# What do you guys have to say about this???



## Gabassmaster (Jun 15, 2011)

PLEASE EMBED.  Thanks.
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rHaVUjjH3EI?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rHaVUjjH3EI?version=3&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 15, 2011)

Can you summarize before I waste four minutes of my life on a Youtube video?

Also, I think videos are supposed to be embedded.


----------



## Gabassmaster (Jun 15, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Can you summarize before I waste four minutes of my life on a Youtube video?
> 
> Also, I think videos are supposed to be embedded.



he basically rips on christianity and is pro Homosexual


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 15, 2011)

Gabassmaster said:


> he basically rips on christianity and is pro Homosexual



That's what I expected.


----------



## Gabassmaster (Jun 15, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> That's what I expected.



yeah i know that what he says is just to make it seem christians are crazy even though those are old testiment laws and do not apply now i was just wondering if someone could go into depth and explain this more


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 15, 2011)

Gabassmaster said:


> yeah i know that what he says is just to make it seem christians are crazy even though those are old testiment laws and do not apply now i was just wondering if someone could go into depth and explain this more



First, they're obviously taking a swipe at "Dr. Laura", a woman the left hates.  Second, they don't even let the character respond.  That's the way the left likes it:  one voice (theirs) and no response to it.  That's why they hate talk radio.  It exposes them.

Btw, "The West Wing" was produced by Lawrence O'Donnell, the MSNBC host and admitted socialist.


----------



## TTom (Jun 15, 2011)

Actually he rips on fundamentalist, and Centerpinfan has it right a stand in for Dr Laura, who BTW has used her bully pulpit to spew forth her side many times more hours that the West Wing sent out their side.

Not surprizingly though the point is missed here, the jab is not at christianity, the character is a self described Christian as well and shows it in the ability to reference the scriptures. (of course it's scripted) What is not see in that clip and what makes the criticism of it being "one sided" a fallacy is that the Dr Laura stand in character is seen giving her side openly right before the clip was started up. Selective editing showing intellectual honesty at it's best.

The point of the diatribe is to call fundies to task for cherry picking when it comes to Leviticus. All the rest of the Laws over 600 of them are considered to no longer apply. EXCEPT THIS ONE round red fruit of a law against them twinkie folks.


----------



## pnome (Jun 15, 2011)

TTom said:


> The point of the diatribe is to call fundies to task for cherry picking when it comes to Leviticus. All the rest of the Laws over 600 of them are considered to no longer apply. EXCEPT THIS ONE round red fruit of a law against them twinkie folks.



I have often wondered why this is.  And one day it occurred to me...

It's the law that is easiest for a heterosexual to keep.   Think about it.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 15, 2011)

TTom said:


> The point of the diatribe is to call fundies to task for cherry picking when it comes to Leviticus. All the rest of the Laws over 600 of them are considered to no longer apply. EXCEPT THIS ONE round red fruit of a law against them twinkie folks.





pnome said:


> I have often wondered why this is.  And one day it occurred to me...
> 
> It's the law that is easiest for a heterosexual to keep.   Think about it.





Funny pnome.  Too funny.

But in all reality, the reason that TTom gives above is really a statement that preys on the ignorant.  Sounds good on the surface and makes sense to those that have little to no Biblical knowledge.

Many of the rules within Leviticus were diatery laws.  Those were removed by Paul's vision in Acts.  Also, the NT consistently condemns sexual sins and included within that is homosexuality.  I know...I know....TTom doesn't agree with the translation...but it is there.

Okay...TTom...guess I'm a Fundi


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 15, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Many of the rules within Leviticus were diatery laws.  Those were removed by Paul's vision in Acts.



Could you explain further precisely how "Paul's vision in Acts" was able to remove, change, fullfill, or have any effect whatsoever on God's law, without the shedding of blood?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 15, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Could you explain further precisely how "Paul's vision in Acts" was able to remove, change, fullfill, or have any effect whatsoever on God's law, without the shedding of blood?



Why don't you read it for yourself?

Acts 10 to be precise.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 15, 2011)

Truthfully, I think the real issue was that the egotistical "Prez" was embarrassed that everyone did not stand for him upon entering and he showed his ample backside, much as the "Dr. Laura" character did by remaining seated. The rest is simplistic filler. The Sheen lines show an appalling lack of understanding concerning Scripture and specific application of cherry-picked verses from the OT. Martin is so liberal in his thinking and is so detached from his Catholic roots that he probably thought of the diatribe as brilliant screenwriting.

Two wrongs do not make a right, but three lefts do!


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 16, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Why don't you read it for yourself?
> 
> Acts 10 to be precise.



I read Acts 10 and 11.
I think I understand now.  Because Paul had a dream, the laws of Moses were abolished.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 16, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I read Acts 10 and 11.
> I think I understand now.  Because Paul had a dream, the laws of Moses were abolished.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 16, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


>



I completely understand your frustration.


----------



## The Foreigner (Jun 16, 2011)

If you are looking for a real explanation that should have been given to the president here it is...

Some laws are based on morality issues (adultery, homosexuality, sabbath breaking) and are perpetual and unchangeable. They reflect the mind of God which is immutable as He is. Homosexuality is a sexual sin and thus falls under the immutable 6th commandment.

"Touching a dead pig skin" or eating pork is a ceremonial issue under Jewish law. It was set in place to divide between Israel and the other nations. There is nothing morally wrong with it, as God makes clear to Peter in Acts 10 - God has made it clean.

Moral law (laws stemming from God's morality, if you will) are eternal and unchangeable as they reflect his will. Ceremonial laws are temporary injunctions placed upon the nation of Israel, until the coming of Christ. They are not eternally binding.

Both these kinds of laws were codified by Moses. It is overly simplistic to state that all of Moses laws were abolished with the coming of Christ. For example, murder was a sin and crime prior to the giving of the 10 Commandments.

Hope that helps.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 16, 2011)

Foreigner, great post.  



Ronnie T said:


> I completely understand your frustration.


 
... X3, I have the same headache.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 17, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> "Touching a dead pig skin" or eating pork is a ceremonial issue under Jewish law. It was set in place to divide between Israel and the other nations. There is nothing morally wrong with it, as God makes clear to Peter in Acts 10 - God has made it clean.



There's no indication that any animal was "unclean" in the Garden of Eden.  How did a pig become "unclean" in the first place in order for God to later make it clean?

Genesis 1:31
Then God looked over all he had made, and saw that it was excellent in every way. This all happened the sixth day.

Then God changed his mind and decided that certain animals offended him and could not be used as sacrifices and could not be eaten by his "chosen people".

Then God changed his mind and decided that everything that he made is clean.

Is it not possible that it was man who changed his mind about unclean animals instead of God?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 17, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> There's no indication that any animal was "unclean" in the Garden of Eden.  How did a pig become "unclean" in the first place in order for God to later make it clean?
> 
> Genesis 1:31
> Then God looked over all he had made, and saw that it was excellent in every way. This all happened the sixth day.
> ...



Sin made what was perfect imperfect.

Really HJ, did you not even read For's post?  It is like you work to find issue with what is there, rather than take it for face value.


----------



## gtparts (Jun 17, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Sin made what was perfect imperfect.
> 
> Really HJ, did you not even read For's post?  It is like you work to find issue with what is there, rather than take it for face value.



How shall I say this? Hmmmm?
RJ, HJ is not particularly gifted in biblical comprehension. 
Pretty frustrating to be asked and, upon responding, you get this "blank stare" like a calf looking at a new gate.

X4


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 17, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Sin made what was perfect imperfect.
> 
> Really HJ, did you not even read For's post?  It is like you work to find issue with what is there, rather than take it for face value.



We're talking about a pig here.  Did the pig sin too much?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 17, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> It is like you work to find issue with what is there, rather than take it for face value.




I will admit that this is true.
I spent over twenty years taking it for face value.
I realize that taking it for face value is what a "good Christian" is expected to do.  I was told (repeatedly) to stop questioning things that made absolutely no sense to me.  I was told to believe every word that the preacher says is from the bible.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 17, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> Some laws are based on morality issues (adultery, homosexuality, sabbath breaking) and are perpetual and unchangeable. They reflect the mind of God which is immutable as He is. /QUOTE]
> 
> So, is it your opinion that working on the sabbath is still a sin?


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 17, 2011)

gtparts said:


> How shall I say this? Hmmmm?
> RJ, HJ is not particularly gifted in biblical comprehension.
> Pretty frustrating to be asked and, upon responding, you get this "blank stare" like a calf looking at a new gate.
> 
> X4





I guess I'm like a June bug...drawn to the light.  No matter how many times I'm zapped, I feel I must respond 



HawgJawl said:


> We're talking about a pig here.  Did the pig sin too much?



No...the pig did not sin.  As far as animals, only the serpent was cursed.

My response was that Sin changed the outlook for the world.  It changed how man interacted with each other, it changed how man interacted with God's creation.

Tell me this?  Why was Cain's sacrifice not acceptable to God?  Was it because it was grain?  Does God hate fruits and vegetables?



HawgJawl said:


> I will admit that this is true.
> I spent over twenty years taking it for face value.
> I realize that taking it for face value is what a "good Christian" is expected to do.  I was told (repeatedly) to stop questioning things that made absolutely no sense to me.  I was told to believe every word that the preacher says is from the bible.



No...again your twisting my response.  Not taking it at "face-value."  Questioning is fine...twisting to find fault...that is where you are at.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 17, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> My response was that Sin changed the outlook for the world.  It changed how man interacted with each other, it changed how man interacted with God's creation.
> 
> Tell me this?  Why was Cain's sacrifice not acceptable to God?  Was it because it was grain?  Does God hate fruits and vegetables?
> [/COLOR]



Cain brought "a gift of his farm produce" while Abel brought several choice lambs from the best of his flock.  It doesn't indicate that Cain offered the best he had.  God's rejection of Cain's offering seems to be more a result of Cain's attitude than the specific type of item he offered.  And God did not then state that whatever produce Cain offered is now considered "unclean".

Back to my question about how, when, and why pork became "unclean"?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 17, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> I guess I'm like a June bug...drawn to the light.  No matter how many times I'm zapped, I feel I must respond
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I kinda liked the fruits, but I no longer have to stuff the veggies down that I cant stand!


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 17, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Cain brought "a gift of his farm produce" while Abel brought several choice lambs from the best of his flock.  It doesn't indicate that Cain offered the best he had.  God's rejection of Cain's offering seems to be more a result of Cain's attitude than the specific type of item he offered.  And God did not then state that whatever produce Cain offered is now considered "unclean".
> 
> Back to my question about how, when, and why pork became "unclean"?



Then, why would God direct His chosen people to offer blood sacrifices and not grain sacrifices?

When did His attitude about grain change?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 17, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Then, why would God direct His chosen people to offer blood sacrifices and not grain sacrifices?
> 
> When did His attitude about grain change?



I would argue that God's attitude about meat, fruits, and vegetables has never changed.  What man has written about what they say that God told them has definitely changed.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 17, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I would argue that God's attitude about meat, fruits, and vegetables has never changed.  What man has written about what they say that God told them has definitely changed.



cop out...easy answer.  

Find something in the Bible you don't agree with?  Well...that part isn't true...it is what man inserted on his own.


I'll answer the pig question too.  God's view on pigs didn't change.  Man changed.  Sin entered the world....man became sinful.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 17, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> God's view on pigs didn't change.



That's not what the bible says.


----------



## rjcruiser (Jun 17, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> That's not what the bible says.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 17, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


>



Here ya' go RJ......


----------



## polkhunt (Jun 18, 2011)

I don't see a problem with following old testament law. I don't think it will save you but nothing wrong with trying to following it. I have been more convicted lately about working on the Sabath(Saturday). I think I would have a better relationship with God if I did try to follow the law more closely.


18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


----------



## Big7 (Jun 19, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> cop out...easy answer.
> 
> Find something in the Bible you don't agree with?  Well...that part isn't true...it is what man inserted on his own.
> I'll answer the pig question too.  God's view on pigs didn't change.  Man changed.  Sin entered the world....man became sinful.



It is what man, pre/post Reformation, inserted on his own.

Happy Father's Day guys and don't let this kinda' crap
cause any more schisms.


----------



## The Foreigner (Jun 21, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Cain brought "a gift of his farm produce" while Abel brought several choice lambs from the best of his flock.  It doesn't indicate that Cain offered the best he had.  God's rejection of Cain's offering seems to be more a result of Cain's attitude than the specific type of item he offered.  And God did not then state that whatever produce Cain offered is now considered "unclean".
> 
> Back to my question about how, when, and why pork became "unclean"?



 HJ 

I don't actually believe you are really interested in the answer, more that you want to stir the pot. But here goes...

You are right that there are changes, but not to the mind of God, rather the way he administers his relationship with people at different times.  In the Garden, Adam was made knowing the law (Eph and Col speak to that, but I can't go into it here). Such laws of creation reflected the moral mind of God - which is unchanging. The Sabbath, which became the Lord's day, is a part of God's moral determination for a day set aside to worship him. It is a creation ordinance and therefore can not be changed by man. Yes the Lord's Day / Sabbath (whatever you want to call it) is still binding and apart from works of necessity and mercy (donkey stuck in pit type thing) work is a sin.   

Pigs were not sinful in anything - the issue of cleanliness laws is a matter of ceremony - God has nothing morally against pigs, he made them afterall. So being the Creator, he is at liberty to restrict our access to them - he sets the law, that's fine. He is at liberty to lift such ceremonial laws, as they have no morally binding aspect to them, except that they must be obeyed!

Pork became unclean (ceremonially not morally) in the Mosaic covenant, and the injunction was lifted in Acts 10 "what God has called clean..."

So pigs and sundays - two quite different things. One moral, one ceremonial. (the Sabbath did have some ceremonial aspects to it, but in essence it is a moral command).

Hope this helps, and I hope you think on the words, instead of the gaps in between them. The point of these ceremonies is what is really the important thing - to show the need for holiness to the Lord, a holiness which man can not achieve in and of himself and thus needs it from another. Read 1 Cor 1:30 and believe.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 22, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> The Sabbath, which became the Lord's day, is a part of God's moral determination for a day set aside to worship him. It is a creation ordinance and therefore can not be changed by man. Yes the Lord's Day / Sabbath (whatever you want to call it) is still binding and apart from works of necessity and mercy (donkey stuck in pit type thing) work is a sin.



Who decides which jobs are authorized under necessity or mercy?  Do you ever eat at a restaurant on Sunday?  Do you ever buy groceries on Sunday?  Do you ever buy gasoline on Sunday?  If so, are you not endorsing this type of sin?  Are you not sinning by paying people to work for you, such as the cooks, clerks, etc.?


----------



## The Foreigner (Jun 22, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Who decides which jobs are authorized under necessity or mercy?  Do you ever eat at a restaurant on Sunday?  Do you ever buy groceries on Sunday?  Do you ever buy gasoline on Sunday?  If so, are you not endorsing this type of sin?  Are you not sinning by paying people to work for you, such as the cooks, clerks, etc.?



For once HJ - you get it. I most certainly do not eat out on Sundays, I do not work (apart from being a pastor  - Christ allows that in Matt 12:1), I do no play. And who decides? ... well Christ provides us with the principles and leaves us to apply them - of course a document written two thousand years ago won't cover every instance of modern day Sabbath observance, and thus timeless principles are given.

Most Christians will disagree with me on this - but they must prove their position from Scripture also. I am happy that my position is biblical:

 Matt 12:5 - it is lawful to do good / heal on the Sabbath. We therefore understand that there are certain occupations of mercy which must continue else someone dies or comes to harm - doctors, nurses, fireman, police, armed forces and there may be others.  Lk 13:5 teaches the same principle with regard to animals - so we might include farmers feeding their animals is an acceptable work on the Lord's Day.  Mercy, which is an attribute of God, can not contradict his moral command for one day in seven principle.

Lk 14:5 our Lord provides another principle - your donkey is stuck in a ditch - do you leave it there, so that it might die? No you deal with it- it is an act of necessity. 

There are the two principles: mercy and necessity - things which can not possibly wait to be done, else harm ensues, then one may "work" on the Lord's Day.  

Is this open to abuse? Yes. So is every law. That doesn't invalidate the law however.

Going out to eat is not necessary - most will disagree. Preparation of food at home is necessary work and therefore is allowable. HJ, you correctly identify that going out to eat by necessity means others have to work. That is wrong. Not a work of neccessity or mercy (unless a tornado blows through my home on Sat night and I have absolutely no where else to go... that's after checking with people in my congregation if I can't eat with them!!).  

Yes all of your examples you gave are sin. I have never eaten out on Sunday in 37 years of being a Christian so it is clearly not a necessity, rather a choice. I don't have servants so that's irrelevant, but nobody works in or on my home on the Lord's Day. I have rarely bought gasoline on the Lord's Day, and that was by necessity and i should have done it the day before.   Never buy groceries on the Lord's Day.   In fact I enjoy the Lord's Day now, more than ever. The Lord gives me a break from all that stuff, so I can concentrate on morning and evening worship and fellowship in between with his people.   

So Scripture lays out the principles - we must interpret them accordingly. I'm not saying I've always got it right, far from it. But there is, as you've highlighted, most certainly a right and wrong to this. And that is the case because the Sabbath is a moral principle, from Creation and codified at Sinai with Moses, and more fully explained by Christ in the gospels. Christ does not do away with the Sabbath in the gospels - he explains what the laws always meant. The Jews had misinterpreted them and the law needed re-explaining by Christ. Far from denying them he affirms them.

 The Sabbath, afterall, the book of Hebrews tell us is a "shadow of the good things to come" - both in Christ and for eternity. The Sabbath is a picture of that heavenly rest and worship before God - it holds that the earthly Sabbath should have some considerable likeness to the thing to which it points.  No work, only worship.

Hope his helps.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 22, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> For once HJ - you get it. I most certainly do not eat out on Sundays, I do not work (apart from being a pastor  - Christ allows that in Matt 12:1), I do no play. And who decides? ... well Christ provides us with the principles and leaves us to apply them - of course a document written two thousand years ago won't cover every instance of modern day Sabbath observance, and thus timeless principles are given.
> 
> Most Christians will disagree with me on this - but they must prove their position from Scripture also. I am happy that my position is biblical:
> 
> ...



Would firefighters and LEO's be in the neccessary catagory? What day would their Sabbath fall on?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 22, 2011)

Since I'm not a Jew and never was a Jew the questions of abiding by the Sabbath laws that were given to the Jews only doesn't apply to me.

Hawgjawl, do you abide by any of the Jewish laws as you live as a disciple of Christ?


----------



## The Foreigner (Jun 22, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Since I'm not a Jew and never was a Jew the questions of abiding by the Sabbath laws that were given to the Jews only doesn't apply to me.
> 
> Hawgjawl, do you abide by any of the Jewish laws as you live as a disciple of Christ?



Ronnie T - Sabbath Laws were not originally given to the Jews, only codified for the Jews. The Sabbath was a creation ordinance for all men (see Romans 5 for the federal principle of in Adam), the Jewish Sabbath was a codification of that present law already. The Sabbath becomes the Lord's DAy in the early chapters of Acts - the concept of Rest (sabbath) is now found in Christ. Yet the principle remains the same - a day of rest from duties and given to worship. The Lord's Day is now the first day of the week, memorializing the resurrection of Christ - who is the first fruits of all creation. The Lord's Day principle still stands.

String Music:  I think I mentioned fire fighters in my earlier post as being of necessity, if I didn't i certainly intended to do so. Anything to do with emergency services clearly fulfil the criteria set down by Chirst. THeir Lord's Day remains the Lord's Day. 

If however, a job prohibits you permanently from worshiping on the Lord's Day, it is illegitimate to take it. The emergency services do not require work every Lord's Day and thus are legitimate jobs for Christians to be in AND to work Sundays. 

blessings


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 22, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Since I'm not a Jew and never was a Jew the questions of abiding by the Sabbath laws that were given to the Jews only doesn't apply to me.
> 
> Hawgjawl, do you abide by any of the Jewish laws as you live as a disciple of Christ?



I try to abide by ten of them.


----------



## The Foreigner (Jun 22, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I try to abide by ten of them.



Good. Ten is the magic number. Ten commandments kept perfectly by Christ because we couldn't. That is the road to salvation.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 22, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I try to abide by ten of them.



Thumbs up.  Me too.  Through Christ, those commands have come to mean even more to me than they did to the Jews they were given to.
Ideally, I live those laws as if they were written on my heart rather than stone.  That my heart has been given to God rather than my obedience only.

And either it's very difficult, or I'm very weak.
Not sure which.


----------



## The Foreigner (Jun 23, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Thumbs up.  Me too.  Through Christ, those commands have come to mean even more to me than they did to the Jews they were given to.
> Ideally, I live those laws of if they were written on my heart rather than stone.  That my heart has been given to God rather than my obedience only.
> 
> And either it's very difficult, or I'm very weak.
> Not sure which.



Roger that Ronnie T. Daily I have to ask for forgiveness for breaking all 10 commandments in heart and many in action. Thank God for Christ our Saviour, who as one old theologian wrote, "lived the life I could not live and died the death I could not die".


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 23, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> Roger that Ronnie T. Daily I have to ask for forgiveness for breaking all 10 commandments in heart and many in action. Thank God for Christ our Saviour, who as one old theologian wrote, "lived the life I could not live and died the death I could not die".



Amen.  Thank you Lord,


----------



## polkhunt (Jun 24, 2011)

I don't know why people are talking about going out to eat on Sunday or do anything business on Sunday. The Sabbath starts at sunset on Friday and ends at sunset on Saturday that has never changed. I am a Christian not a jew and not a seventh day adventist. I go to worship on Sunday but I know when the Sabbath is and its not Sunday.


----------



## The Foreigner (Jun 24, 2011)

polkhunt said:


> I don't know why people are talking about going out to eat on Sunday or do anything business on Sunday. The Sabbath starts at sunset on Friday and ends at sunset on Saturday that has never changed. I am a Christian not a jew and not a seventh day adventist. I go to worship on Sunday but I know when the Sabbath is and its not Sunday.



Friend the word Sabbath is simply Hebrew for rest. And in the new covenant, the sabbath principle remains. Indeed, in spite of the change of day to Sunday or better the Lord's Day, the word Sabbath is still used in numerous places in the NT - check Hebrews out and see. It is referring to the principle of the Sabbath, a day in seven, to be hallowed without work and set aside for worship. That's what we mean when we talk of the Sabbath, for that is what the New Testament means.


----------



## thedeacon (Jun 24, 2011)

It is completely evident (to me) that people in this world and even on this forum that say things that are right and true. 

Its is not what they say that makes me detest their words but how they say them.

I can't stand Dr. Laura, not because of the words she uses but in the arragent and braggart way she uses them. 

When someone tells me that I am going to he11 they should have a tear in their eye. The only time I saw a tear in her eye is when she got popped for wrong herself.

Read what James has to say about the tongue. It does not see any differance in right or wrong when it comes to words, just how they come across.

Christians can be the most brutal people in the world. A lot of Christians are holding the world back from acepting Christ.

Just my opinion.

God bless


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 24, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> Friend the word Sabbath is simply Hebrew for rest. And in the new covenant, the sabbath principle remains. Indeed, in spite of the change of day to Sunday or better the Lord's Day, the word Sabbath is still used in numerous places in the NT - check Hebrews out and see. It is referring to the principle of the Sabbath, a day in seven, to be hallowed without work and set aside for worship. That's what we mean when we talk of the Sabbath, for that is what the New Testament means.



With great humility, I don't know of any place where the Gospel causes the word sabbath to refer to the Lord's day, or the first day of the week.
I think the word is only found once in hebrews and then it refers to the final rest of heaven. Maybe I'm not looking at the same version you have.

All the way through the book of Acts, Sabbath refers to the last day of the week.


----------



## The Foreigner (Jun 24, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> With great humility, I don't know of any place where the Gospel causes the word sabbath to refer to the Lord's day, or the first day of the week.
> I think the word is only found once in hebrews and then it refers to the final rest of heaven. Maybe I'm not looking at the same version you have.
> 
> All the way through the book of Acts, Sabbath refers to the last day of the week.



Ronnie T - the Sabbath of Hebrews speaks to both - "There remains a Sabbath" (the typical Lord's Day) and the "take heed that you do not fail to enter the REST" - the antitype which is heaven.

Either way, earthly rest, sabbath, Lord's day is a type of that which is to come. That was my main point.

thanks brother.


----------

