This site provides information regarding scriptural support for Christianity and will keep you and your children out of the professing Christian Jewish Cults, like David Koresh, Armstrongism and the Seventh Day Adventist
Historical Data - Scriptural Insight And
Published on December 8, 2004 By Sabbatismus In Religion
Jeremiah the fourth chapter tells us how the earth was plunged back into darkness and being void and without form again after the sin of Adam and Eve. Jer.4: 22 For my people [the Jews to whom he gave the Sabbath] is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. 23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. This the prophet Jeremiah reveals that the world has returned to place where it was at the beginning in Genesis 1 : 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

The Apostle John writes from the vantage point of having seen the "Light of the World" (John 8:12) arrived on the earth in the form of a human, yet both God and man. In the Genesis of the New Creation in Christ, John begins his Gospel.

The Gospel of John and the Genesis 1 Birth of Light

The gospel of John chapter 1 was written intentionally as a new creation narrative like that of Genesis 1. Like Genesis 1, it begins with the first day of the week being as a day of the beginning of light. The dividing of light from the darkness. 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

The first day of creation in Genesis, is the first day of the week, what we call "Sunday". Moses in Genesis one and John in John Chapter 1 both use the bringing forth of Light into the world as the beginning of creation. The Holy Spirit has stirred up the mind of the Apostle John to see consider, the relationship with the bringing forth of light of the sun to provide light for the world, and the Sun of righteousness (Mal.4:2) who would bring forth Light unto men.

John's gospel first reminds us that "All things were made by him (Christ, the Word) and without him was not anything that was made" . These words are of particular significance. It is Christ who made the sun. It is Christ who made the first day of the week and He made it a day of light. In these words we find the refutation of any argument that says the first day of the week is of Pagan origin or that Christ cannot be born on a December 25th. Because, Christ is the Creator of all things 7 days a week 365 days a year, they all belong to Him, the Creator.

As the first day of the week in Genesis, is represented as in darkness and the bringing forth of light of the sun arrives on that day, so Christ saw fit, to be born on the day when all the world knew as the birth of the sun and light, by the Creator. John then directly ties the birth of the sons of God with those who received Christ in this Genesis account of John 1. "12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were BORN, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." The very first "receiving of Him" in scripture is at Christ's birth by the Shepherds and the Magi.

It is in John's gospel in the Genesis narrative, we find the scripture that some go a muck with. "14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, ) full of grace and truth" Because of a hypersensitive wall against Paganism has been built in the same fashion the Pharisees built the hyper-sensitive wall around the law of the Sabbath, some Christians are unable to see the scripture in the frame work and context to see the significance of the 1st day of the week and the bringing forth of the Sun of Righteousness in New Testament scripture.

Yes, John uses the word of God "dwelling among us" in a tabernacling manner. In the context here, it is not Christ's birth that John speaks of but Christ being the "only begotten" . When Christ is first conceived in Mary's womb, he began tabernacling in the flesh. The Israelites began tabernacling not at the Feast of Tabernacles but at Passover. If one were wishing to make a comparison of Christ's Tabernacling beginnings he would be on much safer ground, to say Christ was conceived at Passover, when He first began to tabernacle in the womb of Mary, as Israel began to tabernacle in the Wilderness during these days.. We find in Luke 1:43 that already months before Christ's birth, Elizabeth sees Mary with Christ in her womb and cried out, " Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For the Lord was already tabernacling among men. How incredibly significant is it that Exodus 12 commands 1And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, 2This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. " and that Christ would likely been conceived at the beginning of the "first month" and year of his tabernacling among men in the womb of Mary, in the Egypt of sin and darkness of the world.

While this is an ever fair and accurate analogy, it presents a problem for the Christ was born during the feast crowd. Because, if Christ truly did begin "dwelling among us" in the womb of Mary at about the same time the Israelites began tabernacle-ing, then Christ would have been born in December, a month with which they want nothing to do.

This major problem for those who see paganism at every corner, because then Christ would be born on or near the day of the Birth of the Sun in the sky, when both pagans and Jews looked forward to the days of light. Nevertheless, John 1:14 is given in the context of the creation account of God birth of light upon the first day of the week. And the tabernacling of Christ in the flesh, is directly linked not to the feast of Tabernacles but the day of the Sun giving birth both to Light in the NEW creation, and the sons of God, who receive the Light in the Genesis narrative of John 1.

More, enlightening is that probablity that God would take the darkest day of the year as the day to bring LIGHT into the world, when man is spiritually represented as being in darkness, void of true knowledge and righteousness. The first day of creation in the Old Testament , Genesis 1 began with the bringing forth of Light, the New Creation in the New Testament begins the bringing forth of Light, Christ. The whole reason, we have the tracking of years B.C .& A.D., is because the day and year Christ is born a new creation began. It all started with The Sun of Righteousness being born into the world of Darkness and sin. The days of darkness were now ending as in the Genesis 1 account. Now, the Light of the World (Jn.8:12) was brought forth into world to restore what had been lost in sin. To underscore this, Luke 2 records that Christ was born in darkness. And it is highly likely Christ was born on the darkest day of the year to underscore, the darkness of sin into which the world had fallen. Even more, the Light of the world was brought forth at this time that there would be no mistake, "3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." And this is the very issue, the Sabbatarians refuse to see or even to honor God and credit Christ. They take away the Honor and Glory due to the Creator and give it to the Pagans saying that they own the days and God has nothing to do with either December 25th or the first day of the week, both which are Christ's own creation!

How prophetic are the words and the teaching of the prophet Isaiah concerning the birth of Christ in Chapter 60. " 1Arise, shine; for thy LIGHT is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. 2For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. 3And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. 4Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side. 5Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee. 6The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the LORD. " We see that Mt.2:11 records the wise men, the Kings of the Gentiles, "they presented unto him (Christ) gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh" at his birth! What great prophetic vision of birth of Christ when "darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the people". But notice how the birth is proclaimed! It is said to be "the brightness of thy rising"! The Sun of Righteousness, Christ is described as an "arising" and the "brightness of light" AT HIS BIRTH!


There is historical proof as well as scriptural proof.

A noted advocate of the December 25th date was John Chrysostom (c. 347-407), a humble and caring man, perhaps best known for his writings on the Bible and the Christian faith. He was also an eloquent preacher in the city of Constantinople, where his sermons became a stronger attraction for people than the shows of the amphitheater. Through his ministry many souls came to Christ-from among heretics, pagans, and Jews.

He was not without his enemies, however, and suffered times of persecution, including his church being burned down. illtimately the Emperor Arcadius ordered his banishment to an inhospitable region, the desert of Pityos. But while being taken there, Chrysostom died in his 60th year. It is reported that with his last words he was praising the Lord!
Chrysostom claimed the December 25th date was supported by the actual census/tax records of the Holy Family when they registered in Bethlehem. We have no way to prove if those records were still in existence, or were authentic, but Chrysostom was not the only one who referred to them.
Justin Martyr (100-165), in his noted Apology-a detailed explanation of the Christian faith addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius-stated that Jesus was born at Bethlehem ''as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing" (Apol. I, 34). Tertullian (160-250) spoke of "the census of Augustus-that most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives of Rome" (Against Marcion, Bk. 4, 7). When Cyril of Jerusalem (348- 386) asked Julius to assign the true date of Christ's birth "from census documents brought by Titus to Rome," Julius assigned December 25th.

Chrysostom taught that it was on the day of Atonement that Zacharias received the angelic announcement that he would have a son. This would place the conception of John in late September, and so the conception of Christ (which was six months later) in March, leading to a December birth!
According to rabbinical tradition, when the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., the priestly course of Jehoiarib was serving. If the order of priestly service was unbroken through all those 70 years, it has been calculated that the course of Abijah, to which Zacharias belonged, would have been serving during the first week of October. This would be only slightly later than Chrysostom's position, but one which would still allow for Christ's conception to have been in March and his birth in December.

It should be carefully noted, however, that numerous arguments have been based on when Zacharias served. None are conclusive, since all must assume certain things:
Did the priestly courses start at the beginning of each year, or did they function as a continuous week by week cycle? Was this cycle interrupted during the annual feasts? Did all priests serve then, with the order of courses continuing thereafter? When the Jews added a month, every three years or so (to bring their lunar calendar into alignment with the solar year), how did this affect the timing of the courses? Did they always follow a totally uniform and unchanging policy from generation to generation, or were there variables? Our purpose here is not to argue for one date over another, so we need not get hung up on details.

THE CHRIST FROM BIRTH
There was a sect, the Gnostics, who believed Jesus of Nazareth became the "Christ" at his baptism, that this was when God was "manifested" in the flesh. Eventually, through the influence of Valentinus, January 6 was set aside to honor this event, called "Epiphany" (from the Greek epiphaneia, meaning manifestation).

There were others who began to observe Epiphany on this date also, but they believed (correctly) that Jesus was the Christ from his birth. However, since Jesus' baptism occurred on or near the anniversary of his birth (Lk. 3:23), it seemed more fitting for them to observe January 6th in honor of his birth. This may have even served to counter the false teaching of the Gnostics, emphasizing by this observance, that he had an actual birth as the Christ. If so, setting aside a day to honor his birth did not stem from some ulterior motive. The Armenian Church still observes January 6th.

Was there a feasible basis for January 6th as the date of Christ's birth, and subsequent baptism 30 years later on this date? Was this based on some then-extant records? I don't know. Centuries ago there were disputes as to whether January 6th or December 25th was the correct date, with large groups of people favoring one or the other. But in either case, these two dates only a few days apart are both in winter!
Would winter be a feasible time for the baptism of Jesus? I know of no reason why not at least the winter weather would not have interfered. The very low elevation of the Jordan where Jesus was baptized-near the Dead Sea, which is the lowest spot on earth-enjoys a very mild winter climate.
What about travel for Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem in winter? It is very possible they would have chosen the route through the Jordan Valley. If so, a large percentage of the trip would have been below sea level, thus providing protection from cold weather, even in December. (The Jordan Valley runs between the Sea of Galilee at 689 feet below sea level, to the Dead Sea at 1,306 feet below sea level.)

Would winter have been the time for people like Joseph and Mary to be taxed? It must have been in winter, for only then was field labor suspended! Shepherds in the field at winter, yes. It has been often stated that shepherds in that, part of the world did not abide in the field during the middle of winter, that by October 15th they would have brought their flocks home-thus ruling out December as the time of Christ's birth. But this is far from conclusive. There may have been exceptions. That some shepherds did face cold weather may be seen in Jacob's complaint to Laban, that he had suffered from frost by night (Gen. 31:40).

In his highly regarded and scholarly volumes, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim says about December 25th: "There is no adequate reason for questioning the historical accuracy of this date. The objections generally made rest on grounds, which seem to me historically untenable." Though various writers have quoted Lightfoot about flocks not lying out during the winter months, this was not true of all flocks. He cites ancient Jewish sources to the effect that there are flocks that "remain in the open alike in the hottest days and in the rainy season i.e. all the year round" (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Bk.2, p.186),

When Luke mentioned shepherds abiding in the field, did he seek to convey what time of year it was, was not or might these words suggest something different: that these shepherds were very poor, living in the field with their flock? They may have been without shelter for their flock or houses for themselves regardless of what season it was.

It is very possible they were this poor. If so, there is a beautiful contrast between the shepherds and the wise men who were, apparently, very rich. Both groups came to worship Jesus while he was an infant, a lovely example of how the message of Christ is for all people, rich or poor.

Anti-Christmas in the Christmas Bible Story???? The Biblical account celebrates the day of Christ's birth but, the story of Christ's birth doesn't end there. The Biblical account also reminds us of the slaughter of the innocent infants, (Mt. 2:16-18) , that suffered as a result of Herod's attempt to destroy Christ AT the DAY of His birth. It's not surprising to see those who zealously work today, to destroy celebration of the day OF Christ's birth.... Herod tried it first, 2,000 years ago.


Comments (Page 1)
on Dec 08, 2004
This article is long, but definitely worth the read.

I was very fascinated by the symetry between the Genesis "bringing forth light into the darkness" and Christ's birth "bringing forth light into darkenss."

Chrysostom claimed the December 25th date was supported by the actual census/tax records of the Holy Family when they registered in Bethlehem. We have no way to prove if those records were still in existence, or were authentic, but Chrysostom was not the only one who referred to them.Justin Martyr (100-165), in his noted Apology-a detailed explanation of the Christian faith addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius-stated that Jesus was born at Bethlehem ''as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing" (Apol. I, 34). Tertullian (160-250) spoke of "the census of Augustus-that most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives of Rome" (Against Marcion, Bk. 4, 7). When Cyril of Jerusalem (348- 386) asked Julius to assign the true date of Christ's birth "from census documents brought by Titus to Rome," Julius assigned December 25th.

In addition to the sheer number of scholars listed here supporting a December birth, the early dates of these scholars is most impressive. Surely being so "close" to Christ's birth would give them more accuracy than our current group of educated guesses.

Chrysostom taught that it was on the day of Atonement that Zacharias received the angelic announcement that he would have a son. This would place the conception of John in late September, and so the conception of Christ (which was six months later) in March, leading to a December birth!According to rabbinical tradition, when the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., the priestly course of Jehoiarib was serving. If the order of priestly service was unbroken through all those 70 years, it has been calculated that the course of Abijah, to which Zacharias belonged, would have been serving during the first week of October. This would be only slightly later than Chrysostom's position, but one which would still allow for Christ's conception to have been in March and his birth in December.

This is the first time I have heard such a clearly concise explanation. I found it astounding.

It's not surprising to see those who zealously work today, to destroy celebration of the day OF Christ's birth.... Herod tried it first, 2,000 years ago.

Great point. An insightful from me on this one.



on Dec 22, 2005
The whole reason, we have the tracking of years B.C.& A.D., is because the day and year Christ is born a new creation began.

Actually it is shown that Christ was actually born 3 B.C. When the Pope Gregory in 591 A.D. was starting the new dating he missed it by three years. Oops.

As for the Sunday worship. If you look into the Catholic records Sunday worship didn't come to be till after 338A.D. That's more than 300 years after the death. Which oddly predates all of your historical evidence.

As for Dec. 25th Your paper was very interesting. I would say that was a new perspective. If I had the time and energy I would show you three different ways to prove that when Jesus was crucified on passover he was 33 1/2 years old (utilizing historical and biblical facts). Do the math and that does correlate with the fall feasts. I am not totally convinced he was born during feast of Tabernacles but I find it was that season. The other thing I find interesting is that the Gregorian calendar that we have today was based on a completely different time cycle than the Jewish calendar (which used the new moon for months). One other note about the Gregorian calendar is that the days are based off of astrological things. My point is that we are two different calendars. So Christmas would rarely be on the same day in the Gregorian calendar.

You have quite a convincing arguement on your hands but unfortunately it doesn't line up with history that predates 340 A.D. The Roman Catholic Church during the time of Constantine and following really changed alot of the roots of the faith. You dig in the Catholic archives they are there. It is a bit difficult to dig up but they are there.

Thanks for the thought. I enjoyed it. Peace and blessings.

Adventure Dude
on Dec 27, 2005
As for the Sunday worship. If you look into the Catholic records Sunday worship didn't come to be till after 338A.D. That's more than 300 years after the death. Which oddly predates all of your historical evidence.


The early Christians were worshipping on the first day of the week starting with the Resurrection Morning. So this would be around 33AD or so. The book of Acts shows they met, (most likely at night) afterwards on the first day of the week from then on. Remember the one that fell out the window falling asleep during the sermon?

The CC just formalized it and made it legal. Sort of like Abraham Lincoln formalizing Thanksgiving much later after the celebration had already been established.

My question is...how do we know that God made Adam on a Sunday?

on Dec 28, 2005
The early Christians were worshipping on the first day of the week starting with the Resurrection Morning. So this would be around 33AD or so. The book of Acts shows they met, (most likely at night) afterwards on the first day of the week from then on.


Here we go again? Quick thought. There is 8 references to the first day of the week. Four of which are recountance of the ressurection. There are more than eight references to observing the Sabbath in Acts alone. Acts 18:4 'He reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks.' Not buying the Sunday worship prior to 338AD other than when the feasts fell upon a sunday I don't see it as every week. That's my rebuttle.

Peace and Blessings.

Adventure Dude
on Dec 28, 2005
Acts 18:4 'He reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks.'


Well that makes sense.....where's the best place to reach a group of people assembled together? On a Saturday cuz they would be at Temple worshipping God. What was he reasoning and persuading?

Don't worry Dude...it's not an essential.....

KFC :
on Dec 29, 2005
What was he reasoning and persuading?


Yes they were worshipping G-D. I think it is often forgotten that during this time they didn't have radio, TV, etc. News traveled by foot. Not everyone knew of the first coming of the Messiah immediately. They didn't have mass newscasts. Just like after the ressurection and Jesus is walking with the diciples and tells them about how the Torah spoke of him. They had to be persuaded or shown that he was the Messiah.

One question. If the W-RD was made flesh and the Living W-RD was a sabbath keeper why would he change himself especially when we know that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever?

Adventure Dude
on Dec 30, 2005
If the W-RD was made flesh and the Living W-RD was a sabbath keeper why would he change himself especially when we know that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever?


Jesus wasn't changing his policy or doctrine. The Apostles began the practice of meeting on the Lord's Day (Sunday) afterwards to commemorate the resurrection.

Christ worshipped on the Sabbath and kept the Sabbath as part of the Law of Moses.


(That is, when he wasn't healing, gathering grain for food, etc., acts of defiance against the Pharisaical version of keeping the Sabbath day holy...)

Remember, even early Christian disciples were still subject to the Law of Moses until the Atonement and Resurrection. That is the point when the Law was superceded by the blood of the innocent, perfect, infinite Sacrifice.

on Dec 30, 2005
Chrysostom claimed the December 25th date was supported by the actual census/tax records of the Holy Family when they registered in Bethlehem. We have no way to prove if those records were still in existence, or were authentic, but Chrysostom was not the only one who referred to them.Justin Martyr (100-165), in his noted Apology-a detailed explanation of the Christian faith addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius-stated that Jesus was born at Bethlehem ''as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing" (Apol. I, 34). Tertullian (160-250) spoke of "the census of Augustus-that most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives of Rome" (Against Marcion, Bk. 4, 7). When Cyril of Jerusalem (348- 386) asked Julius to assign the true date of Christ's birth "from census documents brought by Titus to Rome," Julius assigned December 25th.


I really cannot buy this. Pope Gregory XIII didn't come up with the Gregorian calendar (which is what we have today) until around 1581 A.D. He based his calendar off of the Julian calendar was inadequate because the vernal equinox would move (ie involves easter). I am not sure which December 25th these guys are making reference too but it can't be the same calendar that we have today. The Julian calendar had been changed too in order to account for the seasons. One change was by Julius Ceaser around 46 BC where he added 90 days between Nov and Feb.

Disclaimer: Hopefully you don't see me as being like Herod and trying to eliminate Christ's birth. I am definitely interested in his birth and when but the historical records I am finding don't line up with Dec. 25th. I am only trying to seek out the truth. I am not trying to criticize you only trying to seek the birth date being Dec 25th. I know you have done alot of research and hard work in this and I appreciate it.

Plus for me this is helping to keep me motivated to search out your arguments. So in that I say thanks.

Jesus wasn't changing his policy or doctrine. The Apostles began the practice of meeting on the Lord's Day (Sunday) afterwards to commemorate the resurrection.


How can you say that isn't a change of policy. For approximately 4,000 years the Seventh day of the week was the Sabbath. Now celebrating the first day of the week as the Sabbath isn't a change in policy or doctrine? I am SO confused on this one? Please enlighten me.

The references of the "Lord's Day" in the NT references the end times (the second coming). Don't believe me? Look them up and read the surrounding verses where they are located. What is taking place during theses references? It isn't talking about Sunday sorry.

Remember, even early Christian disciples were still subject to the Law of Moses until the Atonement and Resurrection. That is the point when the Law was superceded by the blood of the innocent, perfect, infinite Sacrifice.


I definitely agree with you as he was the perfect and infinite Sacrifice but when I read the prophets I don't see the sacrifice doing away with any or all of the law of Moses. If we are no longer subject to the law of Moses than I can kill, steal, rape because those laws are done away with. G-D forbid! You can't say that they were re-emphasized because you say the law is done away with! That also eliminates the covenant or law concerning the rainbow. You see if you take the Law of Moses out of the NT there is NOTHING left. Mark 12:29-31 where Jesus states the Greatest Commandments being 'Jesus answered, The first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.' I have heard this as the 'new law' but wait these are word for word from Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:8 So they cannot be a 'new law.' Also I would like to note that this isn't the 10 Commandments as the Adventists like to quote.

Here is my thought about Jesus' sacrifice. The sacrifice for sins still exists just we now have the perfect and infinite Sacrifice (as singrdave uses) so we now have redemption of sin. We still need the law in order to recognize what a sin is. For the definition by Paul for sin is a transgression of the law. Another reason for having the law. So that we can know what our sins are. Don't get me wrong the most important aspect is having faith. Without it all of this talk is fruitless.

Peace and blessings,

Adventure Dude
on Dec 30, 2005
Here is my thought about Jesus' sacrifice. The sacrifice for sins still exists just we now have the perfect and infinite Sacrifice (as singrdave uses) so we now have redemption of sin. We still need the law in order to recognize what a sin is. For the definition by Paul for sin is a transgression of the law. Another reason for having the law. So that we can know what our sins are. Don't get me wrong the most important aspect is having faith. Without it all of this talk is fruitless.


Agree here with all this. I think Singrdave said it perfectly also. I think Dude you have a hangup on the Saturday Sabbath. Read Rom 14 and Col 2:16.

Can you show me anywhere in scripture where the Sabbath was given to the Gentiles? Start with Acts 15.

God had many covenants with the Jews. Each one got better and better. They didn't replace the former just enhanced them. That's the same with the New Covenant of Grace over the old Covenant, the Law. He didn't totally do away with it per se, just made it better. The Sabbath was not given out until Mt Sinai where the law was given. The Sabbath was a memorial of what God had created. Sabbath means rest and pointed to creation. Jesus is that rest. He is Lord of the Sabbath. Our rest is in him not the day or any day. That's what Paul was trying to say.

Jesus said the memorial for his death and resurrection would be the Lord's supper. That would fall under the New Covenant. The early Christians met on the first day of the week.
on Dec 30, 2005
God had many covenants with the Jews.


Before we dive into this I need some clarification or your definitions. What do you mean by Jews? Who are Gentiles?
on Dec 30, 2005
The Jews of course came thru the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and were circumcized. That was a covenant God gave to the Jews starting with Abraham in Genesis....not the Gentiles. It set them apart.

The Gentiles came from outside that line (non Jews) and were uncircumcized.

The new covenant speaks of circumcision of the heart. It's a new and better way.

Now can you answer where did God give the Sabbath to the Gentiles?
on Jan 03, 2006
The Jews of course came thru the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and were circumcized. That was a covenant God gave to the Jews starting with Abraham in Genesis....not the Gentiles. It set them apart.


This is exactly why I asked you this question. Two things. Abraham was not considered a Jew. The definition of Jew is a decendant of the tribe of Judah or from Judea (which is where Judah's inheretence). Abraham and Isaac were Hebrews (meaning called out). But were they the only hebrews of the day? Let's look at Genesis 17:23.

Genesis 17:23 - 'And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.
'


Now I ask who was circumcised? Was it just Abraham and Ishmael? '...every male among the men of Abraham's house...'

Exodus 12:48-49 -'And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. (KJV)'

So it is the believers not just the Jews. We see that throughout scriptures with what are called righteous converts (not descendents of ). I am not sure where the root of the teaching, my guess is that it came from the arrogance of some Jews. The idea that we could be grafted in isn’t a new idea either. Ruth is a righteous convert as well and it happens to be in the line of Joseph (the husband of Mary who bore the Messiah). With that in mind let’s proceed to your next question.

Now can you answer where did God give the Sabbath to the Gentiles?


Mark 2:27 answers that. 'And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. (KJV)'

Again G-D gave us a day to rest and put our focus on him. It doesn't distinguish between distinguish between anyone (Jew, Gentile, Greek, Egyptian, etc) because it boils down to believer and non-believer. As stated before it is 'One law' for everyone. To me I could also say The Laws were made for man, and not man for the laws. G-D gave us the laws for our own good. So we have a guideline on what is right to do. Just like parents do when raising kids. Last time I checked we are a child of G-D especially since we are made in his image.

The new covenant speaks of circumcision of the heart. It's a new and better way.


There is a misunderstanding of the 'new covenant'. This new covenant did not get rid of all of the old in fact it restates the old. There really isn't anything 'new'. Tell me what is new other than we no longer sacrifice bulls for our sin (which really isn't new we were told of this throughout the prophets)? Everything is derived from the books of the Law and prophets. As for the circumcision of the heart again it is not new. Lev 26:41 ~ '...if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled... (KJV)' I have answered MANY of your questions and have become more convinced in my belief. On a more personal note it seems to me that maybe you have been hurt by the SDA by some reason that you threw out the baby with the bath water. Only you can answer that. But I am interested in hearing what is actually new meaning not derived from the OT. Since the 'Old Law' is done away with as you say.

KFC you have discussed with me over the law before but I struggle with your arguments. You say Paul is telling the Jews to do away with their ways completely. Paul is to me the most misunderstood writer of the Bible. If Paul had gone into the temple told them that the laws were done away with and that they were to start worshiping G-D on Sunday he would have been thrown out of the temple and maybe even stoned for blasphemy.

I think Dude you have a hangup on the Saturday Sabbath. Read Rom 14 and Col 2:16.


You are right I am hung up on the Sabbath (being Satuday). I am also zealous for the Law. Acts 21:20, 22:3, Gal 1:14, 1 Peter 3:13, 2 Tim 4:2. In fact if you are feeling like I am judging you, then you are wrong. I am trying to persuade but I haven't persecuted you, not made negative remarks against you for keeping Sunday. I used to keep Sunday too.

Food for thought.

2 Thes. 2:15 ~ 'Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (KJV)'

Taught by the word. What word did they have at this time? Keep in mind the gospels weren't widely distributed yet.

James 1:21-23 ~ Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: (KJV)'

Again the gospel had not been distributed yet. Which word would they have had?

Christ worshipped on the Sabbath and kept the Sabbath as part of the Law of Moses.


As for you singrdave do you not live by the "What would Jesus do" philosophy? If you don’t what do you do live by? He was the W-RD made flesh. So to not live like him would be rejecting G-D's W-RD? Heaven forbid. Just something to think about.

I do care for each of you and hopefully my rebuttles and discussion do not come across in anger but in love for fellow mankind. Peace and Blessings to you all.

Adventure Dude
on Jan 04, 2006
Two things. Abraham was not considered a Jew


According to who? Abraham's name means "father of a multitude." He is revered as the spiritual ancestor of all Jews. The Pharisees (Jews) called him "Their father." Maybe someone should have told them otherwise. The Abrahamic Covenant is the root of the tree that the Gentiles later get grafted into.

The definition of Jew is a decendant of the tribe of Judah or from Judea (which is where Judah's


Judah was the 4th son of Jacob. So you're telling me that only one son of the 12 was considered a Jew? What are the 11 other sons and their descendants? Moses was a Levite.? According to your definition, he wasn't a Jew. Actually all the Jews come from Shem which is one of the three sons of Noah. But God made his covenant with Abraham and he's always been considered the first.

Hebrew is an ethnic term designating the lineage of the nation of Israel and the Jewish people. Abraham was as you said called a Hebrew, an ethnic designation that his descendants derived from him. This word Hebrew comes from his ancestor, Eber.

Also the bible in the NT speaks quite often of Jews and Gentiles. It never mentions, Jews, Hebrews and Gentiles.The Jews were called Jews, Hebrews and Children of Israel.

I'd have to get back to you on the Exodus passage. I've got lots of Jewish books that deal with the Jewish Social Life and such. My guess is that the Passover was given only to the Jews and those (a few others like Ruth) who were following the God of the Jews. Again the ceremony was given to this nation and those that came under the umbrella of it. It didn't make them Jews tho. Ishamel was never considered a Jew. In fact his line is where the Arabs come from. Yet he was circumcised. My three boys were as well...doesn't make them a Jew or a Hebrew. A Jew WAS to be circumcised. No ifs ands or butts!! It was to set them apart from the other nations that did no such thing. It was a covenant made for them and those in their household (for cleanliness reasons).

I'm not sure what your point is on the others circumcised in the house. Remember the Jews would not be around the "uncircumcised"..... considered them unclean. So all around them had to be snipped lets say. Ouch!!


Mark 2:27 answers that. 'And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. (KJV)'


This is your answer for God giving the Gentiles the Sabbath? Well what do you do with Acts 15 when all the Apostles gathered at the Jerusalem Council? They too wondered...do we make these new converts (Gentiles) come under the law and be circumcised? NO was the answer and nowhere did it say they were to worship on a particular day either.

What do you do with Col 2:16-17? "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect or a holy day or of the new moon or of the Sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come: but the body is of Christ.

Rom 14:5 One man esteems one day above another, another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

See dude....the Adventists pretty much stay in the OT. If you study with them for any length of time you will be immersed in the Old Covenant. The New gets largely ignored. Also if you think I'm not leveling with you...check the names of their kids. All the Adventists I know name their kids with OT names, like Micah, Isaac, Ezekiel etc.

No they did nothing to "hurt" me. I was baptized at 15 in that group. They are following false doctrine and saw through it. After a while of studying with different groups you start to see a pattern. Nice people but deceived.

You wrote too much...maybe another day....we'll cover more.

While I do disagree with your stance I think it's awesome that you're studying Dude!! Keep up the good work. I enjoy chatting with you.
on Jan 05, 2006
You are right the Jews did look up to Abraham as their father because he is the father of the covenant. But he was not a Jew by definition. He is a Hebrew which under the umbrella is the "Jew". The problem with understanding this topic is that the word Jew has been used SO loosely that it is extremely misunderstood. Look up the definition of Jew. It will say an inhabitant of the Kingdom of Judah. It doesn't say of Israel. Also you will find in the definition of Jew that the were decendencts of the ancient Hebrews. Even from that definition it gives precedence of Hebrews then Jews. When did the term 'Hebrews' come into existence? With Abraham. When did the term Israel come into existence? With Isaac. Can I say that Abraham was an Israelite? I can say it but I would be incorrect. Let me add by asking this. Who was the book of Hebrews written to?



I'm not sure what your point is on the others circumcised in the house. Remember the Jews would not be around the "uncircumcised"..... considered them unclean.


Two quick things. Everyone who lived with Abraham were circumcized with him. And my second point being, circumcision of the heart was not a new idea.

Well what do you do with Acts 15 when all the Apostles gathered at the Jerusalem Council?


Just because they met on the first day of the week didn't make it a new sabbath. If you look at the Jewish community they meet on sunday too. Typically that is when they teach the young ones but Saturday is their day set aside for worship. Just because they teach on sunday doesn't make it a new sabbath. In the OT it clearly states 'Remember the Sabbath to keep it HOLY'. When this was stated there was no inference to the first day of the week. Let me direct you to link that may help.

Link

I didn't write this article but I will have it up on my sight for a short time. If it isn't the first page go to Biblical Insight and select 'From Sabbath to Sunday.'

You wrote too much...maybe another day....we'll cover more.


Sorry I got excited.

They are following false doctrine and saw through it.


But I ask is everything they do false? Granted I see falsities in every religion. Religions are created by man and become inflexible. I don't want that for my life. I don't want to settle in and get cozy (at least not while I'm young hee hee ). But I don't throw out everything that every religion has to offer that has some basis in scripture.

The New gets largely ignored.


I would disagree with you on the SDA perspective here. I think they ignore parts of both (the OT & NT) but that is my opinion.

While I do disagree with your stance I think it's awesome that you're studying Dude!! Keep up the good work. I enjoy chatting with you.


You disagree? WHAT!? ha ha a little humor hee hee. I am loving the challenges being set before me because G-D is using these forums to encourage me to dig. Props be to G-D. I likewise have enjoyed our discussions eventhough you disagree with me .

Yes Let's cover more. Hopefully through our discussions others are learning too! Praise be to G-D. Peace and Blessings.

Adventure Dude
on Jan 05, 2006
Can I say that Abraham was an Israelite? I can say it but I would be incorrect. Let me add by asking this. Who was the book of Hebrews written to?


For the most part I don't really disagree with you here. I understand that Judah means Jew. I knew that. But Israelites didn't come from Isaac but with Jacob. Remember Jacob's name was changed to Israel. But I think you are getting too technical. Cuz the Jews, Hebrews, Israelites and Children of Israel are really all interchanged. They are one and the same basically. They are all sons of Israel. Which makes them all Israelites or Hebrews, even tho Judah's name means Jew.

When the books were titled after 100 Ad they were titled for convenience. Within the epistle itself there is no identification of its recipients as either Hebrews (Jews) or Gentiles. But since it's filled with references and history of the Jewish background it's title makes sense. It doesn't touch on Gentile or Pagan practices. My guess is this was written to the Christians of Hebrew (Jewish) background.

Look at James 1: "To the 12 tribes scattered." Same thing. Now we have another name....one of the 12 tribes.

Hopefully through our discussions others are learning too


I can only imagine. I'm sure they think we are quite loopy.

KFC

Meta
Views
» 1146
Comments
» 20
Category
Sponsored Links