, the verse cannot mean that Christ's coming does away with the biblical Holy Days, because He had already come when Paul wrote that the days (still) are a shadow of things coming.

Ironically, this verse, which is often used to argue against the Sabbath and Holy Days, is actually a positive statement in favor of Sabbath and Holy Day observance.

Paul is not saying, as many believe, that once Jesus Christ, the "reality" or "body," came, observance of the Sabbath and biblical Holy Days is no longer necessary. In verse 17, the word is is not in the text. Translators added it in an attempt to clarify the meaning. But the contrast between shadow and body doesn't fit the main context of the passage, which is judging. The body-shadow dichotomy does occur in extrabiblical sources. However, nowhere in the New Testament does the Greek word soma ("body") mean anything other than a literal body or the "body of Christ," the Church, as used in verse 19.

Here is a paraphrased meaning of the passage: Don't let any man judge you for eating and drinking or for any portion of a festival, new moon or Sabbath (which are a shadow of future events in God's plan). Rather, let the Body of Christ be your judge.

You are attempting to reason with those who appear to embrace the heretical doctrines of Herbert W. Armstrong. (Check out The Armstrong Cult and it's many divisions on google).:D

"Reason" will NOT work. :D

The Sabbath was unique to "cultic" Israel. It has no bearing on the New Testament Christian. I will follow the teaching of Paul which he taught through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Colossians 2:16,17 - "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

I am always confused as to why people use this to dismiss the true Sabbath. If we read father down and the Chapter, Paul says

20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why,as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations-- 21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,"22 which all concern things which perish with the using--according to the commandments and doctrines of men?

Is Paul saying the 4th commandment(which is 1 of the 10 written by the finger of God) is a commandment of man. Truely he can not be saying this. or can he??

There are some people out there who do think the 10 commandments have been down away with. Although, I disagree with them, I respect their view more then the ones who say the 10 commandments are still valid but that the 4th commandment has changed from the 7th day to the 1st. Nowhere does the bible says this. It is just tradition which started from antijewish beliefs. A study of early Christian history shows that what the palestians are doing to the jews is nothing compared to how the early Church treated them( and yes viseversa) what have some Catholic and Protestant leaders said about the sabbath