One of the Church of God's self-appointed lawgivers and prophet of doom is not happy today. For many years now he has been telling various Church of God groups how wrong they are and that they are doomed to suffer mightily in the tribulation because they ignore him. No one in the Church of God or the entire universe is as zealous as James Malm, no one can there ever be. No one can ever live up to his zealotry and extreme expectations. That's why a new covenant was given to humanity, but this has failed to sink in to this prophet of zealotry.
Mario Seiglie’s Doctrinal Committee confirms that UCG will continue to pollute the Sabbath. This guarantees God’s correction in the tribulation for UCG, along with COGWA and LCG and all those who likewise pollute God’s Holy Sabbath Day.Malm is incensed that UCG is refusing to force members to not eat out in restaurants on Friday nights and Saturdays. Nothing infuriates the Pharisee more than seeing people ignore his demands that he regularly sends in emails and letters to UCG and other COG's. Imagine a god that damns people to the tribulation for having a nice meal on a Friday night in a nice restaurant after a long week, or buying some food on a Saturday and heading off to the park with the children. Malm's god is NOT happy!
Doctrine Committee Update—Mario Seiglie
A brief update was given on one completed project by the Doctrine Committee (DC). This project did not receive any support from the DC or its sub-committees. Presenting this project follows the guidelines for the DC to inform the Council of its completion and the author was informed there was no support. This project was “Eating Out on the Sabbath.”No matter how long the unemployed prophet bangs away on his keyboard, everyone seems to ignore him. Prophets are always without honor in their countries, but that especially hits at home with Malm as he begs for others to support him with financial contributions. He never seems to realize that no one supports him because they are sick of his unnecessary demands.
104 comments:
I recommend that instead of forbidding people to eat out on the Sabbath that instead church members should make a special point to share the jot of Sabbath rest with the restaurant workers.
The more restaurant workers that believe in the Sabbath the happier they will be serving church members on the Sabbath. Or something like that.
As once again, COGlodytes devour their own. And people wonder why there is never reunification. Nice shot, Jimbo. You are not making things any better!
BB
"Share the jot"
That's a new one on me.
If a restaurant worker believed in the Saturday Sabbath then wouldn't they have a right to worship God as well?
Only a fool would want reunification "BB".
As nutty as James Malm can be, he does have a point here.
Eating in a restaurant on the Sabbath and Holy Days can be considered a sacrament in the Churches that have a connection to Herbert Armstrong. Sadly, many people put Mr. Armstrong's teachings above scripture on a number of issues. It is idolatry, pure and simple.
God clearly says not to go out to procure food on the Sabbath, that He will provide none. That position never changes and there are numerous bible passages that support the prohibition. If God is not providing the food, then one should ask "at whose table are we eating?"
The only justification anyone has offered for eating out on the Sabbath is "Mr. Armstrong said it's ok". That brings us back to the idolatry issue.
5.11 AM
If eating out on the Sabbath is wrong, the holy spirit would have made this clear. Christ is Lord of the Sabbath, not James Malm and his followers. James is wasting so many peoples time and attention with his Pharisaic nit picking.
I meant "joy" not "jot".
The problem is that Malm's reputation is so tarnished that most people dont care what he says about anything.
Even if he is completely right who wants to admit they even heard anything from him?
Doesn't the bible say a good name is worth more than gold? I feel like he should fix himself first before worrying about everyone else.
If the Israelites marched around Jericho for seven days, then weren't they working on the Sabbath too by Malm's standards? Obviously, one of those days was a Sabbath Day.
This is an issue of whether Armstrongist church governance recognizes the integrity of the law. (There is the whole matter of whether the Sabbath must be kept at all. In this response, I will set that aside and assume that it must be kept.)
If the Sabbath must be kept as a condition for salvation, including protection from the Tribulation, must it be kept as prescribed in the OT? Or can it be modified by Armstrongist churches? Armstrongist governance has always viewed the law as lacking in prescriptive integrity. Hence, the law can be administratively modified. It can be selectively applied. For instance, you don't have to build a brush arbor and live in it during the FoT but can stay at the Doubletree (some people left the WCG over this issue). Forbidding eating in restaurants is a little part of the picture. Orthodox Jews in Palestine will not start a fire (use of energy?) on the Sabbath. They will not press a button to operate an elevator. If one only proscribes restaurants and a few other things, one is a debtor to do the whole law (Paul, Gal 5). Unless...
Unless one seizes the authority to modify the law to make it more convenient for moderns. The real issue then: If James Malm is not advocating a Sabbath policy that is an exact and precise reflection of what the OT states, where does he derive the authority to modify it? Is he in the shoes of Moses? If so, who said? And does that authority extend to any other related organizations?
If Malm is not following scripture precisely on all points and is using a modification of the law, he is engaged in administrative policy formation rather than direct compliance with scripture. If it is administrative policy formation then other Armstrongists splinters can administratively form their policy in whatever way it suits them and reject Malm's administrative policy. The clash of administrative policies.
If there were ever a Synod of Reunification among the splinters, this is the kind of issue that would result in shouting, shoving matches (not an exaggeration - it happened in our area), walk outs and other types of nastiness.
Just like BB said: "And people wonder why there is never reunification."
Note: I do not know who James Malm is and have never read anything that he has written.
Also, if one living during our modern times were to take an extreme view of "kindling a fire" on the sabbath, imagine the mega-breakage of the sabbath involved in starting and driving one's car! Technically, you are starting a fire every time one of your spark plugs fires. Operating his car at 2,000 revolutions per minute at 70 miles per hour in overdrive on the freeway, on his way to sabbath services, if he were driving a six cylinder car, the hypothetical Pharisee would be sinning 12,000 times per minute! If he needed to use passing gear a couple times, and his revs increased to 6,000 per minute, that would be kindling a fire a staggering 36,000 times per minute! Oh, the sheer pain of all of that sin! Such a horrible sin debt would eclipse picking up some sabbath subs at Jimmy John's, unless you remember that your beef or turkey is prepared using the same utensils as the gentile before you in line's ham, as is also true at any other non-kosher restaurants.
Aren't we glad that Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant laws, so that we can live balanced Christian lives under grace in our modern times? I mean if James Malm gets so OC (acronym can be taken as obsessive-compulsive, or Old Covenant) over eating in a restaurant on the sabbath, he'd surely go into apoplectic seizure over David eating the shewbread, or the disciples picking and eating the corn! Speaking of which, is it lawful to go to the hospital on the sabbath? Oops! Forgot! Technically, the Pharisee would get annointed for his heart attack rather than patronize the sorcerers!
BB
@ 5:11
well said.
"If eating out on the Sabbath is wrong, the holy spirit would have made this clear."
it is quite clear, for those with ears to hear...
After 6-mo study, HWA himself concluded that Sabbath is Done-Away-with in N.T.!
here's what he said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dafCEgmZScw&t=3865s
(listen from 1:04:30 mark)
In my dreadful 13 years in the Armstrongs’ church, I persistently failed to understand how I was to properly “keep the Sabbath.” Obviously, I was not allowed to be gainfully employed on that day each week. Had to “rest.”
But to get to my distant church meeting hall, a rented banquet facility or alternately a school building, on one route I would have to pay a toll, to some lady standing in the toll booth getting paid.
Then, on Festival days, groups of congregants would drive right over to a restaurant and have a nice, paid-for meal. We were to be sure to leave nice tips for the waitresses; to show our generosity, etc.
But various Old Testament scriptures pronounced that on the Sabbath, no work was to be done by anyone; slaves, visitors passing through, or even animals. Food was to be prepared before the Sabbath. When paying my turnpike toll, or paying for my High Day restaurant meal; especially when leaving a tip for a waitress or motel employee, I felt really guilty.
But, Herbert W Armstrong said it was “Ok.”
Simply, what he said didn’t comport with what the scriptures proclaimed. As he so often said, “Don’t believe me. Believe your Bible.”
I blew off the dust from mine, and very clearly read that on the Sabbath no one is to pay employees to work; even slaves and people passing through are not to work. Animals, too, can’t be worked. No riding of horses or donkeys; no plowing of fields.
Thankfully, I’ve returned to the authentic Christianity of the New Covenant. Now, the Scriptures make sense.
Malm makes several assumptions here.
One is that the Great Tribulation is very near, and that COGWA and UCG are going to be in "The Tribulation " because they went to a McDonalds drive thru and bought their worn out tired kids in the car a "happy meal" for the two hour drive home after church.
2) That you will be in the Tribulation, even if living an otherwise righteous life, because you were confused about this one detail, and tried to act in good faith in the rest of your life, and asked God regularly to forgive all your sins, and to have mercy on you, even for those things that you did inadvertently or with non intent.
3) That it is ok that police are working on the Sabbath to protect your safe passage to church, that the guys at the power plant are working to make sure that you have electricity and water to flush the toilet. Service stations and tow trucks in the ready for emergencies too. That people are maintaining the internet and satellites so that you can "live stream" services and many more. But a restaurant??? Whoa nelly, no way , this is the unpardonable sin!
4) So in the "World of Malm" is it wrong to have fresh brewed coffee at your house on the Sabbath? Coffee not prepared on the "Preparation Day"?? Can you rinse your coffee cup out real fast in the sink when you are done with it on the Sabbath Day?
Id love to read a Malm pronouncement about sex on the Sabbath? Are their limits to "how much work you can do" during sex, or for how long , or what positions or acts are ok on the Sabbath? (and will any of them mean you will be in the Tribulation if you do them?).
This is the problem with someone who thinks they are the regulator and arbiter of the Sabbath. Someone who tries to act as someone who "monitors" everyone else. Again, a real lack of faith in the Holy Spirit of God actually leading people as individuals to maturely discern and execute the will of God through its leading.
We are not talking about adultery, or murder or many other black and white issues here. But rather reasonably arguable finer points of execution of the law. Me thinks that Malm just cant wait to see people in the Tribulation, and clapping his hands in joy, as they die, because they had a Dairy Queen Heath Bar shake on the Sabbath. (my personal favorite for a Sabbath Day BTW!)
I guess the guy stoned in the book for gathering sticks on the Sabbath should have just paid a local Kenite to do it, eh?
HWA filtered the New Covenant through the old, which had the effect of yanking everything back into the old, actually nullifying the new. A covenant is in place until one of the parties dies. In the case of the Old Covenant, one party did die! God! Or at least the individual whom HWA declared was the God of the Old Testament (Jesus).
Jesus gave us the Two Great Commandments of the Lord (Love for God; Love for fellow man), and enumerated some of the Ten Commandments, and then admonished His followers to "Keep my commandments". There is no specific commandment to keep the sabbath in the New Testament. The only specifically described instance of any of Jesus' followers actually keeping the sabbath was the Galilean ladies, following Jesus' death. This might have been from a similar place in the mind as Peter's "I go fishing", as Jesus followers were initially confused although He had repeatedly warned them of his imminent death. If we are to take the examples of Jesus and the disciples being present at Temple on the sabbath ministering to the Jews as being a de facto command to keep the sabbath, then according to the example described in John 10:22, we had better be keeping Hannukah as well!
BB
"Sticks a need a pickin..... Ooh yeah......."
Nck
Malm exists for one reason and one reason alone. The armstrongites see their god as a monster, and Malm re-enforces that view. In fact its not just Malm, its all of these godless organizations. In their view god is a ruthless prick who's ass you better get started kissing.
All these cults are made up of psychologically defective people.
Oh what a god you have in armstrongism.....
"...he'd surely go into apoplectic seizure over David eating the shewbread, or the disciples picking and eating the corn! "
umm, David asked permission, he didn't just take it.....
and Jesus did not pick any grain, He is the example we follow. (the disciples made lots of errors)
as was mentioned earlier, the problem comes from following a man, whether that man is HWA or some other.
BB
You can keep your nine commandments, but I'II keep all ten. When the Pharisees criticized Christ for healing on the Sabbath, He did not take the opportunity to teach that Sabbath keeping is unnecessary. Rather, by giving the example of pulling a animal out of a ditch during the Sabbath, He implicitly endorsed the Sabbath.
From a different perspective, it is of no joy having to find a Unleavened meal from a al a'carte restaurant menu. That is reality of this situation.
Half the time eating out in restaurants on the Sabbath is encouraged by the ones who want the alcoholic beverages.
We need specific, 6:21, not implied. The argument could easily be made that Jesus was taking a low key approach with the Pharisees based on the obsessiveness and hypocrisy which was the filter through which they interpreted everything. The fact that there is zero difference between bending down and picking up manna, and bending down and picking an ear of corn from its stalk on the sabbath indicates that something radically different from what we were taught was going on here.
BB
Tote that barge! Lift that bale!
BB, you want specifics? Try Exodus 20 since Christ said that He didn't come to do away with the law but to magnify it. And even though the Sabbath command isn't mentioned in Mt 19:18, does this mean that we are only commanded to keep 4 points of the decalogue and not the other 6? Is it OK to take God's name in vain since it isn't explicitly commanded in the NT? Fools. There still remains therefore a Sabbath keeping (Sabbaton) for the people of God (Heb 4:9). Not only that, Luke 23:56 says that the church rested on the Sabbath day (the high day festival, which is of equal rank to the regular 7th day Sabbath) ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT (after being taught by the Lord for 3 1/2 years). If Christ had said, "Forget the Sabbath and festivals", they would not have rested on Unleavened Bread day 1. And to say that they came to a better understanding later is rubbish because we see Paul observing and teaching about the festivals many years after the crucifixion. So if you are teaching about the festivals, you will be teaching about the Sabbath.
Byker Bob,
You want specific? Jesus said not one jot will be taken from the law until everything is fulfilled. Now you can argue about "everything being fulfilled" but you can't argue Jesus did not "specifically" endorse ALL of God's laws.
Even if you believe Jesus' death "fulfilled all things", Jesus himself still lived under the old covenenant, taught everything up till his death under the old covenant and therefore unless after his death he countermanded his previous years of teachings of keeping the law, then all there is left is the obvious. Jesus kept all 10 commandments and said that keeping God's commandments will bring you life.
"If Christ had said, "Forget the Sabbath and festivals""
Paul said it! repeatedly! "Forget the Sabbath and festivals"
And Paul takes precedence over the Gospels as his writings are earlier & more authentic!
8:38 PM said: “Not only that, Luke 23:56 says that the church rested on the Sabbath day (the high day festival, which is of equal rank to the regular 7th day Sabbath) ACCORDING TO THE COMMANDMENT (after being taught by the Lord for 3 1/2 years).”
Luke 23:56 states: “...and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.” He’s referring back to the fourth commandment i.e. the seventh day Sabbath not the “high day festival” of “Unleavened Bread day 1.”
'We need specific.." We Bob?
Not 'I need specific' but 'We'
Interesting.
"Anonymous said...
"If Christ had said, "Forget the Sabbath and festivals""
Paul said it! repeatedly! "Forget the Sabbath and festivals"
And Paul takes precedence over the Gospels as his writings are earlier & more authentic!
March 1, 2020 at 10:33 PM"
Really?
1Co 5:8 - Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
"From a different perspective, it is of no joy having to find a Unleavened meal from a al a'carte restaurant menu. That is reality of this situation"
and keeping in mind that the restaurant is unlikely to have been de-leavened for the holy days, that adds another layer of sin to the mix...and we know what happens to those that consume leaven during that week...
I've often wondered at those that choose to eat out on the NTBMO...a high holy day, AND the start of the days of unleavened bread....kinda fits with Wes White's posting on suspending belief...(of course, it's obvious they are simply following a man, they don't truly understand what God requires of His people)
"Paul said it! repeatedly! "Forget the Sabbath and festivals" "
not true at all.....Paul taught everyone, jew and gentile alike, to keep the Sabbath and annual festivals....it's right there in your bible.
Look at the armstrongites pounding those tired old 1960s prooftexts..
- even tho in 1928 Herbert himself said the N.T. 'abolishes the Sabbath' Col. 2:16,17
Look at the armstrongites pounding those tired old 1960s prooftexts..
- even tho in 1928 Herbert himself said the N.T. 'abolishes the Sabbath' Col. 2:16,17
So what? Saul/Paul in 28AD said the Mosaic Law was in force. By 68AD he was teaching against the Mosaic Law.
If a religious leader isn't allowed to grow and change his understanding, most of religious history becomes a muddled mess.
Don't fret over the Armstrongites, Byker (not that you are). All you need to do to be as perfect as an Armstongite is to spend quality time with friends on Saturday and don't work your job, and don't eat pork the rest of the time. Enjoy!
Thanks, 3:40. Been slammed with work Sunday afternoon and all day today, and am just now able to get back to this thread and the comments. I noticed immediately that this discussion had carried into the newest blog topics. Fortunately, there are others who know the same things as I, and it appears that they've contributed some excellent rebuttals. As for the Armstrongites, further education will never alter their mindset. If you do challenge them, they will argue with you forever.
I still have a slight Armstrong hangover myself, but am working on it. I don't eat unclean meats, never go to the doctor, and hate birthdays, especially my own. No heavy or destructive habits. And I'm usually exhausted by Friday night. On the positive side, I think that false prophecy and authoritarianism really suck, and never have allowed Armstrong church magazines or literature to become the essence of my personality. Just have to laugh sometimes, and that's what I enjoy about Banned.
BB
"Look at the armstrongites pounding those tired old 1960s prooftexts..
- even tho in 1928 Herbert himself said the N.T. 'abolishes the Sabbath' Col. 2:16,17
March 2, 2020 at 9:13 AM"
Since you brought up Col. 2:16,17 could you please tell us exactly who was judging the uncircumcised gentile Colossians, and why?
Before you answer that it is was the Judaizers of Acts 15, of the sect of the Pharisees, who were judging the Colossians for not keeping the Sabbath you need to look into what Jews think of gentiles keeping the Sabbath.
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/13447/is-it-a-discouraged-or-an-unacceptable-practice-for-a-gentile-to-keep-the-sabbat
No Pharisaical Jew would demand a gentile keep the Sabbath, but he sure would judge and condemn that gentile if he was keeping the Sabbath and Feasts while uncircumcised.
That's exactly why Acts 15 is about circumcision and not just law keeping.
"Since you brought up Col. 2:16,17 could you please tell us exactly who was judging the uncircumcised gentile Colossians, and why?
March 3, 2020 at 9:27 AM"
Col. 2:16-17 seems to be directed toward aspects of the Sinai Law-- Which was a tutor and a shadow of things to come, But now Christ has come and these things at best take a back seat to Christ alone.
Col. 2:18-24 begins the gnostic portion which is seemingly more troubling. they are separated from the Head. They are interested in mysteries and aesceticism.
All these influences in Colossae were trying to take away from Christ and introduce the need for more (works of the law) and aesceticism spirituality.
Paul is simply telling them that Christ is enough.
"I've often wondered at those that choose to eat out on the NTBMO...a high holy day, AND the start of the days of unleavened bread....kinda fits with Wes White's posting on suspending belief...(of course, it's obvious they are simply following a man, they don't truly understand what God requires of His people)
March 2, 2020 at 6:17 AM"
Judge, jury and executioner I see. Self-righteous thy name is anonymous 6:17am!
BB,
I'll stick with clean/unclean foods no matter as I don't believe unclean is as healthy and it can serve as a reminder that we are sanctified through Christ.
A sabbath rest is good for us, but in the COGs it has always been a burden rather than a rest...though seeing friends is good and the thing that kept me going for years.
I just know HWA and WCG was baloney. A few points of law keeping make one a first fruit in the COGs. What will they do if a movement began where people for the sake of their own freedom in Christ simply rested on saturdays, didn't eat pork and met with fellow Christians on high days in their homes or elsewhere but did not believe it made them the "true Christians"? This is not difficult and can be enjoyable and rejuvenating. Who doesn't like friends and discussions of the meaningful aspects of life (particularly without those who think they know how it should be done and under whom)?
The COGs will then be left with shrouding themselves in their prophecy and hierarchy. I suspect this is too convoluted for you, but might be good for those with family in the COGs who want to reduce the objections their cog family members might have by leaving their cog family members with only the objections to hierarchy and prophecy. Surely those are untenable objections.
I never did understand the mentality of staying in a church simply because leaving meant giving up your friends or family members, 1:31. As a gear head, there were many times in my life when I had closer relationships with machines than I did with people. Because I had so little in common with typical church members, during my tenure in Armstrongism I was actually closer to machines, and felt no sense of loss of either friends or family when I left. I treat everyone I meet ethically and always watch out for their best interests, but also always keep them at arms length. I suspect that the church caused all of that by teaching us that all our non-Armstrongite friends and family were going to be enslaved by the Germans and hung on meat hooks, that we could not have the close relationships with non church member family, and that if we ever left the brethren were to regard us as never having existed. But it could also be the basic nature with which I was born. In any case, there was much of our basic humanity that Armstrongism killed off, and a lot of it you just never can get back. You can attempt to simulate it using intelligence and logic, but it would be much better to actually have the feelings that should go with it. The bastards killed it.
BB
By 1928, HWA's study had stretched into years, and, to his credit, he came to the view of clear scholarly consensus on Sabbaths - despite being prejudiced by Adventist cults and his wife.
However he would quickly go off the rails by constructing a contrarian synthetic model of early/'true' Christianity (= conspiracy theory) that would ensure brand differentiation for his cult. Within this Conspiracy Theory would be sub-conspiracies: the hidden 'truth' of Anglo-Israelism + the conspiracy of 'suppression of bible truth' by mainstream orthodoxy scholarship.
5:54
You call it "conspiracy".
As I recall Armstrong was looking for "proof". (Fulfilled) Prophecy was his key to "proof". Just as "missing a broadcast" constituted "a message from God", kinda like when my mother finds a bargain that surely the master of the universe provided.
This was combined with a manicheistic worldview with the two principles of good VS evil. Or "the two trees" as HWA described manicheism and the perpetual battle between those principles.
The key was "active participation" or "a way of living" or "the Work" rather than repetitive ritualizing or reaching intellectual truth or consistency.
Nck
12:50pm what a poor answer. Read my response at 12:47pm. I must be a prophet.
12:50pm No Jew would expect a gentile to keep any part of the Mt. Sinai covenant unless they were circumcised. You'll notice that circumcision isn't even in question in Col. 2 meaning Col. 2 had nothing to do with expecting gentiles to keep the Sinai covenant. In fact logic says it was quite the opposite, they were judging gentiles for keeping the Sabbath and Feasts without being circumcised and without keeping their man made traditions. This is why Paul goes into detail about the man made traditions later in the chapter.
Judaizers as you know are Jewish Christian converts who believed in keeping the Law while following Christ. But, they have broken away from Judaism, they will not have the same beliefs as the Pharisees. There will be differences. They were judging the gentile Christians in Sabbaths. If it was about circumcision in order to observe the sabbath, the more logical thing is to mention circumcision rather than the Sabbath. Among other things, Acts 15 taught that the gentiles didn't need to be circumcised. Colossians is written later. Your argument would still be an argument based on circumcision which was already answered in Acts 15 and I believe Paul would tell them the Circumcision argument had already been settled, but instead he places it as a sabbath issue and calling it a Shadow of things to come, but the reality is Christ (namely, the rest we have in Christ). Circumcision doesn't translate as well despite our having a circumcised heart. I know most of the arguments, but I simply do not believe they are as reasonable as the other arguments. Trying to explain away plain language over and over and over finally becomes dubious.
Q. Why was Paul anti-sabbatarian?
A. Because he wanted to be.
At that early stage, Christianity was riven with major divisions. What we end up with is a function of adaptation, natural-selection, supply & demand, evolution. Romans and Greeks had different demands than Jews. James, Paul, Marcion all had different ideas. Christianity can be 'very important' (1500's)(high demand), or irrelevant (2020)(low demand)
Plain language? It says not to let anyone judge them in regards to the sabbaths, new moons and festivals, it doesn't say whether they were being judged for keeping the sabbath or for not keeping the sabbath. So much for your plain language.
As far as your first two sentences, it's obvious that you have no clue that the Judaizers and the Pharisees of Acts 15 are one and the same group of people.
Act 15:5 - But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed,
It's also obvious that you haven't a clue about what Jews teach about gentiles keeping the sabbath. They would never demand an uncircumcised gentile to keep the sabbath.
Again the only logical conclusion is that the gentiles in Colossia were keeping the sabbath and feasts and were being judged for it, both by the Jews and most likely other gentiles wondering why they were keeping "Jewish days".
Just because you refuse to acknowledge that as the only logical conclusion means nothing since you haven't proposed a different logical conclusion.
Also, Paul in Col. 2 does indeed speak of circumcision. Earlier in the chapter he emphasizes the Colossians uncircumcision. There is absolutely no reason for an uncircumcised gentile to be judged for not keeping the Sabbath. Gentiles wouldn't judge them for not keeping the sabbath. Jews wouldn't judge them for not keeping the sabbath while being uncircumcised. The Jews would never expect uncircumcised gentiles to keep the sabbath. The sabbath to them was a sign of the covenant. Unless one came under that covenant by being circumcised no Jew would demand it.
However, as I said, if an uncircumcised gentile was keeping the sabbath and feasts they'd be judged by both Jews and other gentiles for keeping Jewish days.
You can argue all that you want but logic isn't on your side. Those who claim that the Colossians were being judged for not keeping the sabbath have not thought it through!
"Your argument would still be an argument based on circumcision which was already answered in Acts 15"
Exactly, which is why the Colossians were not being judged for "not" keeping the sabbath. They were uncircumcised. No one would judge an uncircumcised gentile for not keeping the sabbath. That would make no sense. But if that uncircumcised gentile was keeping the sabbath he'd most certainly have been judged by both Jew and gentile.
There's no doubt that the Colossians were being judged on something or Paul wouldn't have written Col. 2:16. The claim that uncircumcised gentiles were being judged for not keeping the sabbath and feasts is totally illogical no matter how one twists it.
One other thing, especially since you're trying to push the view that the Judaizers no longer thought exactly like Jewish Pharisees, you'll note that in Acts 15 they didn't demand that gentiles keep the law of Moses. They demanded that the gentiles be circumcised first and then keep the law of Moses. Obviously they still held the view that one must be circumcised before keeping the law of Moses. So why would they demand uncircumcised gentiles keep the sabbath in Col. 2?
There is no logic in that line of reasoning.
8:31 says " ..logic says it was quite the opposite, they were judging gentiles for keeping the Sabbath and Feasts "
Hogwash
Paul was constantly cracking down on Sabbatarianism, even in one of the earliest Christian writings (see Galatians 4:10)(subject was the Jewish law - chapter 3 - there were no chapter divisions in original)
Just because you don't understand Gal. 4:10, or Col. 2, or Rom. 14 doesn't prove that Paul was anti-sabbath. Hell the WCG didn't understand those scriptures either.
The WCG wanted everyone to believe that the Galatians, who thought they could earn brownie points from God by law keeping, would actually turn back to pagan days. Total bullshit yet how many fell for that shit?
Gal. 4:10, if one studies the Greek, is not talking about merely "keeping" days and months and times and years. The entire passage is about how they kept them and what they were thinking while keeping them.
The Greek word for observe is paratereo, here's what it means:
Strong’s Definitions
παρατηρέω paratēréō, par-at-ay-reh'-o; from G3844 and G5083; to inspect alongside, i.e. note insidiously or scrupulously:—observe, watch.
Outline of Biblical Usage
to stand beside and watch, to watch assiduously, observe carefully,to watch, attend to with the eyes of auguries, to see what he is going to do in a bad sense, to watch insidiously to watch one's self to observe, keep scrupulously to neglect nothing requisite to the religious observance of
The Galatians were very carefully, scrupulously, keeping the days. Legalistically! The days were indeed the sabbath and feasts but they thought that if they kept them perfectly that it would please God.
I'm a firm believer in keeping the sabbath and feasts but in no way do I think that me keeping them pleases God. In fact Jesus said that any servant who does exactly what his master commands is an unprofitable servant. He didn't go above and beyond.
That was the problem in the WCG, they taught that law keeping was enough. Neglecting the fact that law keeping was merely not sinning. God expects us to not sin. By keeping the law and nothing more we are unprofitable servants.
The fact is that we don't keep the law, humans can't, but that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and say forget it. That's why God sent Jesus, to be our advocate. When we do sin, break God's law, we can go to Jesus, confess our sins, and he will forgive us. At that point we remain unprofitable, now is the time for love, mercy and faith.
Paul was not against the sabbath, he was against the idea that sabbath and feast keeping can earn any favor with God, to which I wholeheartedly agree.
"(subject was the Jewish law - chapter 3 - there were no chapter divisions in original)"
I agree 100% that the subject of Galatians was the Jewish law. The WCG was dead wrong claiming that the Galatians were going back to pagan days. That claim completely disregards the context of Galatians which is that law keeping does absolutely nothing for our salvation. Which I agree 100% with Paul.
The thing is the sabbath was made for man, just because God incorporated the day into Jewish law (Mt. Sinai covenant) doesn't mean that it is no longer made for man.
"Anonymous said...
8:31 says " ..logic says it was quite the opposite, they were judging gentiles for keeping the Sabbath and Feasts "
Hogwash"
Fine. Then explain the logic in the idea that uncircumcised gentiles were being judged for "not" keeping the sabbath and feasts. Remember that according to Jews, to be a good gentile all one had to do was obey the Noahide laws. So why would a circumcised Jew, even one who now believed in Jesus, now demand an uncircumcised gentile to keep the sabbath and feasts?
Please explain just how that line of reasoning isn't itself, hogwash!
@ 6:44 -- " circumcised Jew "
No, not "circumcised Jew", make that Jewish-Christian-convert (an entirely different mindset) that attempts to bring baggage to new covenant.
Your heterodox theory twists the actual facts.
Imagine that:
a conspiracy-theory - outside of orthodox scholarship - from a sabbatarian!
Exactly, 10:25,
To believe Judaizers are of the same mindset as the orthodox Jews is a failing in the argument of 6:44.
Judaizers had already accepted Jesus as the Messiah and separated themselves from the Jewish orthodoxy which had Jesus executed. Those are significant differences. Objections to observing a Sabbath while uncircumcised is not what Col. 2 is about. In the OT a foreigner (presumably at times uncircumcised) also observed the sabbath.
10:25am and 11:18 the problem with both of your arguments is that you're not considering what the bible says. Acts 15 says that those Judaizers were of the sect of the Pharisees who believed. It doesn't say "former" Pharisees. So you can reason around the facts all that you want. Jews believed that the Sabbath was given to them and them alone. A gentile could keep it if he chose to but he wasn't commanded to keep it. Therefore a Jew would not judge an uncircumcised gentile for not keeping the sabbath.
You can argue against this logic all that you want if it makes your conscience feel better. It doesn't matter.
"Objections to observing a Sabbath while uncircumcised is not what Col. 2"
It would have been more than just an objection to observing the sabbath, it would have been an objection to how they observed the sabbath too.
Those stinkin' gentiles keeping our sabbath and feasts and they're not even obeying the traditions of the fathers. How dare they???
"Judge, jury and executioner I see. Self-righteous thy name is anonymous 6:17am!
March 3, 2020 at 1:19 PM"
don't do that....you're falling into the worldly way of switching to personal attacks when your argument won't stand on its own....
@ 4:31 - "The Galatians were very carefully, scrupulously, keeping the days.."
Notice that our sabbatarian stalwart here concedes that Gal 4:10 refers to sabbaths, this is a major capitulation by sabbatarian apologists, unthinkable in the good old days of Adventist/Armstrong contrarian apologetics. After this, the sabbatarian goose is cooked, but do the holdouts throw in the towel? No! They come up with yet another convoluted paradigm!
Won't stand?
Galatians, who thought they could earn brownie points by meticulously keeping the law, the sabbath and feasts is a perfect explanation of Gal. 4:10. It's the paradigm that Gal. 4:10 is anti-sabbath that is convoluted.
But I don't expect most on this blog to understand.
2Th 2:10 - And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 - And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
No I'm not saying that HWA and the WCG taught the truth, I am saying that keeping the sabbath and feasts are truth which most here reject and God has turned you over to the lie.
I'm saying that most here are deluded!
@ 2:06 - "You can argue against this logic all that you want"
Logic?
Occam's Razor, as a branch of logic, insists the simplest explanation is best:
- a straightforward reading of all the Pauline references on Torah/Kerygma.
Besides, as an ex-Armstrong sabbatarian campaigner, your explanation of Gal. has changed; why should we trust your new (even more complicated) explanation?
More complicated than Galatian legalists going back to paganism? Just because you're unable to understand the logic doesn't mean it isn't there!
Also, best explanation isn't always the correct explanation. Old Willie Ockham isn't always right.
Why do you now conform with the latest sabbatarian backpedaling on Gal. 4:10?
Why should we trust your latest theory since you're so fickle?
Show references to + relevant quotes from peer-reviewed lettered historians & theologians that support your theory.
James Malm, está esperando que se cumplan las profecías de el libro de Daniel sobre la abominación desoladora,no acepta que el libro de Daniel es "apócrifo" igual que El libro de Enoc, y muchos otros. Y que nunca debería haber estado en el Canon de las Sagradas Escrituras
How is it backpeddling? The Greek says they were meticulously/scrupulously keeping days, months, times and years. What does a legalistic, meticulous, Galatian mean to you? Who the hell asked you to trust my theory" Did you even consider the Greek word translated observeth? I doubt it. So, peer-reviewed lettered historians and theologians are always correct. You're a fool if you believe that. Fickle? Fickle? Really? That's how you debate?
You haven't even considered what I said, you just want to argue to salve your conscience for giving up on the sabbath.
I find it amazing that it is likely that we both sat in the same building one time in the past keeping the Feast of Tabernacles. Who moved? 2 Thes. 2:10,11 perfectly describes people like you. Deluded.
How is it backpeddling if I never thought that the WCG's explanation made sense? Why would the Galatians who were trying to be justified by law keeping go back to pagan days? That's just stupid. Anyone who keeps the sabbath and thinks that makes him something special to God is as foolish as the Galatians, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't expect the sabbath to be kept.
@ 3:58
Our NT-sabbath campaigner here who's theory claims that antinomian Paul was introducing gentiles to sabbath observance - a'la Ellen White/HWA - has still so far failed to supply any references + relevant quotes from peer-reviewed lettered historians & theologians to support his theory. Makes me suspect his idea is home-brewed like the theology of discredited uneducated plagiarizing fakes Ellen G. White, HWA...
This "sabbath-campaigner" will now take Samuel Langhorne Clemens' advice:
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
antinomian Paul? Indeed!
Rom 7:12 - Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
@4:39
Still w a i t i n g for actual peer-reviewed scholarly references, quotes that support your micro-minority theory on Pauline theology.
Without academic scholarly filters, we wind up with wacky conspiratorial garbage like Armstrong-Anglo-Israelism and contradictory oxymoronic "Pauline-Legalism"
Please hold your breath!
Is this 'Pauline-Sabbath'(oxymoron)(Col. 2:16) fanatic even keeping the 'correct' days?
Historians see indications (within and outside O.T.) that early Sumerian/Hebrew seven-day-sabbath was not a fixed cycle, but constantly re-synced to New Moons. This is roiling Seventh-day Adventism lately (as if they don't have enough problems.)
Real Sabbath fanatics do it right with New Moons, and have historic support!
Please tell me how one can count seven sabbaths, with the morrow after the sabbath being the fiftieth day, using a lunar calendar?
btw Do you actually think that your use of code impresses anybody?
Just how is it "historic support" if historians only "see indications"? Unless those historians have access to Mr. Peabody's WABAC machine, they're merely guessing.
So please shut the hell up. Twain was 100% accurate! There's no arguing with stupid!
Per your reference to Col. 2:16 please see posts 9:27am, 12:47pm, 8:31am, 11:40am and 11:49am.
Whether you want to admit it or not Paul kept the sabbath. If he didn't he could not have spoken these words:
Phl 3:5 - Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Phl 3:6 - Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Goodbye!
The question of eating out on the sabbath is easy to answer. Read exodus 16: 4 and 5 "Then the Lord said to Moses, "Behold I will rain bread from heaven for you. And the people shall go out and gather a certain quota every day, that I may test them whether they will walk in my Law or not. And it shall be on the sixth day that they shall PREPARE what they BRING IN and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily."
I apologize for using some bold type but sometimes people can be so resistant that they need something to be really really clear - as if it already isn't clear enough.
All we have is from God and i think some people forget that. We've become well off and can afford to eat out at restaurants but that doesn't mean we can do it on the sabbath. If you want to claim to be a sabbath keeper, you have to follow through and keep the sabbath the way God has written and not make up your own rules or follow the likes of men who have thumbed their nose at God - ignorantly or not, i don't know. We can know better and do better. Loyalty to God should be paramount.
If you want to claim to be a sabbath keeper, you have to follow through and keep the sabbath the way Tessa has written and not make up your own rules...
Well, well, well Tessa. It's a good thing that the priests obeyed your rules.
Num 28:9 - And on the sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot, and two tenth deals of flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and the drink offering thereof:
Num 28:10 - This is the burnt offering of every sabbath, beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering.
Oh wait, no, every sabbath they cooked """and ate""" two lambs.
Guess what the Priests COOKED on the first day of the feast of tabernacles?
Num 29:12 - And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work, and ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days:
Num 29:13 - And ye shall offer a burnt offering, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD; thirteen young bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year; they shall be without blemish:
Thirteen young bulls, two rams, and fourteen lambs, yet Tessa rules that we, the Royal Priesthood aren't allowed to simply go out to eat.
Tessa, if you choose to obey YOUR rules that's fine, but it's not your place to tell others who "claim to be sabbath keepers" what to do!
@ 4:03AM
Tell me this Armstrongite:
Why does Paul give equal weight to New Moons along with sabbaths & holy days? (Col. 2:16)
You can't be adding & deleting items at whim to your Torah-shopping-cart like HWA did.
After Second-Temple, emphasis on New Moons was attenuated, but cultic traces of original Babylonian/early Hebrew moon-synced-sabbath were still extant in Paul's time, and indeed even today - in fact New Moon observing & syncing micro cult schisms are emerging from Seventh-day-Adventism & Armstrongism in this century!
Tell me this. How would one keep the holy days without observing when the new moon occurred?
Also, do you call Seventh Day Adventists or church of God seventh day members who keep the holy days Armstrongite?
I haven't been a member of an Armstrong group for nearly thirty years.
Twain was an intelligent man!
Haven't had time to get on in almost a week, but will respond more fully later. However, for now, I'm surprised that you don't recognize Phil. 3 for what it is.
He is talking about his past as a Pharisee. He says he of all knows what it was like to be a practicing Pharisee (he has credibility, not an attacker of those (pharisees) that were not like him or unknown to him). In verse 7 he states this as the past, and counts it as loss for Christ. Verse 8 he counts those things for rubbish and wanting the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ not the law (v. 9).
V. 18 "For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ." They refuse to accept the cross and what it signifies.
Though you will disagree perhaps, Paul is talking about circumcision in 3:2 and those still saying they need to do it. I don't believe it is the aesthetics as Paul preaches against from the vantage point of one who has been circumcised. No mention of them being offended by their keeping sabbaths and holy days and new moons as uncircumcised.
they are advocating circumcision here. In Galatians the judaizers apparently accepted that circumcision was not necessary (opur identity is in Christ), but believed the practices must be observed. Paul in Galatians is seemingly clearly teaching against that (the handmaiden and her child). If the covenant is done away with, the terms are too. I'm comfortable with recognizing a few controversial aspects of the Law like sabbath, but in as much as it is good for me as it was made for man.
"You can't be adding & deleting items at whim to your Torah-shopping-cart like HWA did."
Really? Yet it's ok to add Easter, Christmas, Sunday keeping etc. as long as your peer-reviewed historians and academic scholars say it's ok?
Oy vey! Wonder what Forest Gump would say about your kind of logic?
Who gives a damn what the false "apostle" and pedophile HWA did?
Mark Twain
"in fact New Moon observing & syncing micro cult schisms are emerging from Seventh-day-Adventism & Armstrongism in this century!"
You say that as if it's news. Just because you've just recently learned of this doesn't mean the rest of us haven't known of this for many, many decades.
Mark Twain
7:39am You're making the same mistake that others make in their arguments against the sabbath and feasts, you assume that I believe the Mt. Sinai covenant is to be kept. I do not believe that. If the sabbath and feasts originated at Mt. Sinai and God said they were only for Israel then you'd have a point. Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man, when was it made? In the garden. God rested, ceased on the seventh day. Not because he had to but because he knew man needed to.
I don't believe in keeping the sabbath because of the fourth commandment. The ten commandments are the words of the covenant which as Paul said was the handmaid. I'm not under that covenant. My salvation does not, has never, and will never be determined by my keeping the sabbath or feasts. But what if falling from grace actually means not being willing to obey God.
Protestantism poo poos obedience, but if it wasn't for disobedience Christ would not have had to die for our sins. Study works in the NT, works are expected, the negativity in the NT in regards to works is thinking that one can earn salvation through those works.
I am the first to acknowledge that the old WCG taught a salvation by works. There was too much judgementalism there to deny that. But it is possible to keep the sabbath and feasts acknowledging that keeping them earn you nothing.
The bible is clear, disobedience earns death, obedience earns nothing. So do we disobey just to emphasize the fact that obedience means nothing when it comes to gaining salvation? What did Paul say? Certainly not.
Yeah, I know it's a fine line that I'm talking about, and I'd say that 95% of sabbath keepers are caught up in legalism, I am not, but I do believe that in order to not sin the sabbath must be kept. Does Jesus save sinners? Yes he does. Does he save sinners in sin? Yes he does if they acknowledge their sin and their weakness.
Mark Twain
I do disagree with your analysis of Galatians.
Mark Twain
@ 7:57AM
Why aren't you consistent; why aren't you keeping New Moons? (Col. 2:16)+(Amos 8:5)
"When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat"
Come off of it 9:22am. You know as well as I that Amos8:5 is talking about Trumpets. Please show me the command to keep New Moon as a sabbath. You just want to argue, most likely just as you did when you were in the WCG. I've found that the most vocal against anything Armstrong were most times the most judgemental while in the WCG. I bet you used to run to the minister about others.
Huck Finn
@ 12:46 PM
It's crystal clear: Sabbaths are abolished, done-away with - Col. 2:16-17 + Gal. 4:10 + Eph. 2:15
. . . . . .Tkach 'gets it'!
. . . . . .HWA 'gets it'!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dafCEgmZScw&t=3865s
@ 12:46 PM "Amos8:5 is talking about Trumpets"
That's a reach; one of the contemporary-sabbatarian's weakest damage-control efforts.
9:47pm and 6:27am Read and ignored for the ignorance contained within.
Joe Harper
@ 8:23 AM
The history of Christian-sabbatarianism is not good: It continues to fail to take hold.
Pauline-theology: Rejected (with a lot of controversy Col. 2:16 + Gal. 4:10)
Early Church Fathers: re-examined & rejected
Nicene Council: re-examined & rejected
Reformation: re-examined & rejected
New world:(1900s)
Millerism: re-examined & rejected (except for a few kooks)(E.G.White)(SdA cult)
Russellites: examined & rejected
Christodelphians: examined & rejected
20th century:
Rejected by HWA (1928) then accepted, then rejected by his successor!
it's a Loser:
Lack Of Supporting Evidence - Rejected
A perfect example of 9:15pm and his peer-reviewed historians, academic scholars, Early church fathers, Nicene council and the rest of the "majority":
2Ti 3:13 - But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, DECEIVING, and being DECEIVED.
Rev 18:23 - And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations DECEIVED.
Thomas Jefferson Snodgrass
Our (willfully ignorant?) anti-sabbatarian says:
"The history of Christian-sabbatarianism is not good: It continues to fail to take hold."
While neglecting Jesus' parable of the sower where the TRUE Word of God is rejected and fails to take hold by the majority. He argues that the majority rejected the sabbath somehow proves that it's wrong!
Hilarious!!!
Could it be that he's merely salving his conscience because in correctly rejecting HWA and the WCG he's rejected biblical truth which he once held dear.
The sad truth of many on this blog.
Becky Thatcher
Anon, March 5, 2020 at 4:31 AM, said:
******
"...Just because you don't understand Gal. 4:10, or Col. 2, or Rom. 14 doesn't prove that Paul was anti-sabbath. Hell the WCG didn't understand those scriptures either.
The WCG wanted everyone to believe that the Galatians, who thought they could earn brownie points from God by law keeping, would actually turn back to pagan days. Total bullshit yet how many fell for that...
...The Galatians were very carefully, scrupulously, keeping the days. Legalistically! The days were indeed the sabbath and feasts but they thought that if they kept them perfectly that it would please God.
I'm a firm believer in keeping the sabbath and feasts but in no way do I think that me keeping them pleases God. In fact Jesus said that any servant who does exactly what his master commands is an unprofitable servant. He didn't go above and beyond.
That was the problem in the WCG, they taught that law keeping was enough. Neglecting the fact that law keeping was merely not sinning. God expects us to not sin. By keeping the law and nothing more we are unprofitable servants.
The fact is that we don't keep the law, humans can't, but that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and say forget it. That's why God sent Jesus, to be our advocate. When we do sin, break God's law, we can go to Jesus, confess our sins, and he will forgive us. At that point we remain unprofitable, now is the time for love, mercy and faith.
Paul was not against the sabbath, he was against the idea that sabbath and feast keeping can earn any favor with God, to which I wholeheartedly agree..."
******
Yes, one does not anything to glory about to God with law-keeping:
"That no flesh should glory in his presence." 1 Cor 1:29
Additionally, Elihu, the most sensible of Job’s friends, pointed out that one’s being righteous or unrighteous has virtually NO effect on God.
Job 35:6 “If thou sinnest, what doest thou against him? or if thy transgressions be multiplied, what doest thou unto him?
:7 “If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand?
:8 “Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art; and thy righteousness may profit the son of man”
In other words: One’s actions, however, good or bad, can profit or harm a fellow human being, but they have no influence whatsoever on what God does.
John
"In other words: One’s actions, however, good or bad, can profit or harm a fellow human being, but they have no influence whatsoever on what God does.
John
March 13, 2020 at 9:39 AM"
Kinda like eating bats and snakes contrary to God's law? Could sabbath keeping be beneficial to all of mankind? I think so. Just as quarantine laws and hygiene laws benefit mankind but man's greedy nature rejects all of God's laws which are beneficial. Who the hell is He to tell me what to do?
@ 12:46 PM "Amos8:5 is talking about Trumpets"
What a pathetic, desperate piece of Armstrong-cult scripture-wresting! see ISA. 66:23 + COL. 2:16
Talk about scripture wresting, you take two scriptures and try to force a new moon celebration of some kind into them. If God intended the new moon day to be a sabbath or a convocation or any kind of celebration of any kind don't you think it would be mentioned in Lev. 23 where all of God's "appointments" are mentioned?
Your version is the pathetic one!
Albert Einstein
The Council at Nicaea was actually quite democratic; the best minds from across the Roman Empire were gathered. Even the heretical hybrid Jewish-Christians were allowed to make submissions. Turns out, at crunch time, the Quartodecimans didn't have their shit together; they were bickering over Jewish Calendar calculations (as they do today) - You won't read that in your glossy-full-color Armstrongite magazines!
The Armstrongites and Seventh-day Cherrypickers try to tell us that it was they who were persecuted and shut out of debate throughout history. No surprise the opposite is true: try making a scholarly submission of arranging a debate with Armstrongite leaders: You will get gagged and booted out!
Get over yourselves Armstrongites
Scholarly submission?
You are hilarious!
I'm sensing that you're the one who needs to get over himself.
Counselor Deanna Troi
Tonto: "he give up Herbert, but not Herbert-Heresies"
Do you have Tonto on the brain? He hasn't posted on this thread for two weeks. You are one messed up individual!
Geordi La Forge
Post a Comment