Sabbath "Remains" for the People of God Heb 4 [Archive]

BobRyan

07-14-2005, 12:59 PM

Now Paul adds to his argument for Perseverance made from Psalms 95 – by going back to the first great promise of rest – given to Adam. Gen 2:3

Heb 4:
4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "" AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS'';Here we see it is explicitly the Seventh-day Sabbath that is referenced – the Creator's work in resting on the 7th day just as God Himself insists that mankind “obey” and honor Christ the Creator’s Holy day in the Sabbath commandment. (The day “made for mankind” Mark 2:27 by Christ the Creator).

Paul then goes back to the failing example of Moses’ generation that is used in the Psalms 95 message to David’s generation. Paul points out that “some” did not enter – “some” failed “not all” as Heb 11 points out. And so it “remains for some” to enter.

Heb 4
5 and again in this passage, "" THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.''
6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news (gospel) preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience,Here again the point is made that “some” failed and their failure was in the form of “disobedience”. This is not a charge that David is not an OT saint or that the list of Heb 11 is false or that Paul as a Jew is not also a saint. It is the claim that “some” failed.

Paul is also not claiming that the Sabbath keeping saints of David’s day who did NOT fail – stopped honoring Christ the Creator’s Holy Day.

Failure to enter to the TRUE rest whether symbolized by Canaan or Christ the Creator’s Holy Day is due to "disobedience" and failure to persevere “firm until the end”. Paul takes these two desired positive examples of rest and uses them as motivators. Obviously the Jews of Paul’s day already had access to the land of Canaan and the Sabbath. But Paul is pointing them to ways in which these examples of rest are denied (literally denying the generation of Moses’ day the benefit of going into Canaan) and figuratively denying the people of David’s day of entering into true rest (though they are IN Canaan) if they do not learn the Psalms 95 lesson.

- FAILURE to OBEY the Word of God (in this case it is a reference to OT people who FAIL to OBEY the commandments of God). This is not Elijah, Enoch, Moses, nor any others mentioned in the "hall of faith" Heb 11. But it is those who fell away and who God longs to restore back to the place from which they fell. (Rom 11:19-23) – the SAME place into which WE ALSO are grafted in.

Paul goes back to the Psalms 95 message of David’s day saying that THEN God fixed a day for repentance, a day for the promise of rest given and a call to learn from past examples of failure.

Heb 4
7 He again fixes a certain day, ""Today,'' saying through David after so long a time just as has been said before, "" TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS.''
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, He would not have spoken of another day after that.The promise is given to the saints of the OT through David after so long a time – since that failing generation in Moses’ day. Psalms 95 is using the symbol of Canaan as the symbol of ultimate rest in Christ as saints. (Note: David was not expelled from Canaan for being a saint – saved in Christ and born-again. Those who want to use this argument FOR perseverance by abolishing those positive examples of REST it appeals to – are wrenching the text to their own usages.)

Indeed the OFFER of true rest - being in perfect harmony and communion with God as was Adam on HIS first Sabbath - REMAINED even in the time of the Sabbath keeping saints in David’s generation – WHEN they were all already IN the land of Canaan where Joshua had led them. Yet even there that promise “that remains today” was given calling it "TODAY" in David’s time Ps 95:7. Paul switches from the Psalms 95 argument that being IN Canaan is “rest” (certainly it was the rest denied to the people of Moses’ day). David and his generation are IN the land of Canaan but Paul says that they too were at risk / in danger of not entering into rest. A kind of rest that Joshua could not have given them by leading them into the REST of Canaan. Paul argues that we are in the same condition – the need to diligently enter into that spiritual rest of salvation – just as David’s generation needed to enter.

We are simply offered this SAME promise given to God's Sabbath-keeping saints - in Ps 95 as it was called then - "TODAY".

The SAME offer of spiritual REST ACTIVE in Ps 95 - IS STILL the message of Today. The SAME rest as the OT Sabbath-keeping saint (David) spoke of as being VALID in His day – still “remains” today.

Heb 4:
9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
Paul argues that this positive example of rest – God’s Sabbath remains and that JUST as Israel could not enter the OT Canaan example of rest while unfaithful and disobedient SO the saints of David’s day could not enter the true Sabbath rest while unfaithful and disobedient. Paul argues that we – like them – should “fear” and should seek to enter the rest fully as “Believers” that endure “firm until the end”. He argues the same Heb 3 point for perseverance as the necessary means of entering into that positive example of rest. In this case – Christ the Creator’s Holy day.

Hebrews 4 represents the day in a way that applies equally to OT as well as NT. It forces the observation of the fact that there is "No Change".

Instead of saying "It USED to be given by God as just an external act but NOW it is an internal spiritual relationship with God" - the text argues that the same Sabbath principle of all OT saints remains (that would be "all" according to list of Heb 11 not just Jews) is still in play.

The text of Heb 4 does not argue for "a change" it claims that the Sabbath "remains" today as it was in the OT - just as God intended it "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the People of God". It does not say "we now have a NEW kind of Sabbath very different from what God gave in the OT - that one does NOT remain - a NEW one is now instituted".

But those who choose to ignore Christ the Creator’s Gen 2:3 Holy day sometimes ignore this disconfirming aspect of Heb 4 as it does not fit the tradition they have chosen.

Again - the appeal to the EXPLICIT wording of the 4th commandment AND the SAME appeal to the REASON for rest - following God's example at Creation - STILL valid. The context, the appeal the language REMAINS the same. JUST as God rested at creation on the 7th day ( The SAME appeal as we find in the langauge of Christ's 4th
commandment as He gave spoke it at Sinai).

Just as the Sabbath-keeping saints of King David's day did NOT need to abandon God's Creation Sabbath (MADE for mankind - a Holy Day in Gen 2 - in order to RETURN in BELIEF and FAITH to the Savior - SO today we find God's Sabbath in complete harmony with the restored faith and restored fellowship of Salvation.

Heb 4
11 Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest, so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience.The same appeal to turn AWAY from rebellion against God's Word - and NOT follow in disobedience AS did many OT people.
The SAME good news and the SAME warning to turn away from disobedience to the Word of the SAME God.

av1611jim

07-14-2005, 06:26 PM

Nope. It is NOT about the sabbath at all.

You are diligent, I must say, in INSERTING your sabbatarian agenda, yet still wrong.

I don't have time to post a three page rebuttal.

Nor do I care to. You are wrong my friend.

The sabbath rest spoken of in Heb 3-4 refers to THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST. The Millenial reign.

Some will not enter it due to their unbelief. Unbelief INCLUDEDS changing Scripture to say what it doesn't mean, which you are quite adept at doing.

Later.

In HIS service;
Jim

BobRyan

07-16-2005, 05:12 PM

Well - so far I am the one "Actually quoting" the text and commenting on what "it says" while you keep re-asserting your "predilections".

If you see a "future kingdom of Christ" statement mentioned in Heb 4 in connection with "God Himself resting" at creation week then feel free to exegete "from the text".

No need for "three pages" -- just a carefully constructed response to even one point - will do.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-17-2005, 01:38 PM

I focus alot here on the "Detail" of Heb 3 and 4 where Paul REPEATEDLY makes the argument FROM the text of Psalms 95 saying that WE just like the Sabbath-keeping saints of David's day STILL need to "persevere" and need to take HEED to the SAME lesson of failure that God referenced in making the case to David -- Paul shows a CONTINUATION of the argument from David's day to ours.

And his argument "TODAY" made to David - many centuries PRE-CROSS is STILL applicable to us today -- according to Paul in Heb 3-4.

How "instructive".

The people of God - are called to persevere "FIRM UNTIL THE END" both OT and NT - pre-cross and post-cross.

And the "problem" of NOT entering into salvation rest is the SAME for BOTH the OT and NT saints should they FAIL to persevere - according to Chapter 3 and 4 of Hebrews.

But it NEVER makes the argument that "David should leave the land of Canaan" as if Canaan was NO LONGER a place for God's People!

NEITHER is there a case in Psalms 95 for David to STOP honoring Christ the Creator's Holy Day - rather there "REMAINS THEREFORE a Sabbath rest for the People of GOD" based on the case made to David that is STILL applicable today!

How easy this is to "get" - yet how often these two chapters are wrenched out of their sockets in an effort to "get at" Christ the Creator's own Holy Day. A day that HE says HE made Holy in Gen 2:3 -- made FOR "mankind" Mark 2:27

Why not just accept it? Why continually find ways to bend the scriptures "Away" from honoring Christ's day and listening to the message about "persevering" FIRM until the END that is being given in Heb 3 and 4??

IN Christ,

Bob

Eric B

07-18-2005, 09:14 PM

Paul argues that this positive example of rest – God’s Sabbath remains and that JUST as Israel could not enter the OT Canaan example of rest while unfaithful and disobedient SO the saints of David’s day could not enter the true Sabbath rest while unfaithful and disobedient. Paul argues that we – like them – should “fear” and should seek to enter the rest fully as “Believers” that endure “firm until the end”. He argues the same Heb 3 point for perseverance as the necessary means of entering into that positive example of rest. In this case – Christ the Creator’s Holy day. So what you're saying now; is that on one hand, the the literal Sabbath in this passage corresponds not to the "rest" were are warned about not entering, but rather to the "obedience" of the two earlier examples, by which one enters the antitypical "rest", which I take, is supposed to be entrance ot the Kingdom. But then when that final "rest" is pointed to in the text as "remaining" for us, you say it is the literal sabbath after all! That would suggest that we must keep the sabbath to enter the sabbath, and to save ourselves.
"Perseverance" in scriptures means holding on to Christ's name in the face of persecution, not keeping works of the Law (which in that case might spare one from persecution, since it was the Jews who were behind a lot of the persecuting). After all, it was the name of Christ that is given importance in the NT, not a sabbath. I just find it funny that such a performance-based "salvation" is what is being called "rest", when the text says that this rest is "ceasing" from such works!

BobRyan

07-19-2005, 03:03 PM

No - my point is that the argument Paul makes is simple and direct and is simply a restatement of the SAME argument God makes to David in Psalms 95 (which is why Paul keeps quoting that argument in chapter 3 and 4).

Paul is arguing for PERSEVERANCE in STAYING IN a saving relationship rather than arguing that the reader GET SAVED.

He points this out in chapter 3 - that it is perseverance "FIRM UNTIL THE END" that is being argued.

He uses the same example of failure that God used with David as a "motivator". He does not argue that "Canaan ceased to exist for David" once Israel had entered Canaan or once members of David's generation accepts salvation.

The whole point was to pick a POSITIVE example of "rest" and show that the rest promised is not received if one chooses to harden their heart and rebell against God.

Real Canaan was really lost to that real generation that died in the wilderness. But David was already IN Canaan when the Psalms 95 warning message came to him. Yet God was arguing that failure in David's day would be just as fatal as failure in Moses' day. Paul argues that this failure includes failure to "persevere firm until the end".

So Canaan was REAL and the example of rest it provides is REAL.

Paul simply ADDS to that another REAL example of REST - Christ the Creator's own Holy Day. In no case is Paul arguing AGAINST Canaan or AGAINST that Holy Day. He is simply pointing out that these examples of rest are denied to those who choose rebellion instead of remaining in the faith "Firm until the end"

He does not make any reference to a future rest in heaven that we will all have some day - but one could "imagine" such a thing since it is certainly true that to fail to persevere would deny us that future heavenly rest. But Paul makes no mention of it in Heb 3 or 4. He simply keeps going back to the SAME argument God was making to the Sabbath-keeping saints of David's day regarding the singular example of failure in Moses' day.

Paul argues that we are in fellowship with that generation in David's day to whom the Psalms 95 message is given. You argue that we are NOT - that they could not have rest since they did not have Christ and that THEIR failure is our lesson. But nothing is said at all about David's generation failing OR about there being any change AT ALL for us since David's time regarding this Psalms 95 message being given "again" in Heb 3 and 4!

The SAME fact of "resting from our own works" is true for David's generation and for ours. WE are to listen to that SAME Psalms 95 warning message and submit to it.

The only generation that is mentioned as failing are those in Moses' day - NOT David's day.

That means that the Sabbath-keeping Saints of David's day AND the saints of Paul's day are being joined as one in the way Paul is using the Psalms 95 text in Heb 3 and 4.

No escaping this problem for your POV.

In Christ,

Bob

Eric B

07-19-2005, 08:57 PM

To repeat my second response to this thread,
Psalms 95 is reiterating the 40 years, to support the point "harden not your heart" but it is not saying that David is still trying to enter "another rest" though he was already there and it is not "abolished".
The motivation being given to us in Hebrews is to persevere in faith, and stop trying to enter by our "workS". As we persevere in faith, we enter the true "rest". If not, then we lose out, and remain wandering in a spiritual desert like the Israelites.

Paul simply ADDS to that another REAL example of REST - Christ the Creator's own Holy Day. In no case is Paul arguing AGAINST Canaan or AGAINST that Holy Day. He is simply pointing out that these examples of rest are denied to those who choose rebellion instead of remaining in the faith "Firm until the end"So how is the weekly sabbath "denied" anyone? You either rest on it, or you don't. You say someone not resting on it is "rebelling", but then it is not that he is "DENIED" entry of it because of his rebellion, but that his not entering it IS the rebellion in the first place. But then what about if he rebels against another command, yet still rests on the day. Then how is he "denied" the rest? If you say it's a peace from being obedient from God, then that would prove the "rest" is not a literal sabbath. If you say it is Haven; same thing; but if you are saying people will be denied rest for not keeping the sabbath, then you are condemning all of us to Hell, which you claim not to do.

BobRyan

07-19-2005, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Eric B:
To repeat my second response to this thread,
Psalms 95 is reiterating the 40 years, to support the point "harden not your heart" but it is not saying that David is still trying to enter "another rest" though he was already there and it is not "abolished".
The motivation being given to us in Hebrews is to persevere in faith, and stop trying to enter by our "workS". As we persevere in faith, we enter the true "rest". If not, then we lose out, and remain wandering in a spiritual desert like the Israelites.
To repeat my previous point - Paul claims that WE TOO are in the same boat as David and that we - like the Sabbath keeping saints of David's generation must pay attention to that SAME Psalms 95 warning and example.

In other words He claims we are THE SAME in that regard.

Instead of making an argument that "Canaan did not apply to David" or that "Sabbath did not apply in David's generation so we too should not concern ourselves with these things" it simply shows how these positive examples of rest are used to emphasize the same point to BOTH sets of generations - David's and Paul's.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-19-2005, 11:33 PM

So how is the weekly sabbath "denied" anyone? You either rest on it, or you don't. You say someone not resting on it is "rebelling", but then it is not that he is "DENIED" entry of it because of his rebellion, but that his not entering it IS the rebellion in the first place. But then what about if he rebels against another command, yet still rests on the day. Then how is he "denied" the rest?
The Sabbath commandment says "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy" --

The only way to keep a day Holy is to be Holy - sanctified - in fellowship with Christ.

Satan can not keep Sabbath Holy EVEN if he chooses to take a nap that day.

In Christ,

Bob

Eric B

07-20-2005, 01:16 PM

1) While the principle of a "positive example of rest" applies both to us, as to David; still, this "rest" was not physical rest on a day. In the OT, the weekly sabbath was not called this type of "rest". But here in Hebrews, it is reveled as such. That is the difference between us and David. David may have striven for that rest while keeping the literal sabbath at the same time, but now in the NT it is revealed that the literal sabbath was in fact pointing to the true spiritual rest. Just like the sacrifices were pointing to repentance and remission of sins, even though a person could truly repent and be forgiven then. A person could be both circumcized physically, and "circumcized in the heart" back then. That doesn't mean both continue for us today. They could have both in the OT, but the spiritual side of it was not as clearly revealed, because the focus in the OT was the letter of the Law.

2) OK, so a person comitting other sins and resting on the sabbath is not keeping it holy. They are "denied" access to this "rest", even though they physically "rest"! (First of all, how many of us are sinless, to begin with?). But then this proves that both "rest" and "keep holy" is not about physically resting on a day! And then; shouldn't we be holy every day? This is what we mean, by how the commandment is "magnified" in the NT.

BobRyan

07-20-2005, 10:38 PM

Was God's message to David in Psalms 95 - that the Sabbath-keeping SAints of David's day had to be "Sinless" to benefit from the Sabbath?

No. To BE Holy after the fall means to be IN Christ - justified - sanctified - set apart in fellowship with God in the MAtt 7 sense that Christ defines.

That was true for the saints in David's day as Paul claims they are joined by the saints of Heb 3 and 4 -- in heeding that SAME Psalms 95 message.

IF That message was a "Sabbath-abolishing message" as you claim - then David's generation would already have ceased to honor Christ the Creator's own holy day.

It is instructive that nothing of the kind is supportable from scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

Eric B

07-21-2005, 09:05 AM

David's generation was before Christ. Yes, they "looked forward" to Him, but it was not until His sacrifice that the covenants changed and the spirit of the Law emphasized to those "sanctified" in Him.

BobRyan

07-21-2005, 11:54 AM

Interesting. But Paul does not make that argument of a CHANGE since David's day a CHANGE since the message of Psalms 95 in the text of Heb 3 and 4.

INSTEAD He argues that werare to JOIN WITH the Sabbath-keeping people of David's day and LIKE THEM take heed to the SAME Psalms 95 message!!

HE points out that it remains for "SOME" to enter into that promised rest. Showing that it is NOT ALL saints in Paul's day that have the problem pointed out - but SOME still do.

BobRyan

07-21-2005, 11:58 AM

Paul argues that WE join with THEM (the Sabbath-keeping saints of David's day) in paying attention to this SAME Psalms 95 message!

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Part I of Chapter 4

Paul begins with “Therefore” – and thereby continues the discussion from chapter 3. Paul refers to his current illustration of the failing example of that part of Israel that died in the wilderness – vs the message given to David and his generation about choosing obedience and perseverance as the “lesson to be learned” from that failing example of those who died in the wilderness. (The contrast of two Generations – David’s vs Moses’)

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Hebrews 4
1 Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it.
2 For indeed we have had good news (gospel) preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.
A. Paul argues that “fear” be a motivator when looking at the “Failing example” of Heb 3. Paul is recommending “fear” based on taking the argument of God in Psalms 95 “seriously” as IT points to the FAILING case of Moses’ generation.
B. Paul says “while a promise remains” -- What “promise remains”?? It is shown in chapter 3 to be the Psalms 95 promise regarding “Today”. That promise given to David and “his generation” still remains.
C. We observe here that we have the same gospel the "good news" preached to us JUST AS they (OT Hebrews at Sinai) ALSO. The ONE Gospel (Gal 1:6) which was even
"preached to Abraham" (Gal 3:7-8) - showing ONE solution (salvation through Christ) for the ONE problem (fallen humanity lost in sin),

1Cor 10:2-4 "ALL were Baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea and all drank from the same SPIRITUAL ROCK which followed them and that was CHRIST"
Next Paul returns again to the Psalms 95 message of David’s generation and the “promise that remains” for us even today – in that OT message.

Heb 4
3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "" AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST,'' although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.In chapter 3 Paul clearly established that the generation of Moses’ day did NOT enter “because of unbelief”. By contrast he notes the Faith, belief, endurance, perseverance in obedience that is called for in Psalms 95 – given to David and his generation. And so again in vs 3 – he is quoting Psalms 95 – the argument that “remains” the promise that “remains” even for us today.
In vs 3 we HAVE ENTERED his rest - because when we BELIEVE (Rom 10:9) we are born again - transformed, accepted into fellowship with God (1John 1:1-5). Having been returned in some degree to that perfect fellowship which Adam had before the fall – not yet fully RESTORED fellowship with God as in literally seeing and walking with God the way Adam did - but still worshipping in love and submitting to God's Word.

So also did the giants of faith in (Heb 11) “believe”. These are like David and the saints of his day who chose to “Believe” and to “persevere faithful firm until the end”- born again saints of the OT who "believe and it was accounted unto them for righteousness". By faith - by "belief" these saints ENTERED just as we HAVE ENTERED His rest.

But of course Hebrews is contrasting this Psalms 95 message given in David’s time – in the OT – to the OT saints that uses the “Failing example” of those in Moses’ generation who died in the wilderness. Who failed “because of unbelief” see chapter 3

Heb 3:19 So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief. .

This point of failure due to unbelief also applies to those Jews who reject the Messiah – and the Psalms 95 “promise that remains” is given to the Sabbath keeping saints of David and his generation Saints already IN the land of Canaan.

Rom 11:
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
Here again in Rom 11 we saw Paul arguing “in favor of fear” and pointing to the “negative examples” of those who fail to persevere, to believe to “continue in His kindness”. Paul argues that we are in the SAME system of success vs failure. “IF He did not SPARE THEM – neither will He spare you EITHER”. This is the basis/justification of his argument that we should “not be conceited but FEAR”.

But aside from these examples of failure - we do have the great examples of success of those that were "pleasing to God" and who found "Acceptance with God" mentioned in Heb 11. [/QUOTE]

Eric B

07-22-2005, 06:06 PM

The principle of "unbelief keeps one from entering His rest" doesn't change, so of course, Hebrews is not going to speak of any "change". That doesn't mean that all the details of worship and literal vs. spiritual applications of some things are the same for us as for them. They were still under the Old Covenant system.

wopik

07-23-2005, 02:38 PM

In Dt. 5:15, the reason for observing the weekly Sabbath is to affirm what was absolutely fundamental for God's people, namely, that Yahweh had liberated them from Pharoah (satan) and Egypt (sin). On every Sabbath, the Lord's people are to remember that their God is a liberator:

"Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out of there with a strong hand and an outstretched arm. That is why the Lord your God has commanded you to keep the Sabbath day" - (Holman Christian Standard Bible).

That is one reason there is still "a keeping of a Sabbath to the people of God" (Heb. 4:9) ----- Jesus saved His people out of the land of Egypt (sin) (Jude 5).

BobRyan

07-23-2005, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Eric B:
The principle of "unbelief keeps one from entering His rest" doesn't change, so of course, Hebrews is not going to speak of any "change". That doesn't mean that all the details of worship and literal vs. spiritual applications of some things are the same for us as for them. They were still under the Old Covenant system. The point is that the same Psalms 95 argument made to David - and yes to the "Sabbath keeping saints of David's day" is given to us today and we are to join with them in listening to that warning not to give up - but rather to persevere "firm until the end".

Paul argues that EVEN today (apparently just as in David's day) "IT REMAINS for SOME" to enter into that rest.

No part of his argument is an argument AGAINST the actual rest rejected by those in the dessert NOR an argument AGAINST Christ the Creator's Holy Day when the message was given to David AND not even today when it is given again to us!

Rather the argument relies upon an affirmation that the rest of Canaan and the rest of the Sabbath ARE positive and valid examples of rest!

In Christ,

Bob

wopik

07-23-2005, 06:53 PM

doesn't the weekly Sabbath foreshadow the FUTURE millennial Sabbath Age --- the future Messianic redemption and rest --- at Christ's return, and therefore, the weekly Sabbath is STILL the Christians' reminder of this future 1000 year rest.

The delight and joy that will mark the end of days is made available here and now by the Sabbath.

BobRyan

07-23-2005, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by wopik:
[QB] doesn't the weekly Sabbath foreshadow the FUTURE millennial Sabbath Age --- the future Messianic redemption and rest --- at Christ's return, ...There may be an argument for that - but I don't see Paul making it in Heb 3 or 4.

Eric B

07-23-2005, 09:46 PM

Hebrews IS making that argument, showing us that THAT is the true "rest" we are looking forward to.
In the OT, the Israalites were given both weekly and annual sabbaths that both commemorated past acts of God, and pointed forward to the whole plan of redemption (which are the antitypical counterparts to the past works of God, such as Creation, leading them out of bondage from Egypt, etc). However, the future plan of redemption (from basic salvation inMessiah, to the eternal kingdom) still remained somewhat cloudy and not completely revealed to them. That period of the letter of the Law was more focused on physical deeds.
Now, we are clearly revealed the plan of redemption, and as we trust (rest) in Christ for salvation (freedom from sin) now and look forward to the kingdom directly, this becomes the focus rather than ceasing from work on days to "remind" us. Rather than living by simple physical "remembering" or "reminders"; we now begin to experience the true "rest" now, until eternity!

BobRyan

07-24-2005, 01:42 AM

If you see Heb 3 or 4 talking about the future millennial time period -- then quote it.

I am happy to deal with actual details IN the text.

In Christ,

Bob

Eric B

07-24-2005, 09:11 AM

It's a "rest" that must be ENTERED, snd can be DENIED. It's not something we DO, it's something we GET (and on one sense, in in the future, in full) if we persevere in faith.

Claudia_T

07-26-2005, 11:14 PM

This should help.........

THE REST THAT REMAINS: "Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into His rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them [the Jews]: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as He said, As I have sworn in My wrath, if they shall enter [they shall not enter] into My rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For He spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all His works. . . . There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into His rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His" (Hebrews 4:1-10).

The rest that is here spoken of is evidently the rest that remains for the people of God in the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It is rest in the earth made new, which the ancient Jews did not obtain because of unbelief. That which they received in the land of Canaan was only a shadow of the real rest which God had promised them. The same gospel of the kingdom, which is preached to us, was first preached to them. But what has the seventh day to do with that eternal rest in the kingdom of God? We shall see.

The Sabbath is the memorial of creation, as we have seen. But let it not be forgotten that the Sabbath was given at the time when "God saw all that He had made; and, behold, it was very good." So the Sabbath commemorates a perfect creation. It reminds us that the earth was not always in the condition in which we now see it. Then, since no word of God can fail, and every purpose will be carried out, just as surely as the Sabbath reminds us of a perfect creation completed for the dwelling-place of man, it assures us that the earth will be renewed and made fit for the dwelling-place of those who shall be made meet for the inheritance of the saints in light.

"They shall go to confusion together that are makers of idols. But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens: God Himself that formed the earth and made it; He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:16-18).

God made the earth and placed man upon it. When man was created, he was upright; therefore, God intended the earth to be inhabited by a race of perfect beings. To these beings He gave the Sabbath, that they might keep in mind their Creator and thus retain their perfection. That perfection was not merely physical perfection, but it was spiritual as well. Man, in perfection of character, was made in the image of God. So he was to observe the Sabbath as a reminder of the spiritual perfection that he had received from God and that could be preserved by Him alone. Now it is to that perfect condition that the Lord is going to restore the earth, and through the gospel He is preparing a perfect people to inhabit the restored earth. Although man has fallen and the earth has been defiled, the Sabbath still remains, a fragment of Eden, both as a reminder to man of what God prepared in the beginning and as a means of lifting him up to that high position, so that he may enjoy it when it is restored.

The rest that remains, therefore, is the earth renewed and Eden restored. The works were finished from the foundation of the world. That is, as soon as the earth was created, it was man's rest. Man was given work to do, but it was not wearisome work. A strictly literal rendering of Genesis 2:15 would be, that God caused man to rest in the garden which He had planted. He gave man rest in the earth that was ready for his enjoyment. The proof of this is found in the words, "And God did rest the seventh day from all His works."

Then the Sabbath was given to man as a sign that he was to rest to all eternity with the Lord. That is, he was to enjoy spiritual rest--perfect freedom from all sin.

During the six days God has been speaking the words that brought the earth to its perfect condition. Then He rested. He ceased speaking, and His word, which liveth and abideth forever, continued to uphold that which was created. So God rested upon His word. He could rest from the work of creation in perfect confidence that His word would uphold the universe. So when we keep the Sabbath of the Lord, we simply take the rest that comes from settling down upon the promises of God.

Thus it is that "we which have believed do enter into rest." And he that hath entered into rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from His. Before men fully accept the simple word of the Lord, everything is from self. The works of the flesh are only sin; and even though men profess to serve God and have earnest desires to do right, their own works to that end are failures. "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" Isaiah 64:6. But when we realize the power of the word of God and know that it is able to build up those who trust it, then we cease our own works and allow God to work in us, both to will and to do of His good pleasure. Then all our works are wrought in Him, and they are right. This is indeed rest. The rest that comes when we realize that salvation does not come from ourselves but from the word which made the heavens and the earth and which upholds them, is the rest which the Sabbath brings to us when it is kept as the Lord designs.

Notice that we are to remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. It is holy, and so we are to keep it. We are not to make it holy, for that would be impossible; only God could do that. No act of ours can add to, or detract from, its holiness. Neither are we to make ourselves holy, so that we may keep it properly. That we could not do. But the same power that sanctified the Sabbath day will sanctify us. That power is the power that made the universe. It is creative power by which we are to be sanctified, for Christ is the Creator, and He is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. God has given us the Sabbath--the memorial of His creative power--that we may know that He is the God that sanctifies us.

This is the rest that Christ gives to all that come to Him. He says, "Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls" (Matthew 11:28, 29). We are to come and rest upon the word that upholds the universe. This is what the Sabbath means. It commemorates creation; but redemption is simply the power that created all things, working to restore them. So the Sabbath marks the highest gospel attainments.

We have seen that the Sabbath was given in Eden, and that it is a part of that rest upon which God entered. When kept in spirit and in truth, it is a bit of Eden preserved for us through all the changes wrought by the curse. And as God made not the earth in vain, but formed it to be inhabited by the same class of people whom He first placed upon it, so it will yet be. Therefore, the Sabbath is not only a portion of the original Eden preserved for us, but it is also identical with that rest that will be enjoyed by the saints of God throughout eternity. Heaven does indeed begin upon earth for those who fully accept the Saviour, and who give themselves to Him without reserve. The Sabbath--a fragment of paradise--spans the chasm from Eden lost till Eden restored, and as it is the memorial of the first, it is the pledge of the second.

Is not the Sabbath, then, indeed a delight? Can anyone who understands what it means regard it in any other light than a blessing? The man of God has given us a song for the Sabbath day, in which he shows how it is to be regarded, and what it is to do for us. "It is a good thing to give thanks unto the Lord, and to sing praises unto Thy name, O Most High: to show forth Thy lovingkindness in the morning, and Thy faithfulness every night, upon an instrument of ten strings, and upon the psaltery; upon the harp with a solemn sound. For Thou, Lord, hast made me glad through Thy work: I will triumph in the works of Thy hands" (Psalm 92:1-4). We are to be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. We are to be overcomers "through Him that loved us." So when we are beset with temptation we have only to think of the power of God--the power that made the worlds from nothing--and know that it will be put forth for our deliverance if we will but accept it. Nothing is too hard for the Lord, and there is nothing able to withstand Him. All the hosts of Satan have no power when engaged in a contest with the Lord. Christ has "spoiled principalities and powers" (Colossians 2:15). So when we rest ourselves on that power, the victory is already won. The things that God has made remind us of His power, and so we triumph in the works of His hands. This glorious victory is what the Sabbath is intended to bring to us.

So as the Sabbath is the sign of a perfect creation, it is the seal of a new creature in Christ. It is therefore the seal of God, ministered by the Spirit of God. As it came from paradise and is a part of the rest of paradise, so it shows that those who keep it in spirit (not in form merely) are, through the mighty power of God, destined for a place in paradise. And thus it will come to pass that, in the ages to come, when Eden is restored, all flesh shall come together from Sabbath to Sabbath to worship God, whose love and power and kindness in Christ have brought them to share the glories of His presence. And as they assemble on those thrice-blessed Sabbath days, they will sing, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing." But the redeemed host will not be alone in their praises. All the works of God praise Him even now, while groaning and waiting for the redemption; but then, when every trace of the curse will have been removed and the gospel has brought back the original creation, "Every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them," will in perfection unite as with one voice in saying, "Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever" Revelation 5:12, 13.

-E.J. Waggoner

Eric B

07-27-2005, 11:17 AM

The Sabbath is the memorial of creation, as we have seen. But let it not be forgotten that the Sabbath was given at the time when "God saw all that He had made; and, behold, it was very good." So the Sabbath commemorates a perfect creation. It reminds us that the earth was not always in the condition in which we now see it. Then, since no word of God can fail, and every purpose will be carried out, just as surely as the Sabbath reminds us of a perfect creation completed for the dwelling-place of man, it assures us that the earth will be renewed and made fit for the dwelling-place of those who shall be made meet for the inheritance of the saints in light. Still; even though this creation was originally perfect, but it was spoiled by sin. So it's not just the patching up of this old creation, but an all NEW creation promised.

av1611jim

07-27-2005, 11:45 AM

So as the Sabbath is the sign of a perfect creation, it is the seal of a new creature in Christ. It is therefore the seal of God, ministered by the Spirit of God. As it came from paradise and is a part of the rest of paradise, so it shows that those who keep it in spirit (not in form merely) are, through the mighty power of God, destined for a place in paradise.
__________________________________________________

O foolish Galatians. Sabbatarianism is Judaism in gentile clothing.

In HIS service;
Jim

BobRyan

07-27-2005, 04:27 PM

What a great Bible quote Jim!!

Here is another one

"From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to WORSHIP" Isaiah 66.

And here is another one every bit as good as simply "quoting Jim".

"Sabbath was MADE for mankind" Mark 2:27.

Of course I am sure that if Christ knew how awful it was to say such things (as you have pointed out above - Jim) he would have thought twice before making such a grand statement about MANKIND and His OWN Holy Day - eh?

Paul in Heb 4 could certainly learn a thing or two from Jim. Paul actually says "There REMAINS therefore Sabbath REST for the People of God" Heb 4.

What an awful thought - Eh Jim? "There REMAINS a Sabbath rest for the PEOPLE of GOD??". Surely if Paul had read that section of Jim's authorship above -- he too would have thought twice before making such a claim.

And then there is JAMES claiming that we should "So live and act as those who ARE to be judged by the Law of Liberty" a law that is quoted from in James 2 showing that it is none-other than the Ten Commandments!

In Christ,

Bob

av1611jim

07-27-2005, 05:24 PM

Okey dokey. Here ya go. Take it up with Paul.

Ga*3:1
¶ O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Ga*3:2
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Ga*3:3
Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Ga*3:4
Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
Ga*3:5
He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Ga*3:6
¶ Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Ga*3:7
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Ga*3:8
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Ga*3:9
So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Ga*3:10
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Ga*3:11
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Ga*3:12
And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Ga*3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Ga*3:14
That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Tell me Bob. Do you do ALL the Law or just the PARTS you like?

Hmph. I thought so.

In HIS service;
Jim

BobRyan

07-27-2005, 08:58 PM

Far be it from me to have an opinion other than the clear and explicit Word of God when it comes to honoring HIS commands!

The pre-cross Commandments of Christ the Creator were to be kept by Christ’s followers.

John 14:15 ”If you love Me keep My commandments”

These are the Words of Christ the Creator as He quotes from the 2nd commandment.

But what exactly did these pre-cross words of Christ “mean” to His Jewish followers – the “primary audience” that exegesis would have us consider?

Lets see if we can discover that by looking at some more statements found in God’s Word.

Matt 5:17-22
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Instead of “less obedience” to each commandment of Christ the Creator – God calls for “more”.

Matt 5:27-28 27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Instead of “less obedience” to each commandment of Christ the Creator – God calls for “more”. No wonder Paul says --

Romans 3:31 “Do we then abolish the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law of God”
So lets see. The law will not change in even the minutest way, till heaven and earth pass. Anyone who breaks the law, and teaches others to do so, will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Thinking about committing sin is now just like actually committing the sin. Ah, the law has been magnified. Christ came and fulfilled the law, observing all of it’s commands, even in thought, not just action.

Yes, lets let the scriptures speak for themselves.

John 15:10-11 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

John 14:15 (quoting from the 10 commandments) “IF you love Me Keep My commandments”
Christ quotes from the 3rd commandment for the statement above.

Christ said that HIS commandment and the Father’s Commandment are one and the same

John 12:50
"I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told Me."
Notice that John promotes this theme not only with his recording the pre-cross statements of Christ the hCreator – but also the post –cross teaching.

I Jn 2:3-4 3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Matt 19:17 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Christ condemns those who would break the Commandments of God for the sake of man-made tradition –

Matthew 15:3
And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
Christ’s followers continue to keep the Sabbath commandment after His command that they should “Love Me and Keep My Commandments” John 14:15 (quoting from the 3rd commandment in Exodus 20)

Luke 23:56
Then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.
Why do the Gospel writers take such care to teach us what Christ commanded them?

Matt 28:
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Notice that John does not try to “divide God” as if God’s commandments are not Christ’s

I Jn 5:2-3 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Rev 12:17 17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev 14:12 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Rev 22:14 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

As for Law and Grace -- Pauls words in Romans 2:13-16 come to mind relative to "justification".

Romans 2
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Here the "New Covenant" promise of the "Law written on the heart" is clearly seen.

Is it any wonder that Paul writes

"Do we then make [b]void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law" Rom 3:31And James 2 tells us to live and act as those "Who are to be judged by God's Law of Liberty".

God is not "calling for rebellion against His Law" as many Christians today "suppose".

Nor is He "abolishing His law" so that only the lost are guilty of breaking it - but the saved can freely transgress and in fact are commanded not to regard it at all. Rather God declares that the name of God is profaned among the wicked by the breaking of His law among the saints. (in Romans 2)

BobRyan

07-27-2005, 08:59 PM

But of course that probably leaves you wondering if Christ the Creator was serious when He "sanctified" His Holy day to be set apart -- from the very start of creation mankind.

Indeed some have argued that these saints under persecution keeping God’s commandments are a select few – and not really the larger group – of all Christians – in God’s planning. Is that true?

Isaiah 66 makes it clear regarding the “New Heavens and New Earth” also identified in Rev 20 -- “From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL Mankind come before Me to Worship”

How can Christ the Creator call for ALL mankind to honor Sabbath as a day of Worship like that in the New Earth? Surely the Sabbath will NOT be for all mankind since in fact it WAS only for the Jews – correct?

Christ the Creator addresses the point head-on

“The Sabbath WAS MADE for Mankind” Mark 2:27

From the very “making” of Christ the Creator’s Holy Day – it was “made for Mankind”

Ok – so “when did Christ the Creator MAKE it?”

Notice - Christ the Creator gave mankind the 7-day week in Gen 2:3. For it was ” Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made”. A 7-day week - not a 6-day week for mankind. Christ the Creator makes his holy 7th day memorial of His creative action in making mankind – “for mankind” when he MAKES it “holy” – sanctified in Gen 2:3 before the fall of mankind.

When God speaks directly to His people in Exodus 20 and summarizes that same Gen 1-2:3 event notice what Christ the Creator says of His own Holy day – Made Holy at HIS making of this planet and life on this planet – and mankind.

Exodus 20:8-11 summary of the Creation week "event" shows it to have been made holy, sanctified and blessed by virtue of God’s own act of resting – that “alone” is given as the basis for the command. The commandment is in the format “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy…For in Six days God…. Therefore He Blessed, sanctified and made holy the Seventh day”.

Here it is in full as – God framed it at Sinai speaking directly to the People of God, He said

Exodus 20:
8 ""Remember The Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed The Sabbath day and made it holy.

yeshua4me2

07-27-2005, 10:06 PM

looks like those verses say the sabbath is for rest, not for church. In america, and most of the western world the average person works 5 (4 in france) days a week, and has a day for rest and a day for Worship (church). perhaps we do keep the sabbath without even knowing it.lol

But that is not the point, the law (10 commands) was given to show forth our sinfulness, not our righteousness. which is what your doing, Jews had the same problem. they thought by "keeping the law" they were righteous, rather than using the Law lawfully, to show sin.

Jesus showed the proper use of the law when a person is stuck in self righteousness.

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, WHICH? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

no sabbath though.

the point of this story is that the man HAD NOT kept the commandments like he had said. he was in violation the 2nd commandment, as his riches had become his god, and he was not willing to stop serving them. He had not kept the commandments is the point of the story, not that keeping the commandments get you into heaven, or that it has anything to do with heaven, in fact the commandment have to do with hell, and the reasons why one is sent there, not the reasons why people enter heaven.

thankyou and God Bless

yeshua4me2

07-27-2005, 10:47 PM

and I have 85 questions for you:

1. If every man from Adam to Moses kept the Sabbath, why is the Hebrew word for the weekly Sabbath found in the ten commandments, never found in the book of Genesis? Why is no one before Moses ever being told to keep the Sabbath. Why are there no examples of anyone keeping the Sabbath?
2. Why were the Patriarchs never instructed about he Sabbath, but were instructed regarding: offerings: Gen 4:3-4, Altars Gen 8:20, Priests: Gen 14:18, Tithes: Gen 14:20, Circumcision: Gen 17:10, Marriage: Gen 2:24 & Gen 34:9. Why would God leave out the "all important" Sabbath command?
3. If the fact that God wrote the 10 commandments on stone proves they are forever, then whatever happened to the two stone tablets that God gave Adam at the beginning of time? Why is Moses the first one to see a stone tablet written by the finger of God?
4. Why is the weekly Sabbath commandment never quoted in the New Testament?
5. Why is the Sabbath the only one of the ten commandments that are said to be "throughout your generations", the usual phrase that indicates it was a temporary ceremonial law only for the Jews?
6. Why is there no example of exclusively Christians coming together on the Sabbath day as a church or prayer meeting after the resurrection of Christ?
7. Why is there no command in the New Testament for Christians to keep the Sabbath holy?
8. While Paul taught in the synagogues up to 84 times, why does the Bible never say he kept the sabbath?
9. If Paul’s action of preaching to non-believers 84 times in the book of Acts on the Sabbath make him a Sabbath keeper, is a Seventh-day Adventist pastor a Sunday keeper if we invite him for 84 Sundays in a row to teach us about God’s word?
10. How could Adam, Noah and Abraham keep the Sabbath, when Deuteronomy 5:2-4 says that the 10 commandment covenant (see was "not made with any of the fathers of Israel who lived before Moses."
11. If we must follow the example of Jesus in all things like keeping the Sabbath, then why do Sabbatarians not follow the example of Jesus in circumcision, animal sacrifices and keeping Passover?
12. If the Sabbath was for Gentiles and Adam, Noah and Abraham, then why is the Sabbath a sign to remind their exodus from Egypt? Exodus 16:23,29; 31:13-18. Were either Abraham or Seventh-day Adventists ever slaves in Egypt?
13. If the Sabbath law is still in force, then why do they not stone their own members when they break the Sabbath as the law said?
14. Ellen G. White, who is considered inspired by Seventh-day Adventists, said that the Pope changed the Sabbath in about 321 AD. Why do all Adventists today reject their inspired prophet and say the change of the Sabbath occurred in about 140 AD? If White was wrong about this, was she wrong when she traveled to heaven and saw the 4th commandment glowing brighter than all the rest?
15. If the current position of the Seventh-day Adventist church is that the change from Saturday to Sunday took place in 140 AD, doesn’t that mean that they have come a long way from Whites 325 AD and have only 40 more years to travel to reach the truth of the Apostolic age?
16. If the change from Saturday to Sunday happened, why is there absolutely no discussion of this change of actual day for the first 600 years of church history. Merely calling Sunday the Sabbath doesn’t count!
17. If Sabbatarians reject White’s inspiration, that Constantine change the Sabbath day to Sunday, why do they keep bringing Constantine up as proof? If Constantine changed the Sabbath to Sunday, why does here merely legislate that work must stop on Sunday with no actual mention of the day being moved?
18. If the first/old covenant was abolished according to Heb 8:13 and the Ten commandment law was that first covenant (Ex 34:27-28; 1 Kings 8:9,21; Heb 9:1-4), then why do Sabbatarians want to keep the first/old covenant?
19. Why is the universal record of history (75-500AD) 100% in unanimous agreement that Christians never kept the Sabbath (7th day) and have always worshipped on Sunday?
20. Why is the universal record of history (75-500AD) 100% in unanimous agreement that Christians ate the Lord’s Supper every Sunday in the tradition of Acts 20:7?
21. Why is the universal record of history (75-500AD) 100% in unanimous agreement that Christians always called Sunday the Lord’s Day because, they said, this was the day Jesus rose from the dead?
22. Why has no Sabbatarian every produced even one historical quote (75-500AD) that says Christians kept the Sabbath?
23. If the Sabbath is not a ceremonial law, then why is it lumped into the same identical class of "holy convocations" as the rest of the Jewish feast days? Lev 23:2; Ex 20:9; 31:17
24. If the 10 commandments remain but the book of law was abolished, then why did God put two copies of the 10 commandments in the book of the law? Ex 20; Deut 5
25. How can there possibly be an difference between "the law of God" and the "Law of Moses" when God gave the Law of Moses (Ezra 7:6; Neh 8:1) and Moses gave the Law of God (Neh 10:29; 2 Chron 34:14)?
26. If there is a distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws, why are the Jewish feast days called part of the Law of the Lord? (2 Chron 331:3)
27. If there is a distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws, why in a single chapter of Nehemiah 8are the following phrases all used interchangeably: "book of the law of Moses" v1, "the law" v2, "book of the law" v3, "the law of god" v8, "book of the law of god" v18?
28. Why are the two most important commandments contained within the "ceremonial law of Moses that was Sabbatarians say was nailed to the cross? (Matthew 22:36-40)
29. Why did Jesus say Moses gave the 10 commandment law: "Thou shalt not kill" in Jn 7:19?
30. If the Sabbath cannot change, because God cannot change (Mal 3:6) then what about all the other feast days and laws that changed? Heb 7:12. And why did Jesus give a "a new commandment" in John 13:34?
31. If the ten commandments are going to be in heaven, what is the use of "thou shalt not commit adultery", if there is no marriage in heaven? Lk 20:34-35
32. If the Sabbath was given to all men, why were Gentiles called "strangers". Why were Gentiles outside the gates not required to keep the Sabbath? Ex 20:10.
33. How could the Sabbath be a sign between God and Israel, if all nations were expected to keep it? Ex 31:17
34. Why did God send the Jews into Babylonian Captivity for breaking the Sabbath, but never ever criticized any Gentiles for never keeping the Sabbath?
35. Why did God often criticize the Gentiles via the prophets for moral violations, but never for not keeping the Sabbath?
36. If the Gentiles were supposed to keep the Sabbath, why are they called "strangers of the Covenant" in Eph 2:12?
37. If the term, "the law" always means the 10 commandments, then why is Leviticus called "The Law" in Mt 22:35ff, Numbers called "The Law" in Mt 12:5, Deuteronomy called "The Law" in Mt 22:35f, Psalms called "The Law" in Jn 10:34,45, Rom 3:10-12; 3:13-14,19, the Prophets called "The Law" in 1 Cor 14:21 and the Ten commandments are called "The Law" that is abolished in Rom 7:4-7?
38. If the term "commandments" always means the 10 commandments, then why are the laws that are not part of the ten commandments but called commandments in Mt 19:16-19 not also included?
39. If the term "commandments" always means the 10 commandments, then what did Paul call the injunction for prophet’s wives to keep silent in the assemblies, a "commandment of the Lord" in 1 Cor 14:37?
40. If the term "keep my commandments" always means the 10 commandments, then why is this a new commandment? Jn 15:10-12 + Jn 13:34.
41. If only the ten commandments are going to endure until heaven and earth pass away, why did Jesus say the law AND THE PROPHETS? Mt 5:17-18
42. When Jesus was asked, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" why did Jesus NOT QUOTE from the 10 commandments, but from the abolished ceremonial law of Moses? Matthew 22:36-40
43. If the 10 commandments are the highest and most complete expression of God’s will, then why did it lack the two most important commandments? Matthew 22:36-40 where is the prohibition against drunkeness, homosexuality and fornication?
44. If the 10 commandments are the highest and most complete expression of God’s will, then why did Jesus give a new commandment to "love one another, even as I have loved you" John 13:34. Where were the Jews told to love their neighbor as Yahweh loved them?
45. If Christians worshipping on Sunday is equal to Sun Worship, then is Adventists worshipping on Saturday equal to Saturn worship?
46. If Sabbatarians will boldly quote "scholars" who are really Bible trashers and skeptics who claim "the origin of Sunday worship is entirely pagan", like Arthur Weigall in his ridiculous little book, "the paganism in our Christianity", will these same Sabbatarians turn a few pages later where these same authors say the origin of the Sabbath is also pagan? "I have, already mentioned that Sunday, too, was a pagan holy-day; and in this chapter I propose to discuss the origin of this custom of keeping one day in the week as a Sabbath, or "day of rest,' and' to show that the practice was forcefully opposed by Jesus Christ. The origin of the seven-day week which was used by the Jews and certain other peoples, but not till, later by the Greeks or Romans, is to be sought in some primitive worship of the moon (The Paganism in Our Christianity, Arthur Weigall, 1928, p209,210-211)
47. If the Sabbath is a moral law, why did Jesus say that David, the priests, a man with his donkey could all break the Sabbath without sin? Mt 12:1-14; Mk 2:23f, Lk 13:10-17; 14:1-6 Jn 5:8-18; 7:19-24; 9:14-16.
48. If the Sabbath is a moral law, why did God grow tired of the Jews keeping it and told them to stop keeping the Sabbath? Isa 1:13-14 Did God ever grow weary of anyone not committing adultery or murder, and tell them to be immoral and kill?
49. If the Sabbath is a moral law, how could Jesus break it without sinning? Jn 5:18
50. If one of the distinctions between the ten commandments was proven by the fact they were written by the finger of God, why did Moses copy them out twice with his own hand? How can there be any distinction between the 10 commandments in the ark and the book of the law beside the ark, if the book contained two copies of exactly what was in the ark?
51. Why are the terms "ceremonial law" and "moral law" never found in the Bible. Why is the word ceremonial or any of its roots never found in the same verse as the word LAW and why is the word moral or any of its roots never found in the same verse as the word LAW?
52. If there is a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws, why do "God’s laws" and "the law of God" contain ceremonial laws. Why do "Moses law" and the "law of Moses" contain moral laws?
53. If there is a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws, why does the "law of God" command animal sacrifices Lk 2:23-24 and the "law of the Lord" contains burnt offerings 2 Chron 31:3; 1 Chron 16:40?
54. If there is a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws, then why is the book of the law filled with moral laws not contained in the 10 commandments?
55. If there is a distinction between the Law of the Lord and the Law of Moses, why in 2 Chron 35:26 are "the acts of Josiah and his deeds of devotion as written in the law of the Lord"?
56. If there is a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws, then why does the Law of God include new moons, solemn feast days: Ps 81:3-4?
57. If there is a distinction between the Law of the Lord and the Law of Moses, why did the law tell Israel to dwell in tents: Neh 8:14?
58. If Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets, then didn’t Mt 5:17 say that only then would they be abolished before heaven and earth pass away? If the law and the prophets are still in force, doesn’t that prove Jesus didn’t fulfill the law completely?
59. When you ask me, "if the 10 commandments are abolished, does that mean we can steal", can I ask you, "when you travel from Canada to the USA, does that mean you can steal? Is it possible that two completely different "codes of law" (law of Moses vs. law of Christ) have the same laws just like Canada and the USA?
60. If the Jewish law against eating pork was abolished by Christ, why do Sabbatarians continue to enforce what they call, "the ceremonial law of Moses": Mk 7:18-19; 1 Tim 4:1-4; Rom 14:2; Acts 10:9-16
61. If the Jewish law of Tithing is forbidden in 2 Cor 9, why do Sabbatarians practice from "ceremonial law of Moses"?
62. If the Jewish Sabbath was abolished in Col 2:14-16, yet Sabbatarians keep the Sabbath, which itself is the only ceremonial law of the 10 commandments?
63. Why do you practice Tithing which is Prohibited: 2 Cor 9:7 forbid Eating Pork, which is Permitted: Mk 7:18-19 and keep the Sabbath which is Abolished: Col 2:14-16? Aren’t all three of these ceremonial laws?
64. When Sabbatarians attempt to prove there is a distinction between the moral vs. ceremonial laws, the law of God vs. the Law of Moses, the 10 commandments vs. and the book of the law, and they shown countless bible passages that destroy any distinction Sabbatarians might dream up, will they at least be honest and admit they need to find some definitive way to create this false distinction that does not exist in the Bible and will try again tomorrow?
65. Why do you refuse to accept that Col 2:16 contains the Old Testament pattern of referring to the Jewish holy says in a yearly, monthly, weekly sequence as in 1 Chronicles 23:31, 2 Chronicles 31:3, 2 Chronicles 8:13, 2 Chronicles 2:4, Nehemiah 10:33, Ezekiel 45:17, Hosea 2:11, Galatians 4:10?
66. If the plural "sabbaton" in Col 2:16 cannot refer to weekly Sabbath day, then why does plural "sabbaton" refer to the weekly Sabbath day in Matthew 28:1, Luke 4:16, Acts 16:13, Exodus 20:8 (in Septuagint) Leviticus 23:37-38 (in Septuagint)?
67. If in Col 2:16, the lack of the definite article before the word "Sabbath" in the Greek proves it cannot refer to the weekly Sabbath, then why does the weekly Sabbath lack the definite article in Matthew 28:1, John 5:9, 10, 16?
68. If Isa 66:23 proves the Sabbath will be in heaven, will the new moon festival also be there? "from new moon to new moon And from sabbath to sabbath".
69. If Hebrews 4 teaches we are to keep the weekly Sabbath, then why does the text say we are to enter a rest that none of the Jews at the time of Joshua in the promised land ever experienced in v 8?
70. If the Sabbath will endure forever because it is called "eternal" then won’t all the Jewish feasts and circumcision also endure because it is also called eternal in Gen 17:10-14 (same Hebrew word used)
71. If the Sabbath will endure forever because it is called "holy" then won’t all the Jewish feasts also endure forever because they are also called holy?
72. If the Sabbath will endure forever because God hallowed it, then won’t Solomon's temple Ps 65:4; 1 Ki 9:3 and the vessels in the tabernacle Ex 40:9; Num 31:6; 1 Ki 8:4 also endure forever because God hallowed them too?
73. If the Sabbath will endure forever because it was an eternal sign between God and his people, then shouldn’t we also still practice circumcision Gen 17:11 and Passover Ex 12:13 because it too is called an eternal sign between God and his people?
74. If it is only through the Sabbath that we can know that it is God who sanctifies us Ex 31:13, then what ever happened to faith in Christ sanctifying us? Any if we should therefore keep the Sabbath, then we must also build the tabernacle, for the Bible says through it we may know it is God who sanctifies us Ezel 37:28?
75. If the fact that the Sabbath is mentioned in the New Testament after Pentecost proves it is still in force, then does the mention of The Day of Pentecost Acts 2:1, The days of unleavened bread Acts 12:3; 20:6, Days of Purification: Acts 21:26, Animal Sacrifices: Acts 21:26, Circumcision: Acts 16:3, Temple worship: Acts 24:12 prove we must keep these too because they are also mentioned and must therefore also still be in force like the Sabbath?
76. If Seventh-day Adventists want to deny that their official position is that worshipping on Sunday is the Mark of the Beast, do they realize that the "inspired" Ellen G. White, Uriah Smith, the Advent review and Leo Schreven (who conducts "Revelation seminars" today) all call it the mark of the beast?
77. Christians can find 21 reasons why the first day of the week is significant to their faith as Christians in the New Testament. Can Sabbatarians find even one reason in the New Testament why the Sabbath has any meaning distinct to Christians?
78. Did you know that the Jewish Sabbath was significant to the Jews because it was a memoral of this present physical creation and their deliverance from the bondage of Egypt and that the first day of the week is a memorial of our new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:7) and our deliverance from the bondage of sin. (Gal 4:4-5; Eph 1:7)
79. Did you know that regardless of whether the Sadducee’s or Pharisee’s method of calculating Pentecost was used the year Christ died, both would calculate Pentecost in Acts 2:1 as the first day of the week. Did you also know that the official position of the Seventh-day Adventist church was that Pentecost in Acts 2:1 fell on a Sunday that year?
80. Do you realize that the phrase, "that no collections be made when I come" in 1 Cor 16:2 proves the Christians were forbidden from saving up their offerings each week at home and demanded they put it into a common treasury every Sunday?
81. Did you know that 1 Cor 16:2 actually says, "EVERY 1st day" because the same Greek phrase is also found in Acts 13:14 "appointed elders in EVERY church". Did you know that you must give every 1st day of the week in to the church’s common treasury?
82. If Jesus died on Wednesday and rose on the Sabbath rather than a Friday - Sunday duration because you demand a full 72 hours in the grave, then why did Jesus count the Friday - Sunday duration as three days in Lk 13:32?
83. If Jesus died on Wednesday and rose on the Sabbath rather than a Friday - Sunday duration because you demand a full 72 hours in the grave, why is exactly a 72 hour period called 4 days by Peter in Acts 10:3+9+23+24+30?
84. If the fact that the 10 commandments were written in stone, that proves they will never be abolished, then where was Adam’s stone copy of the 10 commandments? Why did God not give Adam a stone copy once for all time? Why is it that Moses was first person in history to not only see the 10 commandments, but the first person to hold the stone tablets upon which the 10 commandments were written? Why do Seventh-day Adventists argue that the ten commandment law is no longer written in stone, but in the flesh of the human heart in 2 Corinthians 3:3? (Of course 2 Cor 3:3 says the 10 commandments were abolished and the new Covenant, the law of Christ is written on human hearts)
85. If only the 10 commandments we can "live", then why does Ezek 20:11 say this of the "ceremonial law", "I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live." (Ezek 20:11)?

these were originally asked by Steve Rudd, but i have co-oped them for this thread.

thankyou and God Bless

BobRyan

07-29-2005, 06:32 PM

This topic (of the 85 space-filling Q's above) is being put forward on the Ellen White thread. However this really has more to do with the doctrine on Sabbath than it does with Ellen White. So it applies to groups like the Seventh-day Baptists for example -- which means it really should be posted here.

I will post those points here so that the Ellen White thread is not used as "this thread".

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-29-2005, 06:36 PM

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3315/8.html#000105

There was a post-response chain regarding the 85 questions listed here on the Sabbath question posted on another thread (see the link below)

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3315/8.html#000105

Here is my response to that post on the Sabbath question --

Originally posted by BobRyan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
In Gen 2:3 Christ the Creator makes the day a Holy Day. not the SabbathLets run with that idea that the 7th day of thw week is a "Holy Day not the Sabbath" for a minute.

The Genesis account gives very little information on Adam and Eve before the fall. We see nothing about them sleeping (aside from a kind of surgery), breakfast, lunch, dinner (aside from sinning)- planning their day, discovering new things, being honest, describing the joy of something found/done/discovered. Apart from sin - we have few details.

But we DO have the two institutions.

We know that they have the institution of Marriage because God quotes the language in Genesis 2 and applies it to Marriage. This they took with them from Eden.

We know that they had a 7 day week.

We know that their 7th-day - Holy Day given to them by Christ the Creator was established for them in Gen 2:2-3. And we know that is to THAT same language that God appeals in Exodus 20:8-11 saying that this SHABATH rest seen in GEn 2:2-3 "alone" establishes the solemnity of Christ the Creator's Shabbath. That it was specifically HIS act of Shabath REST that DEFINES how the Holy Day is to be kept. Shabath rest that is SEEN in Gen 2:2-3.

Today - we can see that the three main attacks of humanism are against those three basic gifts that Adam and Eve took with them.

1. Marriage is attacked - via cultural promotion of infidelity and the gay agenda even to the point of Getting some Christians to Join them.

2. The Literal 7 day week of Creation week is challenged by humanists, atheist to the point even of getting some Christians to join them.

3. The 7th day Holy Day of Christ the Creator made as a memorial of the Gen 1-2:3 "fact" is challenged not only by the evolutionists but by many Christians.

Christ our Creator said that His Holy day was "MADE for MANKIND" Mark 2:27 and yet we see it is mankind that is most enthusiastic about attacking it.

Blessings attacked and denied are blessings foreited.

These facts are undisputed.

The question is - what do we do with them? Ignore them?

In Christ,

Bob [/QUOTE]

BobRyan

07-29-2005, 06:38 PM

Wopic - that is interesting - but do you see it in Heb 3 or 4?

BobRyan

07-29-2005, 06:39 PM

Here is the 2nd in the 85Q dialog

Originally posted by BobRyan:
In Exodus 20:8-11 He says that the Gen 2:2-3 facts ALONE establish the day as SET APART and a to be honored. "Therefore HE BLESSED and HE SANCTIFIED".

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Y4M2
and ordered ADAM to keep it.......oh no that's not there, YOU JUST ASSUME IT.There is no basis in all of scripture for ignoring something that God states as sanctified and set apart (made a Holy Day in Gen 2 as even you admitted).

There is no indication in all of scripture that the week used to be known as 6 days.

The ONlY thing done/created on the 7th day in Gen 2 was the establishment of the Holy Day.

THE MAKING of that day and the MAKING of mankind are both referenced in Mark 2:27 and Christ said it is FOR mankind that it was MADe.

These are not "assumption" they are fact.

These Bible facts alone justify D.L Moody's statement on the Sabbath command of Christ the Creator..

D.L Moody

I honestly believe that this commandment is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place.
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was- in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins with the word remember, showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?

I believe that the Sabbath question today is a vital one for the whole country. It is the burning question of the present time. If you give up the Sabbath the church goes; if you give up the church the home goes; and if the home goes the nation goes. That is the direction in which we are traveling.

http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The_TenCommandments_Text.html

Those who attack Adventists for holding to this same authorotative view about God's Word in Gen 2:2-3, and choosing to honor and respect Christ the Creator's Holy day as valid, binding and a blessing to mankind starting in Eden -- fail to comprehend the scope of how well these basic parts of the argument were accepted by Christians a short time ago.

In Christ,

Bob [/QUOTE]

BobRyan

07-29-2005, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Y4M2 said
Just to let you know this (debating your doctrine), is far better than debating an atheist, thank you for taking the time to do this with me, believe it or not i appreciate it.

thankyou and God Bless You are welcome. Each opportunity given me to highlight the clear teaching in scripture on this is actually a joy for me.

And I agree with you that having a close look at scripture to see the details of what God has said is far more rewarding than debating with atheists over "who is smarter".

In Christ,

Bob [/QUOTE]

BobRyan

07-29-2005, 06:42 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob said
#3. Moses speaks of Cain and SIN in Gen 4 but does not show us the Law of God saying "Thou shalt not murder" until Exodus 20. (Your argument is from the void of what the text does not say. Moses assumes his READERS have access to both Genesis and Leviticus. They could not argue from the void as you are doing).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y4M2 said
and murdering a person is an "Uh-Duh"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So also is following God's example and honoring what HE says He blessed and sanctified (set apart for Holy use). This is an "Uh Duh" in ALL of scripture.

There is no example of any precident for "Ignoring what God has sanctified".

The utltimate "Uh Duh" is honoring what God Sanctifies and "sets apart".

But then when He TELLS us that it was MADE FOR MANKIND --

Uh--Duh!!

BobRyan

07-29-2005, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
#7. Christ The Creator said that when HE made it HE made it "FOR mankind" Mark 2:27. (The MAKING of Christ the Creator's Holy day resulted in mankind having a SEVEN day week not a SIX day week)The only point highlighted there is that HE made it and that HE MADE it FOR MANKIND.

Undisputed facts.

Y4M2

nice out of context quote.

Mar 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, AND NOT MAN FOR THE SABBATH:
Mar 2:28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. As I said - "Undisputed facts" pointed out above ... "remain".

Do you have a point?

In Christ,

Bob [/QUOTE]

BobRyan

07-29-2005, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Bob said
#2. Moses speaks about "Clean and Unclean" animals in Gen 6 but does not tell us what that IS until Lev 11. (Your argument is from the void of what the text does not say. Moses assumes his READERS have access to both Genesis and Leviticus. They could not argue from the void as you are doing).
Here I point out the consistency of scripture. Instead of "assuming" that each reference to "Clean/Unclean" by the SAME AUTHOR is "something undefined and brand new" from every OTHER mention of the SAME concept -- I hold to the "consistency of scripture".

Those who simply are "playing games" at scripture trying to avoid its clear teaching will often abondon exegesis (SAME author using the SAME concept) and "pretend" that eacy time they find refernce to that same thing they are free to "imagine" entirely new meanings.

Y4M2
again YOU ARE ASSUMING (and everyone knows what happen when you assume) that the clean and unclean animals are the same
Indeed MOSES mention of the Clean/unclean animals in Gen 6 is the SAME as Moses mention of them in Lev 11.

That would be arguing IN the context of the "consistency of scripture" -- you know "exegesis" -- Same author same concept.

But it is interesting to see that you would take a leap off of that cliff in this "all for "?? (All for what? What do you get out of rejecting basic exegetical principles in that way?)

Here is John Gill's Commentary admitting to the obvious point that you "need" to deny no matter how "obvious".

John Gill's Commentary on Gen 7 vs 1
Verse 2.

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens,.... From hence it appears, that the distinction of clean and unclean beasts, at least for sacrifice, if not for food, was known before the flood, and so before the law of Moses; though some think this is said by anticipation, and as providing a large stock of such creatures for the propagation of their species; because they would be most serviceable to men both for food and sacrifice: but as it is certain that sacrifices were offered ever since the fall of man; by the same way, namely, by divine revelation, that men were taught to sacrifice creatures as typical of the sacrifice of Christ, they were directed what sort of creatures to offer, as were most suitable figures of him; those beasts that were clean, and used under the law, and so no doubt, at this time, were oxen, sheep, and goats: and these were to be taken into the ark by "sevens," or "seven seven" {p}; either only three pairs, male and female, for procreation, and the seventh a male for sacrifice, when the flood was over; or rather fourteen, seven couple, an equal number of male and female, as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom, that there might be enough for propagation; since a large number of them would be consumed, both for food and sacrifice:
Those who go after Adventist doctrine on these points end up rejecting well known Christian sources on almost every obvious point they pretend not to see.

You have to admit - that makes it kinda fun to do engage in these discussions! graemlins/thumbs.gif

IN Christ,

Bob [/QUOTE]

yeshua4me2

07-29-2005, 10:28 PM

Mal 4:4-6

"Remember ye the Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb FOR ALL ISREAL, with the Statutes and Judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the Earth with a curse."

now i know Moody didn't miss that verse.

if you would have read further:

"Sabbath" means "rest," and the meaning of the word gives a hint as to the true way to observe the day. God rested after creation, and ordained the Sabbath as a rest for man. He blessed it and hallowed it. Remember the rest-day to keep it holy. It is the day when the body may be refreshed and strengthened after six days of labor, and the soul drawn into closer fellowship with its Maker.

True observance of the Sabbath may be considered under two general heads:

1. cessation from ordinary secular work, and
2. religious exercises.

1. CESSATION FROM SECULAR WORK

A man ought to turn aside from his ordinary employment one day in seven. There are many whose occupation will not permit them to observe Sunday, but they should observe some other day as a Sabbath. Saturday is my day of rest, because I generally preach on Sunday, and I look forward to it as a boy does to a holiday. God knows what we need.

Ministers and missionaries often tell me that they take no rest-day; they do not need it because they are in the Lord's work. That is a mistake. When God was giving Moses instructions about the building of the tabernacle, He referred especially to the Sabbath, and gave injunctions for its strict observance; and later, when Moses was conveying the words of the Lord to the children of Israel, he interpreted them by saying that not even were sticks to be gathered on the sabbath to kindle fires for smelting or other purposes. Inspite of their zeal and haste to erect the tabernacle, the workmen were to have their day of rest. The command applies to ministers and others managed in Christian work today as much as to those Israelite workmen of old.

very different than SDA sabbath. but nice try, Moody was not a sabatarian, sorry.

yeshua4me2

07-29-2005, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Bob said
#2. Moses speaks about "Clean and Unclean" animals in Gen 6 but does not tell us what that IS until Lev 11. (Your argument is from the void of what the text does not say. Moses assumes his READERS have access to both Genesis and Leviticus. They could not argue from the void as you are doing).
Here I point out the consistency of scripture. Instead of "assuming" that each reference to "Clean/Unclean" by the SAME AUTHOR is "something undefined and brand new" from every OTHER mention of the SAME concept -- I hold to the "consistency of scripture".

Those who simply are "playing games" at scripture trying to avoid its clear teaching will often abondon exegesis (SAME author using the SAME concept) and "pretend" that eacy time they find refernce to that same thing they are free to "imagine" entirely new meanings.

Y4M2
again YOU ARE ASSUMING (and everyone knows what happen when you assume) that the clean and unclean animals are the same
Indeed MOSES mention of the Clean/unclean animals in Gen 6 is the SAME as Moses mention of them in Lev 11.

That would be arguing IN the context of the "consistency of scripture" -- you know "exegesis" -- Same author same concept.

But it is interesting to see that you would take a leap off of that cliff in this "all for "?? (All for what? What do you get out of rejecting basic exegetical principles in that way?)

Here is John Gill's Commentary admitting to the obvious point that you "need" to deny no matter how "obvious".

John Gill's Commentary on Gen 7 vs 1
Verse 2.

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens,.... From hence it appears, that the distinction of clean and unclean beasts, at least for sacrifice, if not for food, was known before the flood, and so before the law of Moses; though some think this is said by anticipation, and as providing a large stock of such creatures for the propagation of their species; because they would be most serviceable to men both for food and sacrifice: but as it is certain that sacrifices were offered ever since the fall of man; by the same way, namely, by divine revelation, that men were taught to sacrifice creatures as typical of the sacrifice of Christ, they were directed what sort of creatures to offer, as were most suitable figures of him; those beasts that were clean, and used under the law, and so no doubt, at this time, were oxen, sheep, and goats: and these were to be taken into the ark by "sevens," or "seven seven" {p}; either only three pairs, male and female, for procreation, and the seventh a male for sacrifice, when the flood was over; or rather fourteen, seven couple, an equal number of male and female, as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom, that there might be enough for propagation; since a large number of them would be consumed, both for food and sacrifice:
Those who go after Adventist doctrine on these points end up rejecting well known Christian sources on almost every obvious point they pretend not to see.

You have to admit - that makes it kinda fun to do engage in these discussions! graemlins/thumbs.gif

IN Christ,

Bob [/QUOTE][/QUOTE]my point stands...John Gill clearly lists oxen goats and sheep (as clean) while

Deu 14:4 These are the beasts which ye shall eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,
Deu 14:5 The hart, and the roebuck, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the wild ox, and the chamois.
Deu 14:6 And every beast that parteth the hoof, and cleaveth the cleft into two claws, and cheweth the cud among the beasts, that ye shall eat.

Moses lists more, so again you misquote the intentions of Gill, as Gill is clearly saying that there are ONLY 3 clean animals for Noah, while for Isreal there were more. and Gill lists the reasons for the clean/unclean catagory, nothing to do with the Laws of Moses.

clearly different clean animals.

thankyou and God Bless

yeshua4me2

07-30-2005, 12:31 AM

oh and of course:

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

where is the sabbath law?

BobRyan

07-30-2005, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by yeshua4me2:
Mal 4:4-6

"Remember ye the Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb FOR ALL ISREAL, with the Statutes and Judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the Earth with a curse."

now i know Moody didn't miss that verse.
Are you saying that Moody is wrong or that he should not have that pro-ten-commandment view of God's Law written on the heart under the New Covenant?

Is that "a point"??

Or are you debating Moody?

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-30-2005, 04:59 PM

"Sabbath" means "rest," and the meaning of the word gives a hint as to the true way to observe the day. God rested after creation, and ordained the Sabbath as a rest for man. He blessed it and hallowed it. Remember the rest-day to keep it holy. It is the day when the body may be refreshed and strengthened after six days of labor, and the soul drawn into closer fellowship with its Maker.

True observance of the Sabbath may be considered under two general heads:

1. cessation from ordinary secular work, and
2. religious exercises.
Wonderful.

But Moody says that it was binding on mankind in Eden.

Futhermore - God defines it as "Blessed holy and sanctified" - set apart for Holy use in Gen 2:2-3.

The fact that God considers it a day of worship EVEN in the New Earth is clear from Isaiah 66 "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before me To Worship"!!

The idea that "God might not have thought about the religious significance/observance of the day" is foreign to all of scripture.

But a desperate try is a good try if that is all you have Y4M2.

In the mean time - I see Moody supporting the Sabbath commandment even in its religious significance by the DETAILS in his argument. It is the VERY 4th commandment not just the wording of Gen 2:2-3 that Moody argues FOR.

Obviously.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-30-2005, 05:03 PM

Y4M2 said --

1. CESSATION FROM SECULAR WORK

A man ought to turn aside from his ordinary employment one day in seven. There are many whose occupation will not permit them to observe Sunday, but they should observe some other day as a Sabbath. Saturday is my day of rest, because I generally preach on Sunday, and I look forward to it as a boy does to a holiday. God knows what we need.

Ministers and missionaries often tell me that they take no rest-day; they do not need it because they are in the Lord's work. That is a mistake. When God was giving Moses instructions about the building of the tabernacle, He referred especially to the Sabbath, and gave injunctions for its strict observance; and later, when Moses was conveying the words of the Lord to the children of Israel, he interpreted them by saying that not even were sticks to be gathered on the sabbath to kindle fires for smelting or other purposes. Inspite of their zeal and haste to erect the tabernacle, the workmen were to have their day of rest. The command applies to ministers and others managed in Christian work today as much as to those Israelite workmen of old.

very different than SDA sabbath. Are you arguing that we SHOULD pay attention to the Word of God as IT speaks about Christ the Creator's Holy day???!!!

Are you saying we should ignore the 4th commandment and rebel against it - or obey it -- but not like Adventists do??

If so that is a VERY different model than you list of 85 will tolerate!!

Moody is totally opposed to the spurious arguments on that list - have you given them up???

You seem to be trying to find a "nice way" to honor Christ the Creator's Word regarding His Holy Day --- what a change!!

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-30-2005, 05:10 PM

I argue for the "consistency of scripture" and for exegesis when we see clean/unclean in Gen 7 and we see that same idea used by the SAME author in Lev 11.

But since Moses provides NO DEFINITION AT ALL of that animal distinction in Genesis - we is relying on the fact that He gives His readers BOTH the book of Genesis AND the book of Leviticus. A CONSISTENT view of the SAME author using the SAME concept to the SAME group of readers - the primary intended audience.

You know - exegesis.

John Gill's commentary agrees with this idea that we have information referenced in Genesis that is only defined for the reader in the other book of Moses.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Gill's Commentary on Gen 7 vs 1
Verse 2.

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens,.... From hence it appears, that the distinction of clean and unclean beasts, at least for sacrifice, if not for food, was known before the flood, and so before the law of Moses; though some think this is said by anticipation, and as providing a large stock of such creatures for the propagation of their species; because they would be most serviceable to men both for food and sacrifice: but as it is certain that sacrifices were offered ever since the fall of man; by the same way, namely, by divine revelation, that men were taught to sacrifice creatures as typical of the sacrifice of Christ, they were directed what sort of creatures to offer, as were most suitable figures of him; those beasts that were clean, and used under the law, and so no doubt, at this time, were oxen, sheep, and goats: and these were to be taken into the ark by "sevens," or "seven seven" {p}; either only three pairs, male and female, for procreation, and the seventh a male for sacrifice, when the flood was over; or rather fourteen, seven couple, an equal number of male and female, as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom, that there might be enough for propagation; since a large number of them would be consumed, both for food and sacrifice:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that this term has a definition EVEN THOUGH in the written text of Genesis you find NO definition SHOWS/PROVES/EXEMPLIFIES the fact that a REFERENCE does not have to also include a repeat of the DEFINITION to be valid.

This is true of Clean and Unclean in Gen 7.

And it is true of Christ the Creatory's Holy Day referenced in Gen 2:2-3.

Hence Moody argues that the 4th COMMANDMENT was binding IN EDEN - binding upon Adam.

And Hence John Gill can reference DETAILS about the clean/unclean animals giving examples of them even though we have NO example of the list of animals given before the flood.

I.E. The book of Genesis is not an exhaustive list of all "statutes commands and laws" given before Sinai.

In Christ,

Bob

yeshua4me2

07-30-2005, 07:22 PM

you're still missing the point, moody is saying any day can be sabbath(not saturnday is the sabbath), so long as you rest one day in seven. and yes i disagree with Moody on the binding of the 10 commandments (so do many people).

i believe that for christians the are 1648 laws for him to follow(as all old testament laws, including the 10 commandments, were completed with Jesus) as defined in the doctrinal letters of the NT (Col says they were nailed to the cross) (Gospel and Acts are history) every command (imparitive) that Jesus gave was to a Jewish audience, who were STILL BOUND by the OT law.

I believe that the sabbath is a principle (rest one day in seven, all work and no play makes Dale,me, a grumpy fellow)not a law that is binding for gentiles. as the OT (all of them) were for the Jews (exception Naohic covenant), and Gentiles seeking to be Jews (strangers within the gates), not one time in the whole of scripture is there even a hint the the Jewish sabbath law the the Torah describes is for gentiles.

Col 2:16 clearly exempts us (gentiles) from the Jewish sabbath law.

and again not ONE JEWISH SAGE for the last 2000 years has said that it is for gentiles, as a matter of fact, they say the opposite.

Even the modern Messianic Jew movement would disaggree with you.(saw it on crosstalk with Rabbi Randy Weiss). thay think JEWS should keep the 10 commands but like me gentiles are not bound by by the NT Christian Laws.'

and yes i do know exegesis but disagree with SDA's brand of it.(as i am SBC).

the words of Jesus:
Luk 10:25 Behold, a certain Torah scholar stood up and tested him, saying, "Rabbi, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
Luk 10:26 He said to him, "What is written in the Torah? How do you read it?"
Luk 10:27 He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."
Luk 10:28 He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."

what about the sabbath

thanks again Bob and God Bless

yeshua4me2

07-30-2005, 07:24 PM

and i never said people shouldn't have a sabbath day, just that it's not a law, binding on gentiles.

rested all day today.

thankyou and God Bless

yeshua4me2

07-30-2005, 07:25 PM

oh and it's not the seal of God, and Sunday is not the mark of the beast.

BobRyan

07-31-2005, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by yeshua4me2:
[QB] and i never said people shouldn't have a sabbath day, just that it's not a law, binding on gentiles.
By Contrast D.L. Moody says that it is as binding today as it ever was. And that it was binding on the non-Jew "Adam and Eve" observed in the Garden of Eden.

Do you dispute his point?

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-31-2005, 09:32 AM

Lets review the "details" of his point.

D.L Moody

I honestly believe that this commandment is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place.
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was- in fact, MORE than ever, because we live in such an intense age.

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins with the word remember, showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stone at Sinai[/b]. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?
Here Moody argues that it is the SABBATH commandment (the 4th commandment) that was binding in Eden. And binding upon mankind for it was "made for mankind". Your 85 charges that mankind DID NOT keep this until Sinai when given to ISrael "only".

In fact your quote in the previos is that it is NOT binding on non-Jews and never was!

You are in direct disptute with Moody's position -- (note the "details" please).

D.L. Moody
I believe that the Sabbath question today is a vital one for the whole country. It is the burning question of the present time. If you give up the Sabbath the church goes; if you give up the church the home goes; and if the home goes the nation goes. That is the direction in which we are traveling.

http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The_TenCommandments_Text.html

You argue that only Jews in America are under the command - Moody argues that it is all of the church and all of America that depends on it.

Obviously you are in direct opposition to Moody on that particular point.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-31-2005, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by yeshua4me2:
[QB] you're still missing the point, moody is saying any day can be sabbath(not saturnday is the sabbath),
#1. Moody is not a Seventh-day Adventist and I never claimed he was.

#2. The SPECIFIC POINTS he endorses about the Sabbath commandment are in full , obvious and direct contradiction with your list of 85. This is beyond dispute.

#3. Moody argues for an "editable" Sabbath commandment after the cross - something I don't agree with. He claims that HIS Sabbath is Saturday but not out of any faithful rendering of THE 7th day but rather out of convenience. You can point out all day long that this is at least one area where Moody and I differ - and I will agree with you all day.

#4. The devastating problem is that the specifics in your 85 are opposed to Moody's positions not just mine! Yet you claim to be serious about all of them!!

Y4M2
so long as you rest one day in seven. and yes i disagree with Moody on the binding of the 10 commandments (so do many people).
Excellent! Now we are getting some place. The foundational Points that Moody and OTHER non-Sabbath keeping saints of the 19th century agreed to - you oppose -- NOT just the views that Adventists have with that group but you oppose those great men of faith in their respect for Christ the Creator's Holy Day "in general".

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-31-2005, 09:45 AM

Y4M2
i believe that for christians the are 1648 laws for him to follow(as all old testament laws, including the 10 commandments, were completed with Jesus) as defined in the doctrinal letters of the NT
#1. That is a lot of guesswork not exegesis.

#2. The Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:% "Royal Law" to Love God with all the heart and Love your neighbor as yourself - was JUST as well "fulfilled" (as in obeyed rather than rebelled against) by Christ as the command not to take God's name in Vain or the command to Honor parents (the FIRST command in the SET OF TEN with a promise - Eph 6:1-2)

Y4M2

(Col says they were nailed to the cross)
No it does not.

It says our DEBT OF SIN was paid at the cross - nailed to the cross.

"The Certificate of DEBT consisting of decrees AGAINST US" NAS.

This is the same BIBLE-based idea of Christ PAYING the DEBT that the Law says we owe. IF instead of PAYING that debt he destroys his own law -- then a law-destroyed is NOT written on the heart and you are not under the New Covenant.

Making stuff up about Col 2 because it helps you "get at" Christ the Creator's Holy Day - does nothing "for" the Gospel!

Paul declares that INSTEAD of the Gospel abolishing God's Law it "establishes the Law of God" Rom 3:31.

Hence we see the Saints EVEN down at the end of time "Keeping the Commandments of God" Rev 12 just as Christ said in John 14 "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments".

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-31-2005, 09:49 AM

Y4M2

(Gospel and Acts are history) every command (imparitive) that Jesus gave was to a Jewish audience, who were STILL BOUND by the OT law.

If your intent is to toss out the Gospels and the words of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as "not applicable to Christians" - then you are on the right track!

By "contrast" In Matt 28 Christ tells His followers to TEACH others what HE TAUGHT THEM - and the RESULT of that instruction is that they PUBLISH the 4 Gospels SHOWING His teaching!!

The very teaching which your statement above appears to insist that we ignore!!

This is a logical path for you to go down having rejected Christ the Creator's Sabbath, and then His unit of Ten, and then His words IN general spoken in the Gospels etc.

Your argument simply digs its hole deeper and deeper. At some point you are well advised to throw away the shovel and climb out.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-31-2005, 09:53 AM

Dale said --
I believe that the sabbath is a principle (rest one day in seven, all work and no play makes Dale,me, a grumpy fellow)not a law that is binding for gentiles.
IF the Sabbath given in Eden (as Moody claims) was binding then and now - and if that Law as GIVEN by God was "really" only given as a principle (as you say) then it REMAINS a it always did even by your own twist of logic.

But of course - you reject that as well.

So you ALSO seem to say that although GIVEN as a principle and this is the REAL meaning of the command - it is now NOT to be kept as actually STATED by God for to obey Christ the Creator on that commandment would be denying grace according to your list of 85!!

Your logic has gone "both ways" here and has fallen back on itself in contradiction.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-31-2005, 10:06 AM

Y4M2

whatever you wish to say about the (Law of God?) as the OT (all of them) were for the Jews (exception Naohic covenant), and Gentiles seeking to be Jews (strangers within the gates),
Wrong.

In Lev 18 we "see" sins for which gentiles were wiped out. Sins also for which Israel was to be wiped out should they follow them.

Moody presents the Creator's Day as Holy in Eden and so Does Scripture in Gen 2:2-3

Moody notes that it is NON-Jews in Eden upon whom the the day is binding (as "Sabbath" in his words) - and so does scripture in Exodus 20:8-11 as it speaks to the Gen 2 "details" to make its case.

Secondly you include Gentiles that choose to worship and follow the ONE true God. AS IF God was going to get "Sabbath keeping" out of people NOT trying to worship the One True God!! (What kind of logic is that!!??)

Do you have some case of non-Jew true worshippers of God being told in the OT to ignore Christ the Creator's Holy Day??

Because I certainly DO have examples of TRUE worshippers of God - non-Jews - commended FOR honoring Christ the Creator's OWN Holy day!!

Y4M2
not one time in the whole of scripture is there even a hint the the Jewish sabbath law the the Torah describes is for gentiles.
I guess if you ignore Adam and Eve - (in opposition to Moody and scripture) and if you ignore Isaiah 66 showing it applicable to ALL mankind in the new earth, and if you ignore the words of Christ in Mark 2:27 sayint that WHEN it was MADE it was MADE for mankind (not merely jews) --

You might reach such a Sabbath-denying POV. But Christ the Creator is clear in scripture that rebellion against "his commandments" is not the way His followers show "love to him".

It is merely tradition that has been bent back to oppose the comamndments of Christ the Creator.

Y4M2
Col 2:16 clearly exempts us (gentiles) from the Jewish sabbath law.
It speaks only of the "Shaddow Sabbaths" of Lev 23 - the annual Sabbaths based in animal sacrifices that point FORWARD to the sacrifice of Christ - the SHADOW the sacrifice of Christ.

It is NOT a way to negate the "ALL MANKIND" scope of Mark 2:27 or Isaiah 66 or the non-Jew example we have in Gen 2:2-3 where it is binding OR a way to reject the Heb 4 application of Sabbath to the "People of God".

Y4M2
and again not ONE JEWISH SAGE for the last 2000 years has said that it is for gentiles, as a matter of fact, they say the opposite.
Jewish "sages" rejecting Christ as the Messiah say that "Satan is a good angel" and the the OT text is NOT for Christians -- that scripture is denied to us.

IF we were to follow their instruction our NT would not be "allowed" to quote OT law LIKE IT DOES!!

Y4M2 Even the modern Messianic Jew movement would disaggree with you.(saw it on crosstalk with Rabbi Randy Weiss). thay think JEWS should keep the 10 commands but like me gentiles are not bound by by the NT Christian Laws.'Some do some don't. Many Adventists attend Messianic congregations in areas where an Adventist church is not available and find there "Agreement" that the Sabbath of Christ the Creator IS valid for ALL mankind just as scripture teaches.

Y4M2
and yes i do know exegesis Great - lets see some in your arguments. This is "common ground" that both sides can agree on.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

07-31-2005, 10:10 AM

Y4M2 on the PRE-Cross teaching in the Gospels --

the words of Jesus:

Luk 10:25 Behold, a certain Torah scholar stood up and tested him, saying, "Rabbi, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
Luk 10:26 He said to him, "What is written in the Torah? How do you read it?"
Luk 10:27 He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."
Luk 10:28 He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."

what about the sabbath

Indeed - what about not taking God's name in vain, honoring parents, not coveting, honoring Chris the Creator's Holy day....

In this pre-cross instruction of Christ EVEN THE JEWS are arguing that the Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 "Royal Law" is the FOUNDATION for those Ten Commandments.

And Christ AFFIRMS that even PRE-Cross this is true. The Ten commandments REST on the foundation principles of Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 as stated in Mosaic Law.

To break one - is to "break all" as James says.

What was your question?

In Christ,

Bob

yeshua4me2

08-02-2005, 12:17 AM

again not only me but very many baptists (which i am ) disagree with moody on the binding of the ten commandments. i am say that NO OT LAW is binding on christians, only NT LAW as laid out in the epistles, i am absolutly saying that the words of Jesus were for JEWS and not Gentiles and the OT law was binding when he spoke them.

if you could please give me a few days to answer as my wife is off work for the next couple of days.

i was hurt badly in a car accident and my wife provides for the family and on her days off i am 100% her's for those days.

be back on wed, unless she goes shopping....hehehe, then i can get online.

and i am not in opposition to the sabbath, just in opposition to a Jewish sabbath law.

i am argueing against a sabbath law not sabbath keeping.

see you in a couple days, my wife is done showering, gotta go.

thankyou and Godbless

by the way haveing trouble with Heb 4:9 There remains therefore a Shabbat rest for the people of God.

this is your best arguement as te greek word specifies the sabbath rest, asking several pastors about this one, still waiting though.

yeshua4me2

08-02-2005, 12:21 AM

and Col 2:16 is my best arguement.

yeshua4me2

08-02-2005, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by yeshua4me2:
[QB] and i never said people shouldn't have a sabbath day, just that it's not a law, binding on gentiles.
By Contrast D.L. Moody says that it is as binding today as it ever was. And that it was binding on the non-Jew "Adam and Eve" observed in the Garden of Eden.

Do you dispute his point?

In Christ,

Bob [/QUOTE]yes, i already said so

yeshua4me2

08-02-2005, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Lets review the "details" of his point.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />D.L Moody

I honestly believe that this commandment is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place.
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was- in fact, MORE than ever, because we live in such an intense age.

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins with the word remember, showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?
Here Moody argues that it is the SABBATH commandment (the 4th commandment) that was binding in Eden. And binding upon mankind for it was "made for mankind". Your 85 charges that mankind DID NOT keep this until Sinai when given to ISrael "only".

In fact your quote in the previos is that it is NOT binding on non-Jews and never was!

You are in direct disptute with Moody's position -- (note the "details" please).

D.L. Moody
I believe that the Sabbath question today is a vital one for the whole country. It is the burning question of the present time. If you give up the Sabbath the church goes; if you give up the church the home goes; and if the home goes the nation goes. That is the direction in which we are traveling.

http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The_TenCommandments_Text.html

You argue that only Jews in America are under the command - Moody argues that it is all of the church and all of America that depends on it.

Obviously you are in direct opposition to Moody on that particular point.

In Christ,

Bob [/b][/QUOTE]quoting moody on this point is pointless, as i already said i am in total disagreement with his position, as is my whole denomination, the SBC.

yeshua4me2

08-02-2005, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Y4M2
i believe that for christians the are 1648 laws for him to follow(as all old testament laws, including the 10 commandments, were completed with Jesus) as defined in the doctrinal letters of the NT
#1. That is a lot of guesswork not exegesis.

no this is fact, count them, of course this takes time, i've had alot of time on my hand, and i have have my Greek NT, a lexicon, and a dictionary, 9 commentaries, 14 sets of translation notes, 32 different translations, 18 months, and lots of pain, as the lady who hit me was going 60 mph in a durango, ouch.

#2. The Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:% "Royal Law" to Love God with all the heart and Love your neighbor as yourself - was JUST as well "fulfilled" (as in obeyed rather than rebelled against) by Christ as the command not to take God's name in Vain or the command to Honor parents (the FIRST command in the SET OF TEN with a promise - Eph 6:1-2)

Y4M2

(Col says they were nailed to the cross)
No it does not.

Col 2:13 You were dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh. He made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
Col 2:14 wiping out the HANDWRITTING in ORDINACES (laws) which was against us; and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;

It says our DEBT OF SIN was paid at the cross - nailed to the cross.

"The Certificate of DEBT consisting of decrees AGAINST US" NAS.

This is the same BIBLE-based idea of Christ PAYING the DEBT that the Law says we owe. IF instead of PAYING that debt he destroys his own law -- then a law-destroyed is NOT written on the heart and you are not under the New Covenant.

Making stuff up about Col 2 because it helps you "get at" Christ the Creator's Holy Day - does nothing "for" the Gospel!

Paul declares that INSTEAD of the Gospel abolishing God's Law it "establishes the Law of God" Rom 3:31.

But he never mentions the sabbath, neither is their one single historical sorce for the sabbath for the first 1000 years.

waldeness are considered heretics by all non cultic denominations.

Hence we see the Saints EVEN down at the end of time "Keeping the Commandments of God" Rev 12 just as Christ said in John 14 "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments".

the rapture has already occured, there are differences between that dispensation and this one. this is not about dispensationalism, if you do not accept this (which i suspect you do not), start a new thread and those are the tribulatin Jews who are sealed of God as defined by just about ever major SBC preacher out there, oh (though i disagree with some of theit doctrine) and most Assemblies of God preachers.

because your interpretation of the meaning of revalation is horrendous. based on ellen white, the false prophet and liar.

In Christ,

Bob [/QUOTE]

yeshua4me2

08-02-2005, 02:04 AM

yeshua4me2

08-02-2005, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Y4M2

(Gospel and Acts are history) every command (imparitive) that Jesus gave was to a Jewish audience, who were STILL BOUND by the OT law.

If your intent is to toss out the Gospels and the words of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as "not applicable to Christians" - then you are on the right track!

Jesus said whosoever is guilty of one part of the law is guilty of the whole law. and adventist certianly do not keep the whole law.

By "contrast" In Matt 28 Christ tells His followers to TEACH others what HE TAUGHT THEM - and the RESULT of that instruction is that they PUBLISH the 4 Gospels SHOWING His teaching!!

The very teaching which your statement above appears to insist that we ignore!!

and He taught in Is 1:13 "Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths"(strongs 7676 for those who do not read hebrew same as (but different from all words in genesis) the word in lev+),"the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting."

The very teaching which your statement above appears to insist that we ignore!!

This is a logical path for you to go down having rejected Christ the Creator's Sabbath, and then His unit of Ten, and then His words IN general spoken in the Gospels etc.

so you (sda's) keep the law?

Joh 8:51 Verily,281 verily,281 I say3004 unto you,5213 If1437 a man5100 keep5083 my1699 saying,3056( a reasonable synonym is commandments) he shall never3364, 1519, 165 see2334 death.2288

Lev 4:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:
Lev 4:3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.

same word in hebrew for commandments as the nevr ending "10",

Lev 5:14 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Lev 5:15 If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the LORD; then he shall bring for his trespass unto the LORD a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering:
Lev 5:16 And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest: and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him.
Lev 5:17 And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD; though he wist it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

again more commandments, by saying that wrote them in stone and saying that they are eternal (plaese read all 85 questions as many of your responces are answered in other questions) is completely irelevant as so is the passover which you do not keep.

Your argument simply digs its hole deeper and deeper. At some point you are well advised to throw away the shovel and climb out.

nice summation,but again way off, as you again completely ignored col 2:16 and say reading the plain reading of it is making stuff up, good arguement.

In Christ,

Bob [/QUOTE]

Claudia_T

08-02-2005, 08:59 AM

It is sad when people do not recognize the difference between the Ten Commandments Royal Law and the other ordinances of God.

Looks like SOMEBODY kept the commandments:

Lk:1:6: "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

...according to the Bible.. and Im betting they were not the only ones who ever did.

Its very sad that some view God as a tyrant and insisting upon telling people to keep Laws that they couldnt keep! What a horrific view of God that is! God does not tell you to do something that you cannot do, AND God is not just sitting there waiting to find some instance where you may have deviated from the Law.

GOD WANTS YOUR HEART, HE WANTS YOUR LOYALTY. God is not a Legalistic God. He wishes for you to understand His ways, His rules of government and follow the law to the best of your ability BECAUSE YOU LOVE HIM. You are able to do that.

He wants for His people not to commit willful sin and if we DO turn from God... we have an Advocate and if we repent we will be forgiven.

Mt:19:17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Mt:5:19: Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Claudia_T

08-02-2005, 09:03 AM

Hey look! Its someone else who kept God's Commandments

Job:1:1: There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Claudia_T

08-02-2005, 09:09 AM

It is unfortunate that some view God the Father as the "mean, legalistic one" while Jesus is the "loving and kind one" who pacifies the Father and convinces Him to love us and accept us. This ill-advised view is what causes some Christians to believe God would make commandments that we cannot keep.

Jn:14:9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Jn:15:10: If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Jn:14:15: If ye love me, keep my commandments.

DHK

08-02-2005, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Claudia_T:

Jn:15:10: If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Jn:14:15: If ye love me, keep my commandments. John 13:34-35 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
--This is one of Jesus' commandments which he personally gave.

Mark 10:19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
--Never did Christ refer to the law as his law, or the Ten Commandments as his Ten Commandments. They were always "the law" or "the commandments." It seems obvious then that the commandments of Christ do not include the Sabbath, since not once in the New Testament are we commanded to keep the Sabbath, not by Jesus, nor by any of the Apostles. The command to keep the Sabbath is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament.
DHK

TorahKeeper

08-02-2005, 06:18 PM

If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, [from] doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking [thine own] words:

Sounds like God was pretty clear about sabbath, why so much discussion now? Maybe people want to debate it long enough so it will go away? Perhaps?

TorahKeeper

08-02-2005, 06:23 PM

For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
Matt 12:8

Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. Mark 2:28

And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath. Luke 6:5

Is this enough proof that we are to keep sabbath.

By the way, the commandment "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain" is not mentioned in the NT, can I do that??

DHK

08-02-2005, 08:34 PM

No, it isn't. I don't see any NT command to keep the Sabbath. You have failed in quoting any verse that commands us to do that.
In fact you have done the opposite. You have strengthened my case.

The Son of man is the Lord of the Sabbath. His meaning is that he is not the slave of the Sabbath, not bound to all the laws of the Sabbath. He was teaaching the Pharisees that they had gone overboard with the Torah, and also the Talmud, and had put restrictions on the Sabbath day that were never intended to be there. He was the Lord of the Sabbath, and not bound by it, and neither were his disciples, and neither are any other Christians. We are children of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, who is Lord of the Sabbath, and is not bound to it, like the Jews were to some extent. The disciple could eat of the cornfield without condemnation. Jesus healed on the Sabbath. Jesus did as he pleased on the Sabbath. He was Lord of the Sabbath, not slave to the Sabbath.
DHK

TorahKeeper

08-02-2005, 08:45 PM

You have proven that you know very little about the sabbath. I wonder why God said to REMEMBER sabbath and keep it holy. Maybe 'cause the church has forgotten it. There is no NT commandment to not use Gods name in vain, I guess you advocate that?

If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, [from] doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking [thine own] words:

I guess God was just kiddin' when He said that.

May I ask, why would you not want to be obedient to His Words? Also why would you encourage others to be disobedient??

Thought provoking isnt it.....

DHK

08-02-2005, 08:57 PM

Actually God says a lot about taking his name in vain in the sermon on the mount if you would like to study it out.
But that is not the subject is it?
The Sabbath was a sign given specifically to the Jewish nation, and only to the Jewish nation, as a sign of a covenant between Israel and Jehovah.
You can read about it in Exodus 31

Exodus 31:12-18 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

BTW, of what tribe do you originate?
DHK

TorahKeeper

08-02-2005, 09:19 PM

And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal 3:29

Sounds like all those who are redeemed are the Children of Israel.

Do you know what the word forever means there in Exodus??? It means ..... FOREVER.

You still didnt answer why you would not want to obey the very words of God or why you would encourage others to do so.

Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Wonder why He said that.

As for my tribe, I decend from the tribe of Levi as best as we can tell.

DHK

08-02-2005, 09:31 PM

The Sabbath was a sign of the covenant made to the physical nation of Israel--the twelve tribes, not toe spiritual seed of Abraham. Jehovah was speaking to Moses at the time. I will ask again: What tribe do you belong to? If you can't answer, the Sabbath was not given to you. It was given to the 12 tribes of Israel FOREVER, but never to you. You are a gentile, not an Israelite.
DHK

TorahKeeper

08-02-2005, 09:34 PM

Are you having trouble with english, I said LEVI.

You should check out the word seed used there in Galations, its the word spermata, we get the word sperm from it. How spiritual does that sound? Not very spiritual here. Sabbath was given to all of His people. I also notice you still havent responded to any of the questions I asked.

DHK

08-02-2005, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Are you having trouble with english, I said LEVI.

You should check out the word seed used there in Galations, its the word spermata, we get the word sperm from it. How spiritual does that sound? Not very spiritual here. Sabbath was given to all of His people. I also notice you still havent responded to any of the questions I asked. What would make you think that you come from the tribe of Levi? Are you a converted Jew?
If so, you must choose between Judaism and Christianity. You can't have both. When a Muslim converts to Christianity he doesn't remain a Muslim. He forsakes Islam and becomes a Christian. Friday no longer remains his holy day. Allah no longer remains his God and Mohammed is a wicked man. Judaism is a false religion that leads people away from God. The truth is found in Jesus Christ alone. He was the fulfillment of the law.

Study the Book of Hebrews. They were given a choice: if they were to truly embrace Christ and Christianity they had to let go of Judaism and forsake it completely. There was no turning back.
It would be impossible to renew them again to repentance, for they would be crucifying the Son of God afresh.
You can't have both. You can't have Judaism and Christianity. It is either one or the other.
DHK

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 12:36 PM

I am a Bond Servant of the Messiah Yeshua. I have forsaken the un-godly church system you are in. I worship the true creator while you bow atthe feet of paganism. My family lineage is from Levi. I have chosen the Messiah, you should do that as well. You can dismiss the very words of God Himself, but you will stand before Him and answer for it, not I.

DHK

08-03-2005, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
I am a Bond Servant of the Messiah Yeshua. I have forsaken the un-godly church system you are in. I worship the true creator while you bow atthe feet of paganism. My family lineage is from Levi. I have chosen the Messiah, you should do that as well. You can dismiss the very words of God Himself, but you will stand before Him and answer for it, not I. I will answer your post more fully later.
However:
Putting yourself in the place of God:

1. You accuse me of bowing at the feet of paganism, in effect telling me I am not saved.

2. You accuse me of being in an un-Godly church system--false.

3. You state that you have chosen the Messiah, and state that I should do the same, accusing me of not worshipping neither Christ, nor Yeshua (Jesus). To you I am an unsaved pagan.

4. You accuse me of dismissing the words of God--false.

5. You give me a stern warning of standing before God and answering to God for these slanderous accusations of which you have charged me.

You know nothing of me; nothing of my church; nothing of my background.
Your post is obnoxious, arrogant, and against the BB rules. Take heed to what you post. This is a warning.
DHK

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 05:28 PM

Perhaps I was a bit harsh, if so, I apologize. I will not back down however. You need to understand that you are playing a very dangerous game. You need to be very careful.

DHK

08-03-2005, 05:35 PM

Judaism is a false religion. They rejected the Messiah whom true Christianity, evidenced in Bible believing churches every where, have received. To embrace Judaism is to embrace a false religion and a false God. You cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve Allah and Christ. You cannot serve the God of Judaism and Christ. You can only serve one God. Jesus Christ is that God. He said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes unto the Father but by me." Did he lie?
DHK

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 05:52 PM

No He did not, I never said He did. I do not practice Judaism, you should really study more. I am not seving 2 masters, I serve the One True Master. Let me introduce you to Him, He loved us enough to die for our sins and He loved us enough to lay out commandments for us to live our lives. It is truly wonderful when you decide to submit to Him and be obedient to His words, your lie would be much more peaceful.

DHK

08-03-2005, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
It is truly wonderful when you decide to submit to Him and be obedient to His words, your lie would be much more peaceful. Again you are being judgemental without evidence. What evidence do you have that I have not submitted myself to Christ? Why the arogance? You act as God as if you know the heart of all men?

Just what lie am I promoting that you keep referring to?

Again, this is the second warning. You are treading dangerously close with such unwarranted slander and unfounded accusations which are against BB rules.
DHK

Johnv

08-03-2005, 06:41 PM

I think it's clear that observance of the Sabbath was not abolished with Jesus' coming. The 10 COmmandments are still in force today.

However, HOW the Sabbath is observed is up to each person, without being open to scrutiny of others. Paul says very clearly that no one is to judge you by how you observe the Sabbath, and to let each person be convinced in his own mind.

BTW, the main intent of the "Keep the Sabbath Holy" commandment was on a person resting from work. If I choose to take the day and go sailing, I'm observing the Sabbath. I'm in compliance and faithfulness so long as I rest one day in seven. How I rest is completely up to me, so long as I truly rest.

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 06:53 PM

Perhaps, we should not speak again DHK, you apparently have tremendous hatred towards me so I will ignore your responses from now on. I am dusting my feet of you as of now.

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 06:54 PM

I didnt judge anyone concerning how they kept sabbath, just that they keep it.

Johnv

08-03-2005, 06:57 PM

Then, you will agree that if I decide to observe the Sabbath on a Wednesday, and take that day off and go to Disneyland, then I'm observing the Sabbath.

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 07:01 PM

No I do not agree, you must observe what God said, when God said. You dont get to decide how to worship Him, He has already determineed how that works. Obedience means you OBEY. Not a difficult concept.

DHK

08-03-2005, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Perhaps, we should not speak again DHK, you apparently have tremendous hatred towards me so I will ignore your responses from now on. I am dusting my feet of you as of now. I don't have any hatred against you. I made a post and you came out blasting that I was a pagan, in an ungodly church system, worshiping a false god. What was the purpose of that?
DHK

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 07:14 PM

Once again, I have chosen to ignore you. You will answer for your hatred, may the LORD have mercy on you.

DHK

08-03-2005, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Once again, I have chosen to ignore you. You will answer for your hatred, may the LORD have mercy on you. You need to answer for you own accusations:
Just what lie am I promoting that you keep referring to?

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 07:25 PM

In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, [and that] ye shall not prolong [your] days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. Deut 30:16-20

Enough said

Johnv

08-03-2005, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
No I do not agree, you must observe what God said, when God said. You dont get to decide how to worship Him, He has already determineed how that works. Obedience means you OBEY. Not a difficult concept. The Sabbath is not primarily about worship. It is about rest:

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to The Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days The Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but He rested on the seventh day. Therefore The Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

So again, knowing that the Sabbath Day was designed primarily as a day of rest, and, knowing that you have already said that you're not telling us how to rest (nor does God, with the exception of refraining from work), then if I want to rest by going to Disneyland, or by going sailing, I'm keeping the Sabbath, because I'm refraining from work.

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 07:34 PM

You should really study more. It would help you immensley. I detect tremendous anger and hatred towards those who advocate being obedient, wonder why that is??

DHK

08-03-2005, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, [and that] ye shall not prolong [your] days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. Deut 30:16-20

Enough said Again I ask you what lie did I tell?
I never once referred to this passage. If I did, prove that I did.

In reference to this passage, it says:
"ye shall not prolong [your] days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it."

Tell me: When do you plan to pass over the literal River Jordan, and are you yourslf going to possess this land. Do you have an army? Are you going to displace the Jews that are already there? The Muslims as well? Do you have your battle plans drawn up? How do you expect to accomplish all of this?

Scripture must be taken in its context.
DHK

DHK

08-03-2005, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
You should really study more. It would help you immensley. I detect tremendous anger and hatred towards those who advocate being obedient, wonder why that is?? Perhaps the "hatred" is coming out in the frustration of the one who has no answers in the questions that are being posed to him???

Johnv

08-03-2005, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
You should really study more. It would help you immensley.Perhaps you could show me some scripture to support your claim. I provided scripture which CLEARLY AND PLAINLY addresses my claim.

The only hatred I detect here is from you, since you're the one making pharasaical judgements calling people "lawbreakers", without sufficient scriptural support.

I will do what God tells me to do. He says to rest own day in seven. I rest two days in seven. One of those days, I spend an hour or two at church, worshipping and fellowshipping. The other day, I usually spend in liesure activity making sure to refrain from work.

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 07:47 PM

Johnv

08-03-2005, 07:49 PM

That verse is a great verse. However, it does not support you claim that my mode of keeping the Sabbath is scripturally wrong. In fact, that verse doesn't address the Sabbath at all.

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 07:51 PM

Umm, the false teaching was circumcision.

Titus 1:10-16

That was posted by petrl.

Perhaps the "hatred" is coming out in the frustration of the one who has no answers in the questions that are being posed to him???

Are you talking to yourself now????

I am a pharisee now because I advocate obeying God, I guess if thats your definition of pharisee, the I will gladly take it

DHK

08-03-2005, 07:53 PM

Matthew 22:36-40 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it,
39 Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jesus spoke of his commandments. He summarized it in these two commandments. That makes what you have posted irrelevant.
DHK

Petrel

08-03-2005, 07:53 PM

Ehh? Why are you talking about me over here?

Johnv

08-03-2005, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Umm, the false teaching was circumcision.
???? Ummm, the topic is the Sabbath. Wake up, stay with it.

DHK

08-03-2005, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Umm, the false teaching was circumcision.

Titus 1:10-16

That was posted by petrl.

Perhaps the "hatred" is coming out in the frustration of the one who has no answers in the questions that are being posed to him???

Are you talking to yourself now????

I am a pharisee now because I advocate obeying God, I guess if thats your definition of pharisee, the I will gladly take it Now the false teaching that I am accused of is circumcision. Please show me where I mentioned that. You had better start quoting me, as I have above. If your going to accuse me, I want to know where. Otherwise it is slander. Anywhere else you would be found wanting in court. Is that understood?
DHK

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 07:56 PM

Sorry Petrel, its hard to keep up with all the anger towards me. Jesus was QUOTING from the LAW when HE said that. The Law is all about Love, you should really study it more.

Johnv

08-03-2005, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
... its hard to keep up with all the anger towards me....It is indeed right to have anger towards false accusers. That would be you.

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 08:00 PM

I can so feel the baptist love, I wonder if Jesus would have such anger?

Petrel

08-03-2005, 08:01 PM

I'm not mad, just perplexed. :D

Johnv

08-03-2005, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
I can so feel the baptist love, I wonder if Jesus would have such anger? Jesus appeared to have anger towards the Parisees, yes.

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 08:03 PM

sounds like you are the only one.

Johnv

08-03-2005, 08:04 PM

I'm not angry at you, just your false doctrine.

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 08:05 PM

You can justify anything cant you? I guess the disobedient will do as they please, when they please.

Johnv

08-03-2005, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
You can justify anything cant you? I guess the disobedient will do as they please, when they please. Another pharisaical accusation.

I have supported scripture which supports my position. You have provided no scripture for yours. And then you call me disobedient.

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 08:10 PM

I have provided scripture, you have twisted it to your own interpertation. Another name calling session, typical modern day christian. Full of hatred. Luckily I am used to it.

Petrel

08-03-2005, 08:11 PM

You know, reading this thread I'm picking up more anger going in the opposite direction.

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 08:19 PM

I'm not angry just disappointed in how little people know.

yeshua4me2

08-03-2005, 08:22 PM

again not one historical record for the frist 1000 years of church history, says that christians kept the jewish sabbath. there are plenty that say they (christians) met on the first day of the week.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in eating, or in drinking, or with respect to a feast day or a new moon or Shabbat,

exempts us christians from the Jewish sabbath law.

again the sabbath is for jews

Mal 4:4 "Remember the Torah of Moshe my servant, which I commanded to him in Chorev for all Yisra'el, even statutes and ordinances.

for all Yisra'el not for all nations

Why would put the new wine of Christianity into the old wineskin of Judaism?

Jews should be Jews, Gentiles should be gentiles.
both can be christian.

TorahKeeper

08-03-2005, 08:29 PM

All those who are redeemed are Abraham's seed so if you are saved the you are a descendant of Abraham, which includes Issac, and Jacob. So all of the promises and requirements for them and their descendants are for you as well. God warned what would happen if you disobey. Please be obedient, its for your own good.

yeshua4me2

08-03-2005, 09:18 PM

judaizers always skip col 2:16

yeshua4me2

08-03-2005, 11:14 PM

and to be a desendant of abraham you have to have jewish dna, are you saying that (by your, torahkeeper, definition) when a person gets saved they become desendants of Abraham? if so there sould be genetic evidence, as God cannot be a liar.

again i have listed 85 questions (as a whole) that disprove jewish lawkeeping for christians.

thankyou and God Bless

torahkeeper do you keep the torah? if so when was the last time you stoned a person for breaking hte sabbath? i suspect you never have, and therefore DO NOT keep the Torah, as the commandments are the same as commandments of the "never ending 10".

again sabbath is for Jews not for Gentiles

if it were Paul or Peter or any other Epistle writer would have said so.

heb 4 is not an endorsment of sabatarianism, but rahter an explinatin of why the Jews had a sabbath, and because we are humans we need to rest too. (clearly i am skipping the future rest implied).

as malachi says the sabbath (weekly jewish sabbath) is for Isreal, not for all nations

exodus also says that it is for all "your" (Isreal) generations, not for all nations generations.

thankyou and God Bless

Johnv

08-03-2005, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
I have provided scripture, you have twisted it to your own interpertation.You have shown me no scripture whatsoever that refutes my example of how I choose to keep the Sabbath. None. Zip. Nada. YOu say over and over that you've provided scripture, but none of your posts contain scripture that supports your position.
Another name calling session, typical modern day christian. Full of hatred. Luckily I am used to it. That's very amusing, considering that is it you who freely wielded the "lawbreaker" labelling gun on anyone who disagrees with your position.

DHK

08-04-2005, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by DHK:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
[qb] I am a Bond Servant of the Messiah Yeshua. I have forsaken the un-godly church system you are in. Since you do not know what kind of church I am in I will assume that you have rejected all churches, completely. For the church that I am in is very Godly, composed completely of baptized born-again believers.

Consider for a moment that every book past the Book of Acts (which tells the history of local churches) was either written to a local church or a pastor of a local church, except the Book of Revelation, which has 7 letters to 7 individual churches. God's ordained institution that he is blessing in this day and age is the local church. That same institution which you have labeled ungodly. So what kind of system do you belong to if it is not the "ungodly" institution that God Himself has ordained?
DHK

TorahKeeper

08-04-2005, 08:32 AM

In case you didnt read the post or did not understand, we are not ging to communicate anymore. You cannot handle the intensity of the debate so we will not communicate anymore.

In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, [and that] ye shall not prolong [your] days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it. I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, [and] that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he [is] thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. Deut 30

But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. Jer 7:23

Which I commanded your fathers in the day [that] I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God: Jer 11:4

Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave [their] heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but [that] thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Act 21:23-24

If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, [from] doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking [thine own] words:
Is 58:13..

Is that enough??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phillip

08-04-2005, 10:31 AM

The Scripture is certainly good. I always like scripture.

Torahkeeper, I take it that your whole point is to obey all of the laws of the OT or loose your salvation (if you ever had any), am I wrong?

I am simply trying to define your true beliefs--please, bear with me.

TorahKeeper

08-04-2005, 10:37 AM

I am not advocating that. Salvation is produced by faith in the sacrifice of the Messiah. Blessings are produced by obedience to God's Commandments.

Johnv

08-04-2005, 10:42 AM

Phillip, I don't think that's what Torahkeepeer is saying at all. Hes simply saying that we're required to keep all of God's laws, and if we don't we're being disobedient. Disobedience and unsaved are two separate issues.

Where I disagree with Torahkeeper is on the necessity of keeping certain laws. There are three different kinds of laws in the OT: Civil laws, moral laws, and priestly (rabbinnic) laws. The moral laws are still in full force today, and we're required to keep them. The civil laws were for the Israelites alone for their own governance, and we've never been obligated to keep them. Rabbinnic laws were given to set the Jews apart from others. Rabbinnic laws were mandatory for Jews only, and became nonmandatory after Jesus was on the earth. Most Jews still keep some of them as a matter of faith application, but many of the rabbinnic laws are no longer observed by practicing Jews.

TorahKeeper

08-04-2005, 10:53 AM

Rabbinnic Laws are creations of man, not God. God gave the Law forever, forever is a simple word to understand. No laws have been abolished.

Johnv

08-04-2005, 01:09 PM

That's an absolute lie. You need to study scripture a bit more. The rabbinnic laws were given directly from God to the Jews. They're listed in scripture in black and white. Unless you don't think that Leviticus is one of the books of the Bible.

DHK

08-04-2005, 01:24 PM

So, TorahKeeper,
I gather from your previous answer to me (rather rude) that you do not believe that the New Testamnet should be followed today, and that you do not go to a local church? Am I correct?
DHK

TorahKeeper

08-04-2005, 01:37 PM

DHK, I have already requested that you and I not communicate further, please respect my request. I ask again that you not comminucate with or reply to my posts.

Johnv, now it sounds like you are saying law is not abolished? Whats it going to be, are you going to obey God's commandments or you own reasoning?

Johnv

08-04-2005, 01:43 PM

TorahKeeper

08-04-2005, 01:45 PM

So God changed?

DHK

08-04-2005, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
DHK, I have already requested that you and I not communicate further, please respect my request. I ask again that you not comminucate with or reply to my posts.

Johnv, now it sounds like you are saying law is not abolished? Whats it going to be, are you going to obey God's commandments or you own reasoning? TorahKeeper:
1. You may have noticed that I am the moderator of this forum. It is not your place to say who can participate in discussions and who cannnot. Any registered member may participate freely in this discussion as long as he abides by the rules. If my memory serves me correctly you have been given three warnings already for makeing false allegations, and using abusive hate-filled language. It is not I, nor Johnv, not any other poster that is showing hatred. The culprit is you, that refuses to answer the questions directed to you.

2. If you fail to abide by the rules of BB, there are other boards where you will feel more comfortable at, and you are more than welcome to move on, and leave.

3. I suggest you reread the rules that you promised to agree to when you pushed that button that said "I agree." Do you remember them? Or do you revel in breaking the very promises that you are advocating others ought to keep (the law)? Jesus said the keeping all the all meant all the law you agreed to keep. That would include our laws as well.
DHK

Johnv

08-04-2005, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
So God changed? No, God fulfilled the need for the law.

TorahKeeper

08-04-2005, 01:51 PM

So fulfilled means to set aside?

Johnv

08-04-2005, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
So fulfilled means to set aside? No, fulfillment means to complete. Jesus aid he came to fulfill the law.

But that is not the point here. I've said very plainly that I think the Sabbath is still a requirement for Christians. You then go on to be a hypocrite and tell me that you don't care how I observe the sabbath, and then tell me how I observe the sabbath is disobedience.

God commands his people to rest one day in seven. I rest two days in seven. That apparantly isn't good enough for you.

TorahKeeper

08-04-2005, 02:05 PM

You dont have the right to deiced how r when to observe the sabbath. But if you choose to tell God how He will be worshipped then that is your choice.

By the way, I love the name calling, that baptist love is overwhelming

DHK

08-04-2005, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
You dont have the right to deiced how r when to observe the sabbath. But if you choose to tell God how He will be worshipped then that is your choice.
And who gave you the right to over-ride God's Word?

Romans 14:4-5 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

In God's sight every day is alike, including the Sabbath. God does not honor the Sabbath day any more than he honors Friday, the day that the Muslim's worship. All days are holy to the Lord.
DHK

TorahKeeper

08-04-2005, 02:17 PM

I have asked you two times to not communicate with me, why do you continue? You are unable to handle the intensity of the discussion without threatening me. Please do NOT respond or reply to me or any other posts I post, remove yourself from this conversation.

I will make this last response on your latest post.

I am not over-riding anything, I am saying we are to be obedient to Him and His commandments.

Once again, please do NOT respond, I do not care to hear from you any more.

DHK

08-04-2005, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
I have asked you two times to not communicate with me, why do you continue? You are unable to handle the intensity of the discussion without threatening me. Please do NOT respond or reply to me or any other posts I post, remove yourself from this conversation.

I will make this last response on your latest post.

I am not over-riding anything, I am saying we are to be obedient to Him and His commandments.

Once again, please do NOT respond, I do not care to hear from you any more. Did you fail to read my previous post. You are not the moderator here. I happen to have that duty. You do not have the right to tell who can post and who cannot. If you can't take the heat then get out of the fire.

One of the commands of Christ is written in the Book of Romans, for all the commands of Christ are in the New Testament; it is His Book. And it clearly says not to judge your brother in respect of holy days--those days on which he chooses to worship. Let every man be full persuaded in his own mind. One day is just as holy as another. You conveniently ignore New Testament instruction over Old Testament instruction. Why?
DHK

TorahKeeper

08-04-2005, 02:27 PM

I do not care to communicate with someone who uses their authority to bully me. I have asked you to not communicate with me, several times. You continue to do so however, you are coming dangerously close to harrassment. I have asked you to stop. I am asking again, do not communicate with me anymore.

BobRyan

08-04-2005, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Johnv:

Where I disagree with Torahkeeper is on the necessity of keeping certain laws. T
here are three different kinds of laws in the OT: Civil laws, moral laws, and priestly (rabbinnic) laws.
I would argue that there are "Ceremonial Laws" IN the Bible specific to the Annual sacrifices that comprised the feast days.

I would also argue that the Rabbinic "traditions" invented over time were never in the OT.

The moral laws are still in full force today, and we're required to keep them.
True. And that is the same position that D.L. Moody takes with the Ten Commandments.

The civil laws were for the Israelites alone for their own governance, and we've never been obligated to keep them.
True.

A theocracy would be needed to apply those civil laws.

Rabbinnic laws were given to set the Jews apart from others. Rabbinnic laws were mandatory for Jews only, and became nonmandatory after Jesus was on the earth.
Are you talking about laws that did not exist before Sinai?

Are you talking about laws that were added outside of the OT?

Are you including the "Sacrifices" in with this? (Because some of them existed before Sinai).

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

08-04-2005, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
I do not care to communicate with someone who uses their authority to bully me. I have asked you to not communicate with me, several times. You continue to do so however, you are coming dangerously close to harrassment. I have asked you to stop. I am asking again, do not communicate with me anymore. TK - you should be aware that posters can be removed from the board and have been in the past for doing less than what you are doing here.

The "purpose" of the board is open discussion. There are no "private threads" outside of the PM process.

In Christ,

Bob

Johnv

08-04-2005, 02:33 PM

By rabinnic laws, I'm talking about the priestly laws given in scripture only: refraining from pork and shellfish, wearing distinctive clothing, not sitting in a chair that a menstruating woman has sat in, etc.

Extrascriptural rabbinnic laws that were added by man (most often as a way to apply the rabbinnic code in every day life) are a nonissue, since they were not prescribed in scripture. If someone wants to observe them, great. If someone doesn't, that's fine too.

TorahKeeper

08-04-2005, 02:34 PM

BobRyan - DHK has bullied and threatened me. I do not care to have an open discussion with someone who weilds their authority like a club. I love to have these discussions without threats. DHK should be ashamed of him/herself.

BobRyan

08-04-2005, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:
Johnv, now it sounds like you are saying law is not abolished? Whats it going to be, are you going to obey God's commandments or you own reasoning? Originally posted by Johnv:

I've never said that, or even implied that. Scripture is clear on the topic. The Rabbinic laws, which were given to Jews alone, and not to Gentiles, are no longer mandatory. Circumcision is a prime example. Scripture no longer requires it, as per the NT. That particular requirement was never made of non-Jews. In Acts 16 we see Paul CONTINUES that practice when it came to the Jew - Timothy but NOT with the gentile Titus since that was never a requirement for Gentiles EVEN in the OT.

It is still practiced by Jews today - so your argument that they stopped this 2000 years ago would not apply to that particular practice.

Since you say that "Rabbinic practices for Jews alone" are no longer mandatory - what practices would a Jew not practice today because it is changed??

In Christ,

Bob

DHK

08-04-2005, 02:36 PM

Is it because you cannot answer the questions posed to you Torah?
I see that you have failed to answer many of Johnv's questions. You have also failed to answer many of Yeshua's question's. When you are unable to answer our questions you hurl derogatory remarks against us. You accuse us, and particularly me, of hate filled posts. Your "hatred" has come out of your frustration in your inability to answer the questions posed to you, hasn't it?

There is freedom in America, freedom of speech. We give that freedom to you. We also have the authority to take it away. But you do not. It is a privilege to post on BB. Do not abuse your privilege. I advilse you again: if you can't take the heat get out of the fire.

Reread the rules that you agreed to you. Everyone that is registered here may post here. If you continue to flaunt the rules you will be first suspended and then banned from posting here. Take heed to what you post and in the manner that you post it.
DHK

BobRyan

08-04-2005, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Johnv:
By rabinnic laws, I'm talking about the priestly laws given in scripture only: refraining from pork and shellfish, wearing distinctive clothing, not sitting in a chair that a menstruating woman has sat in, etc.
It is your argument that the clean/unclean animal distinction did not exist before the flood? OR if it DID exist before the flood it was just a way to distinguish Jews?

Are you saying that Orthodox Jews today eat pork, rats, cats and shellfish?

In Christ,

Bob

Johnv

08-04-2005, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
It is your argument that the clean/unclean animal distinction did not exist before the flood?I didn't mention the flood or its relevance at all.
It is still practiced by Jews today - so your argument that they stopped this 2000 years ago would not apply to that particular practice.
I didn't say that it stopped. Only that it is no longer necessary. I'm aware that Jews still practice the custom today. Practicing the rabbinnic laws is not forbidden.
Since you say that "Rabbinic practices for Jews alone" are no longer mandatory - what practices would a Jew not practice today because it is changed??
Jews who are Christians are not required to adhere to rabbinnic law. Most do out of tradition, which is perfectly acceptible scripturally. However, they are not scripturally required to. I've known Reformed Jews will on occaision eat a cheeseburger or bacon. Reformed Jews don't isolate furniture for mentruating women. As for Orthodox Jews, they are more strict that Reformed Jews.

BobRyan

08-04-2005, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:

Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave [their] heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but [that] thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Act 21:23-24
...
Is that enough??
Actually - that point from Acts 21 was pretty powerful.

Paul is going BEYOND the point of just "Keeping the Commandments" of God as D.L.Moody might argue.

He is also going BEYOND the point of just agreeing that the 10 commandment UNIT still exists (as He does in Eph 6:1-3).

He is participating in a ceremonial vow - shaving the head and making an offering in the temple to non-Christian Jewish priests/church/leaders.

Something NOBODY does today - so it is extreme by every measure.

And what is the "Stated" explicit POINT/objective? To create a public statement saying that when it comes to Paul and "Rabbinic practices" thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law

So that is pretty powerful.

But also in the same text it shows a "distinction" that had always been there (in the OT) for Gentiles and one that is "affirmed" again in Acts 15 for Gentiles.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

08-04-2005, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
It is your argument that the clean/unclean animal distinction did not exist before the flood? Originally posted by Johnv:

I didn't mention the flood or its relevance at all.
You gave this as a Rabbinic practice that you said is there to distinguish or separate Jews from Gentiles.

I am pointing out that pre-sinai and pre-flood disctinction could not have as it's only purpose "to identify Jews" or to "isolate Jews".

It is still practiced by Jews today - so your argument that they stopped this 2000 years ago would not apply to that particular practice. Originally posted by Johnv:
I didn't say that it stopped. Only that it is no longer necessary. I'm aware that Jews still practice the custom today. Practicing the rabbinnic laws is not forbidden.So as in the case of Acts 16 where Paul has Timothy circumcised - your argument is that he did not really need to do that.

But as TK points out in Acts 21 - Paul makes a public statement that as a Jew He is following the Law of God and points to something that is OUTSIDE of God's Ten Commandments as his proof.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

08-04-2005, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Johnv:
I think it's clear that observance of the Sabbath was not abolished with Jesus' coming. The 10 COmmandments are still in force today.

However, HOW the Sabbath is observed is up to each person, without being open to scrutiny of others. Paul says very clearly that no one is to judge you by how you observe the Sabbath, and to let each person be convinced in his own mind.

BTW, the main intent of the "Keep the Sabbath Holy" commandment was on a person resting from work.
That is the approach that D.L.Moody takes. (So you are certainly in good company! ;)

Lets say for the sake of illustration that one is speaking to a given congregation on the subject of God's Ten Commandments and the benefit of our keeping them. Do we use the Bible to "Define" what obedience is for that kind of message? "Sola Scriptura" or "Tradition"?

In the case of Sabbath - was it to be a day of "worship" according to scripture?

For example in Isaiah 66 it says "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all Mankind come before Me to Worship" -- was that a big surprise to OT saints that Sabbath was a day for "Holy Convocation" and Worship??

Notice that in Lev 23 BEFORE any mention is made of the annual sacrifices - the FIRST thing said is - these are days of "Holy Convocation" and the first Sabbath listed is the "weekly Sabbath".

Doesn't this show that God's "purpose" for the day was communion with God - worship - etc?

Was there any indication at all in scripture that the OT saints "picked their own day of the week as their own Sabbath"?

These are the points I would put to D.L. Moody's POV.

But to be frank - most people are not at D.L.Moody's level on this subject. In fact they would argue that he is in doctrinal error on his view that Christ the Creator's Holy Day is to be honored by His people.

In Christ,

Bob

TorahKeeper

08-04-2005, 04:34 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DHK:
[QB] Is it because you cannot answer the questions posed to you Torah?
I see that you have failed to answer many of Johnv's questions. You have also failed to answer many of Yeshua's question's. When you are unable to answer our questions you hurl derogatory remarks against us. You accuse us, and particularly me, of hate filled posts. Your "hatred" has come out of your frustration in your inability to answer the questions posed to you, hasn't it?

There is freedom in America, freedom of speech. We give that freedom to you. We also have the authority to take it away. But you do not. It is a privilege to post on BB. Do not abuse your privilege. I advilse you again: if you can't take the heat get out of the fire.

Reread the rules that you agreed to you. Everyone that is registered here may post here. If you continue to flaunt the rules you will be first suspended and then banned from posting here. Take heed to what you post and in the manner that you post it.
DHK

I have answered the questions posed to me, you have failed to read them. Johnv and I passionatley disagree with each other but he has not threatened me. I do not care to continue a conversation with a person who uses their authority to bully people. I have asked you that you stop harrassing me. Yet you continue to threaten me. I will debate with anyone who does not threaten me. I wonder if there is anything in the rules about harrassing people, I bet there is. I am asking again that you , DHK, stop communicating to me. Dont respond to my posts. You cannot handle the intensity of this discussion without resorting to threats so please do not communicate with me anymore.

Johnv

08-04-2005, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
That is the approach that D.L.Moody takes. (So you are certainly in good company! ;)
What is it they say about a broken clock? It's going to be right once or twice every day?
Do we use the Bible to "Define" what obedience is for that kind of message? "Sola Scriptura" or "Tradition"?
Well, tradition is often beneficial, but never doctrinal. As for scripture, where scripture speaks, we should speak; where it is silent, we should be silent. Scripture tells us to rest one day in seven, so we should. Scripture does not give doctrinal instuctions as to how we should impliment that day of rest. That is up to us (even Paul says not to judge a person's view of the Sabbath, and allow each person to be convinced in his own mind). What matters is that we truly refrain from work one day in seven. I dunno about you, but that sounds like I'll be more than happy to impliment.
In the case of Sabbath - was it to be a day of "worship" according to scripture?
Is 66 tells inscructs people to come to the Lord and worship "from sabbath to sabbath". Traditionally, the Jews worshipped on their day of rest. However, in the NT, we're called to worship Him continually, not just occaisionally, making the worship aspect of the OT sabbath moot. HOwever, as you can see in Is 66, it was not a calling to worship just on the sabbath, but rather "from sabbath to sabbath".
Doesn't this show that God's "purpose" for the day was communion with God - worship - etc?
Prior to the NT, I'd say it has merit. But, from the NT on, we're to worship continually, not just on the Sabbath.
Was there any indication at all in scripture that the OT saints "picked their own day of the week as their own Sabbath"?[/QB]
Christ said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. That's pretty self-explanatory. Additionally, while God instituted the 7th day rest rule, God did not tell his people what day is the first day and what day is the 7th day. Especially on today's calendar, we men have which day of the week is Sunday, Monday, etc. Westerners traditionally view SUnday as the first day of the week, but I have business calendars which clearly show Monday as the first day of the week. Also, when considereing that scripture is now worldwide, when it is Saturday here, it is not somewhere else, making the whole idea of the days of the week somewhat fluid.
[b]These are the points I would put to D.L. Moody's POV. But to be frank - most people are not at D.L.Moody's level on this subject. In fact they would argue that he is in doctrinal error on his view that Christ the Creator's Holy Day is to be honored by His people.
I happen to agree there.

Johnv

08-04-2005, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
You gave this as a Rabbinic practice that you said is there to distinguish or separate Jews from Gentiles. I am pointing out that pre-sinai and pre-flood disctinction could not have as it's only purpose "to identify Jews" or to "isolate Jews".
Perhaps that was not its only purpose. But by the time the Jews are living with the Caananites, it's clear the the Rabbinic codes are seen as blessing by the Jews, who are, via the codes, keeping their distinctiveness in a peaceful manner, while living with others in the same land.
your argument is that he did not really need to [circumcise].
Taking scripture as a whole, it's evident that scripture no longer required circumcision. However, it was not forbidden. Here is a case where someone wanted to be circumcized, so it is allowed.
But as TK points out in Acts 21 - Paul makes a public statement that as a Jew He is following the Law of God and points to something that is OUTSIDE of God's Ten Commandments as his proof.Same arguement. While no longer mandatory, it is still allowed to be practiced. I certainly do not frown on anyone who practices it as a matter of religious faith. Personally, I find the practice barbaric as we practice secularly practice it (hey, the least we could do is anesthetize the poor dudes). But I am scripturally forbidden from disallowing a person to practice it out of religious observance.

But, to the point, either scripture no longer requires it in the NT (which would be consistent with a whole reading of the NT), or scripture requires it one moment and not the next (which is inconsistent with a whole reading of the NT).

Johnv

08-04-2005, 05:09 PM

Anyhoo, at this point, there really isn't anything more to say on the topic. I invite anyone else to red the thread as a whole and decide for themselves. I'm kindly excusing myself from the topic from hereon out. I invite a moderator to close the thread if it is deemed appropriate to do so.

DHK

08-04-2005, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by TorahKeeper:

I have answered the questions posed to me, you have failed to read them. Johnv and I passionatley disagree with each other but he has not threatened me. I do not care to continue a conversation with a person who uses their authority to bully people. I have asked you that you stop harrassing me. Yet you continue to threaten me. I will debate with anyone who does not threaten me. I wonder if there is anything in the rules about harrassing people, I bet there is. I am asking again that you , DHK, stop communicating to me. Dont respond to my posts. You cannot handle the intensity of this discussion without resorting to threats so please do not communicate with me anymore. Is this an example of what you call bullying:

I pointed out to you that you cannot be an Israelite and a Christian at the same time, just as a Muslim cannot be part of Islam and Christianity at the same time. Both Judaism and Islam are false religions. That is what I said. Here is your reply.

I am a Bond Servant of the Messiah Yeshua. I have forsaken the un-godly church system you are in. I worship the true creator while you bow atthe feet of paganism. My family lineage is from Levi. I have chosen the Messiah, you should do that as well. You can dismiss the very words of God Himself, but you will stand before Him and answer for it, not I.Who is bullying who? Look at the false allegations here. Look at the accusations "bowing at the feet of paganism." What gives you the right to say such things? Who is being the bully here? Don't you think you should take your own advice.
DHK

Bro Tony

08-04-2005, 06:32 PM

I pointed out to you that you cannot be an Israelite and a Christian at the same time, As a point of clarification DHK, do you mean you cannot be a practitioner of the Jewish faith and Christian faith at the same time. An Israelite is a citizen of Israel who is a descendant of the physical line of Jacob---there are many of them who are Christian. You can be an Israelite and a Christian---Like you can be an American and a Christian.

Bro Tony

DHK

08-04-2005, 06:45 PM

Your right Tony.
I was just going by memory. Part of the exact quote that I had originally made was:
you must choose between Judaism and Christianity. You can't have both. When a Muslim converts to Christianity he doesn't remain a Muslim. He forsakes Islam and becomes a Christian. Friday no longer remains his holy day. Allah no longer remains his God and Mohammed is a wicked man. Judaism is a false religion that leads people away from God. The truth is found in Jesus Christ alone. He was the fulfillment of the law.

Bro Tony

08-04-2005, 08:41 PM

Thanks for the clarification brother.

Bro Tony

yeshua4me2

08-04-2005, 10:05 PM

COL 2:16

Bro Tony

08-05-2005, 01:02 PM

COL 2:16 Great verse, be sure to read all the text to keep it in context especially vs 17, which tells us all these things are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ.

Bro Tony

yeshua4me2

08-06-2005, 12:15 AM

here are some quotes about Early christian worship:

74 AD - The Letter of Barnabas "We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with
joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead"
(Letter of Barnabas 15:6-8).

90 AD - The Didache "But every Lord's day . . . gather yourselves
together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed
your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one
that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they
be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14).

90AD - DIDACHE: ...every Lord's day, hold your solemn assemblies, and
rejoice: for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord's day,
being the day of the resurrection... (Constitutions of the Holy
Apostles, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, pg. 449)

90AD - DIDACHE: And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the
Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the
Universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him
suffer, and raised Him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he
make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word
concerning the resurrection...? (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,
Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, pg. 423)

90AD - DIDACHE: But every Lord's day, do ye gather yourselves together,
and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your
transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is
at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be
reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that
which was spoken by the Lord... [Matt.5:23-24] (The Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles, Chap. 14:1, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, page 381)

90AD - DIDACHE: On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is,
the Lord's day, assemble yourselves together, without fail, giving
thanks to God, and praising Him for those mercies God has bestowed upon
you through Christ, and has delivered you from ignorance, error, and
bondage, that your sacrifice may be unspotted, and acceptable to God,
who has said concerning His universal Church: "In every place shall
incense and a pure sacrifice be offered unto me; for I am a great King,
saith the Lord Almighty, and my name is wonderful among the heathen,
[Malachi 1:11, 14] (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Ante-Nicene
Fathers Vol. 7, pg. 471)

107AD - IGNATIUS: Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old
fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the
Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace... If,
therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things
have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the
Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also
our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death which some deny),
through which mystery we received faith, and on account of which we
suffer in order that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only
teacher, how shall we be able to live apart from him for whom even the
prophets were looking as their teacher since they were his disciples in
the spirit?... let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a
festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days of
the week. It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to
cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. for where
there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism.... These things I
address to you, my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a
state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand,
that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may
rather attain to a full assurance in Christ... (Ignatius, Epistle to
the Magnesians, chp 9. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 62-63.)

130AD - BARNABAS: Moreover God says to the Jews, 'Your new moons and
Sabbaths 1 cannot endure.' You see how he says, 'The present Sabbaths
are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which,
when I have rested from all things, I will make the beginning of the
eighth day which is the beginning of another world.' Wherefore we
Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from
the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven. (15:8f, The Epistle
of Barnabas, 100 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers,vol. 1, pg. 147)

150AD - EPISTLE OF THE APOSTLES.- I [Christ] have come into being on
the eighth day which is the day of the Lord. (18)1150AD JUSTIN: those
who have persecuted and do persecute Christ, if they do not repent,
shall not inherit anything on the holy mountain. But the Gentiles, who
have believed on Him, and have repented of the sins which They have
committed, they shall receive the inheritance along with the patriarchs
and the prophets, and the just men who are descended from Jacob, even
although they neither keep the Sabbath, nor are circumcised, nor
observe the feasts. Assuredly they shall receive the holy inheritance
of God. (Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, 150-165 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers
, vol. 1, page 207)

150AD - JUSTIN: But if we do not admit this, we shall be liable to fall
into foolish opinion, as if it were not the same God who existed in the
times of Enoch and all the rest, who neither were circumcised after the
flesh, nor observed Sabbaths, nor any other rites, seeing that Moses
enjoined such observances... For if there was no need of circumcision
before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and
sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now, after
that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God has
been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham.
(Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, 150-165 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1,
page 206)

150AD - JUSTIN: But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common
assembly, because it is the first day of the week and Jesus our saviour
on the same day rose from the dead. (First apology of Justin, Ch 68)

150AD - JUSTIN: Moreover, all those righteous men already mentioned
[after mentioning Adam. Abel, Enoch, Lot, Noah, Melchizedek, and
Abraham], though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after
them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses... And you were
commanded to keep Sabbaths, that you might retain the memorial of God.
For His word makes this announcement, saying, "That you may know that
I am God who redeemed you." (Dialogue With Trypho the Jew, 150-165 AD,
Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, page 204)

150AD - JUSTIN: The commandment of circumcision, requiring them always
to circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true
circumcision by which we are circumcised from error and evil through
the resurrection from the dead on the first day of the week of Jesus
Christ our Lord. For the first day of the week, although it is the
first of all days, yet according to the number of the days in a cycle
is called the eighth (while still remaining the first). (Dialogue 41:4)

150AD - JUSTIN: There is no other thing for which you blame us, my
friends, is there than this? That we do not live according to the Law,
nor, are we circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers, nor do we
observe the Sabbath as you do. (Dialogue with Trypho 10:1. In verse 3
the Jew Trypho acknowledges that Christians 'do not keep the Sabbath.')

150AD - JUSTIN: We are always together with one another. And for all
the things with which we are supplied we bless the Maker of all through
his Son Jesus Christ and through his Holy Spirit. And on the day called
Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live
in a city or a rural district. (There follows an account of a Christian
worship service, which is quoted in VII.2.) We all make our assembly in
common on the day of the Sun, since it is the first day, on which God
changed the darkness and matter and made the world, and Jesus Christ
our Savior arose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified him
on the day before Saturn's day, and on the day after (which is the day
of the Sun the appeared to his apostles and taught his disciples these
things. (Apology, 1, 67:1-3, 7; First Apology, 145 AD, Ante-Nicene
Fathers , Vol. 1, pg. 186)

155 AD - Justin Martyr "[W]e too would observe the fleshly
circumcision, and the sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did
not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you--namely, on
account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . .
[H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not
harm us--I speak of fleshly circumcision and sabbaths and feasts? . . .
God enjoined you to keep the sabbath, and impose on you other precepts
for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness
and that of your fathers" (Dialogue wit Trypho the Jew 18, 21).

you would think they would have mentioned the sabbath.

more quotes about the sabath:

John Calvin on the Early Church Fathers on the Sabbath/Lord’s Day Issue

However, the ancients did not substitute the Lord’s Day (as we call it) for the Sabbath without careful discrimination. The purpose and fulfillment of that true rest, represented by the ancient Sabbath, lies in the Lord’s resurrection. Hence, by the very day that brought the shadows to an end, Christians are warned not to cling to the shadow rite."

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1:399-400.

5th Century

St. Augustine:

"The day now known as the Lord's Day, the eighth, namely, which is also the first day of the week." St. Augustine, Letters of St. Augustine, 55, Chapter XIII.

4th Century A.D. 306

Peter, Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt:

"But the Lord's Day we celebrate as a day of joy, because on it, he rose again." Canon 15.

3rd Century A.D. 270

Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicea, in Asia Minor:

"Our regard for the Lord's resurrection which took place on the Lord's Day will lead us to celebrate it." Chapter X.

3rd Century About A.D. 250

The Apostolic Constitution:

"On the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's Day, meet more diligently."

Book 2, sec. 7.

3rd Century A.D. 250

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in Africa:

"The eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath and the Lord's Day." Epistle 58, section 4.

2nd Century A.D. 200

Tertullian in Africa:

"We solemnize the day after Saturday in contradiction to those who call this day their Sabbath." Apology, Chapter XVI.

2nd Century A.D. 194

Clement of Alexandria, Egypt:

"He, in fulfillment of the precept, according to the gospel, keeps the Lord's Day, when he abandons an evil disposition, and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself." Book 7, Chapter XII.

2nd Century A.D. 140

Justin Martyr: "But Sunday is the day which we all hold our common assembly, because Jesus Christ, our Saviour, on the same day rose from the dead." Apology, Chapter LXVII.

2nd Century A.D. 120

Barnabas: "We keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day on which Jesus rose again from the dead." Chapter XVII.

1st Century A.D. 96

St. John on Patmos: "I was in the spirit on the Lord's Day." Rev. 1:10.

1st Century A.D. 60

Luke, Asia Minor: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them." Acts 20:7.

thankyou and God Bless

yeshua4me2

08-06-2005, 01:07 AM

and
Deuteronomy 5:15 And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and [that] the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.

this verse even states the purpose for the Sabbath

to remember God's mighty Power in their deliverence from egypt

thankyou and God bless

yeshua4me2

08-06-2005, 02:26 AM

and again scripture says that the new covenant would not be like the old covenant.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Yisra'el, and with the house of Yehudah:
Jer 31:32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD.

BobRyan

08-06-2005, 04:14 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do we use the Bible to "Define" what obedience is for that kind of message? "Sola Scriptura" or "Tradition"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JohnV
Well, tradition is often beneficial, but never doctrinal. As for scripture, where scripture speaks, we should speak; where it is silent, we should be silent.

Scripture tells us to rest one day in seven, so we should. Scripture does not give doctrinal instuctions as to how we should impliment that day of rest.
As I said - test that assumption.

#1. "Show" exegetically (from details in the text) that any text/introduction of Christ the Creator's Holy Day does not actually specify a day of the actual week.

#2. "Show" that as God reminded them of the Genesis 2 founding of this "Holy Day" there was no indication that this was to be a day of Worship. (Some exegesis in Exodus 20, Lev 23:1-4 etc would be sufficient)

#3. "Show" that the Isaiah 66 mention of "all mankind coming before God from Sabbath to Sabbath TO WORSHIP" Was considered to be "any day in seven" and yet still conforming to a "pick any day you like" idea.

I don't think that any of that can be proven "from the text of scripture.

That is up to us
Show in the text for Sabbath that God allows US to pick OUR holy day (any day out of 7) and then either use it for actual worship - or not.

What matters is that we truly refrain from work one day in seven. I dunno about you, but that sounds like I'll be more than happy to impliment.Well you are right in that there is a blessing in this Holy day of Christ the Creator that is silly to ignore. Why not benefit from one of the benefits of the gift "for mankind"?

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

08-06-2005, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by DHK:

I pointed out to you that you cannot be an Israelite and a Christian at the same time, just as a Muslim cannot be part of Islam and Christianity at the same time. Both Judaism and Islam are false religions. Stating that God started a false religion at Sinai is going to an extreme.

In Phil 3 Paul argues FOR his continued Jewish identification.

In Acts 21:21-24 -- he goes so far as to offer sacrifices to God through Jewish priests and to pay those priests a religious offering.

How do you reconcile this with your "false religion" statement?

Acts 21
21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise[b] their children nor to walk according to the customs.
22 ""What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23 ""Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four [b]men who are under a vow;
24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

..

26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.
27 When the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon seeing him in the temple, began to stir up all the crowd and laid hands on him, In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

08-06-2005, 04:27 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of Sabbath - was it to be a day of "worship" according to scripture?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is 66 tells inscructs people to come to the Lord and worship "from sabbath to sabbath". Traditionally, the Jews worshipped on their day of rest. However, in the NT, we're called to worship Him continuallyThe NT argues the case "If a man will not work - neither let him eat"

If Sabbath keeping people had "rested for 7 days" they would fall into that category.

It was not possible for Adam to enjoy the same kind of meditation and worship on a work day as on a rest day devoted to God - nor can it be done today.

In Isaiah 58 we are told by God that we have to "turn aside from doing our own pleasure or speaking our own Word on HIS Holy Day".

In Lev 23 God commands "Holy Convocation" on Christ the Creator's Holy Day.

Though there is still a lot of room for individual practice in that - it is not the same thing as saying that God has left us in the dark.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

08-06-2005, 04:35 PM

JohnV
Christ said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. That's pretty self-explanatory. Additionally, while God instituted the 7th day rest rule, God did not tell his people what day is the first day and what day is the 7th day. Especially on today's calendar,
Fortunately this one is easy.

For Adam it was easy - God takes the action of blessing the day and making it holy as the FIRST full day for Adam following his creation. Hard to imagine that this allowed for "confusion" for Adam.

In Exodus God said "Tomorrow is the Sabbath". Hard to imagine that this was "confusing" for the people of God at Sinai. (It is easy to "assume" that God is able to "remember" which day of the week HE made Holy from Genesis to Exodus 16.) And then for 40 years God kept reminding them every week - which day was Sabbath and which day was the preparation day - where twice as much had to be gathered.

Ex 16
23 then he said to them, ""This is what the LORD meant: Tomorrow is the Sabbath observance, a holy Sabbath to the LORD. Bake what you will bake and boil what you will boil, and all that is left over put aside to be kept until morning.''
24 So they put it aside until morning, as Moses had ordered, and it did not become foul nor was there any worm in it.
25 Moses said, ""Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath to the LORD; today you will not find it in the field.
26 "" Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will be none.''
27 It came about on the seventh day that some of the people went out to gather, but they found none.

28 Then the LORD said to Moses, "" How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My instructions?
29 ""See, the LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you bread for two days on the sixth day. Remain every man in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.''
30 So the people rested on the seventh day.
Pretty hard to "imagine" that this "confused them" as to what day of the week was Sabbath.

That then leaves the time of Christ -

First lets assume that Christ was God and "knew" what He was doing. Christ was a Sabbath keeper - as one who observed all the law of God - no matter what we may now think of that law after the cross. Almost everyone agrees to that.

This means that the day HE endorsed - kept - observed as Sabbath is "pretty close" to the one that WE should "think of" as the REAL holy day of Christ the creator.

All Christians AND JEWS agree on the 7 day cycle - which day is the Seventh day and which one is the first. (This is not an accident as it turns out).

There are NO reliable historic or scientific sources that will claim today that we do not know which day of the Roman calendar in 50 AD was the 7th day of the week observed by Jews.

In Christ,

Bob

Kamoroso

08-07-2005, 11:35 AM

The following material is from-

A CRITICAL HISTORY
OFTHE SABBATH AND THE SUNDAY
IN THECHRISTIAN CHURCH

(SECOND EDITION, REVISED)
BY A. H. LEWIS D. D., LL.D.,
Author of "Biblical Teachings concerning the Sabbath and the Sunday," "History of Sunday Legislation", "Paganism Surviving In Christianity," etc., etc.

CHAPTER III. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS.

MATERIAL for the history of Christianity during the century immediately succeeding the apostolic period is meager and imperfect. The earlier post-apostolic writings are fragmentary. In many instances neither the date of the treatise nor the name of the author are known. Forgeries abound. Apocryphal Gospels and Epistles meet the investigator at every step, leading the unwary and over-credulous astray. The stream of written Christian history which runs through the Gospels and the Book of Acts drops out of sight like a "lost river" for a time, and when it reappears is not a little polluted by what has been gathered in its underground wanderings. The best products of the sub-apostolic age are known as the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. A comparison of these with the New Testament shows that they fall infinitely below the apostolic standard. There is a great gulf between them. Since Sunday has no history in the New Testament, its advocates in modern times have labored strenuously to find some support for it in the earlier post-apostolic productions. We will examine these in their order, and at length, in order to correct the wrong conclusions and the perversion of facts which come from such loose writing.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT OF ROME, TO THE CORINTHIANS.

This was probably written about the year 97 A.D. A few defenders of Sunday have referred to or quoted from this Epistle, seeking inferential argument in favor of their theories. The passages are as follows:

"These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behooves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For His own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the Ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priests and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. Ye see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed. (Clement to the Corinthians, chapters 40, 41. Ante-Nicene Christian Librarv, Vol. I., pp. 35, 36. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh.)

The foregoing evidently refers to the temple worship. Certainly it contains nothing relative to any change of the Sabbath, abrogation of the Sabbath law, or introduction of Sunday. Neither is there any reference or hint relative to any such thing in any other part of the epistle. A writer who is thus particular concerning the ceremonies of an outgoing system could not fail to note so prominent a feature of the new system as Sunday-observance would have been.

HERMAS.

Next in order is a long allegory, which is attributed to the Hermas, who is mentioned in Romans 16:14. This allegory makes no allusion to the Lord's-day or to the Sunday. Its date is placed by the editors of Clark's edition of 1879, during the reign of Hadrian or Antonius Pius, i.e., between 117 and 161 A. D.

POLYCARP.

Next comes the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, which has been attributed by some to a disciple of St. John, but the best authorities give its probable date as about the middle of the second century. This is also silent concerning Sunday.

PAPIAS.

Fragments of writings attributed to Papias, who is said to have been martyred about 163 A.D. contain no reference to Sunday. Thus three out of five of these "Fathers," Clement, Hermas and Papias, are found to be wholly silent concerning the question at issue. The two remaining ones we shall find to be spurious productions which possess no value as authorities.

BARNABAS.

First of these two comes the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas. This has been attributed to the companion of St. Paul in his missionary labors, and dated as early as A.D. 71. The following from standard authorities will show that such claims are false. Neander speaks as follows:

"The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers are, alas! come down to us, for the most part, in a very uncertain condition; partly, because in early times writings were counterfeited, under the name of these venerable men of the church, in order to propagate certain opinions or principles; partly, because those writings which they had really published were adulterated, and especially so to serve a Judao-hierarchical party, which would fain crush the free evangelical spirit. We should here, in the first place, have to name Bamabas, the well known fellow traveler of St. Paul, if a letter, which was first known in the second century, in the Alexandrian church, under his name, and which bore the inscription of a Catholic epistle, was really his composition. But it is impossible that we should acknowledge this epistle to belong to that Barnabis who was worthy to be the companion of the apostolic labors of St. Paul, and had received his name from the power of his animated discourses in the churches. We find, also, nothing to induce us to believe the author of the Epistle was desirous of being considered Barnabas. But since its spirit and its mode of conception corresponded to the Alexandrian taste, it may have happened, that as the author's name was unknown, and persons were desirous of giving it authority, a report was spread abroad in Alexandria, that Barnabas was the author." (History of the Christian Church of the First Three Centuries, pp. 407, 408, Rose's Trans.)

Mosheim says:

"The Epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew, who most probably lived in this [the second] century, and whose mean abilities and superstitious attachment to Jewish fables, show, notwithstanding the uprightness of his intentions, that he must have been a very different person from the true Barnabas who was St. Paul's companion." (Church History, Vol. 1, p. 113, Maclaine's Trans.)

Also from the same author:

"For what is suggested by some of its having been written by that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul, the futility of such a notion is easily to be made apparent from the letter itself. Several of the opinions and interpretations of Scripture which it contains, having in them so little, either of truth, or dignity, or force, as to render it impossible that they ever could have proceeded from the pen of a man divinely inspired." (Historical Commentaries, Century 2, See. 53.)

Eusebius says:

"Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles." (Church History, Book III., chap. 25, Sec. 4. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I., p. 156.

Prof. Hackett says:

"The letter still extant, which was known as that of Bamabas, even in the second century, cannot be defended as genuine. (Commentary on Acts, p. 251.)

Millner says:

"Of the Apostle Barnabas, nothing is known, except what is recorded in the Acts. There we have an honorable enconium of his character, and a particular description of his joint labors with St. Paul. It is a great injury to him, to apprehend the Epistle which goes by his name to be his." (Vol. I., p. 126, Church History. Boston, 1809.)

Kitto says:

"The so-called Epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the second century." (Cyclopedia Biblical Literature, article Lord's-day.)
Sir William Domville, after an exhaustive examination of the whole question, concludes as follows:

"But the Epistle was not written by Bamabas; it is not merely "unworthy of him," it would be a disgrace to him, and, what is of much more consequence, it would be a disgrace to the Christian religion, as being the production of one of the authorized teachers of that religion in the time of the apostles, which circumstance would seriously damage the evidence of its divine origin." (An Examination of the Six Texts, p. 233.)

Prof. W.D. Killen, a prominent representative of the Presbyterian church in Ireland, bears testimony as follows:

"The tract known as the "Epistle of Barnabas" was probably composed in A.D. 135. It is the production, apparently, of a convert from Judaism, who took special pleasure in allegorical interpretation of Scripture." (History of the Ancient Church, p. 367. New York, 1859. See also The Old Catholic Church, pp. 8, 13. T. & T. Clark, 1871.)

Rev. Lyman Coleman says:

"The Epistle of Barnabas, bearing the honored name of the companion of Paul in his missionary labors, is evidently spurious. It abounds in fabulous narratives, mystic allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, and fanciful conceits; and is generally agreed by the learned to be of no authority. Neander supposes it to have originated in the Alexandrian school; but at what particular time he does not define. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified. chap. 2, sec. 2, p. 47. Philadelphia, 1852.)

Dr. Schaff rejects the theory that the Epistle is genuine, and says:

"The author was probably a converted Jew from Alexandria (perhaps by the name Barnabas, which would easily explain the confusion), to judge from his familiarity with Jewish literature, and, apparently, with Philo, and his allegorical method in handling the Old Testament. In Egypt his Epistle was first known and most esteemed, and the Sinaitic Bible which contains it was probably written in Alexandria or Caesarea in Palestine. The readers were chiefly Jewish Christians in Egypt, and the East, who overestimated the Mosaic traditions and ceremonies." (History Christian Church, Vol. II., p. 677. New York, 1883.)

The Encyclopedia of Religious knowledge (article Barnabas' Epistle), speaking of Barnabas the companion of Paul, says:

"He could not be the author of a work so full of forced allegories, extravagant and unwarrantable explications of Scripture, together with stories concerning beasts, and such like conceits, as make up the first part of this Epistle."
In the presence of the foregoing evidence, but one conclusion is possible, viz., the Epistle of Barnabas is a vague, fanciful production of some unknown author, forged at an uncertain date in the second century. The passage quoted in favor of Sunday observance reads as follows:
"Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue which [the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai, "And sanctify ye the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart." And he says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my mercy to rest upon them." The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it." Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth, saying "Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. "And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth: When His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day. Moreover, He says, "Thou shalt sanctify it with pure hands and a pure heart." If, therefore, any one can now sanctify the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things, we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly then one properly resting sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves. Further, He says to them, "Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot endure." Ye perceive how he speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens." (Epistle of Barnabas, chapter 15. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. I., pp. 127, 128.)

It is to be regretted that many writers in favor of Sunday have quoted only the last clause of the foregoing beginning with the words, "For which cause," etc. They have thus perverted the meaning and sought to make it appear that the "resurrection" was the main reason assigned for "observing the eighth day with gladness." Whereas, the fanciful notions concerning the creation and the millennium constituted the main reason for such notice of the eighth day. Hence, another conclusion must be added, viz.: If any persons joined with the forger of this Epistle in observing the eighth day, their action was predicated on grounds very far removed from common sense, and from the Word of God.

Continued in next post

Kamoroso

08-07-2005, 11:41 AM

IGNATIUS.

One production which is classed with the "Apostolic Fathers" remains to be examined - the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians. This production, like that attributed to Barnabas, is a forgery, and the passage adduced in favor of Sunday is caricatured into a seeming reference only by interpolating the word day. In support of these statements, we offer the following testimony. First, the passage in full, with its contexts. This Epistle exists in two forms, a longer and a shorter; both are given here:

LONGER FORM.

"If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us when He says, "If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me;" and again, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad; for before Abraham was, I am;" how shall we be able to live without Him? The prophets were His servants, and foresaw Him by the Spirit, and waited for Him as their teacher, and expected Him as their Lord and Saviour, saying, "He will come and save us." Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat." For say the [holy] oracles, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread." But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's-day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, "To the end, for the eighth day," on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, whom the children of perdition, the enemies of the Saviour, deny, " whose god is their belly, who mind earthly things," who are "lovers of pleasure, and not lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." These make merchandise of Christ, corrupting His word, and giving up Jesus to sale: they are corrupters of women, and covetous of other men's possessions, swallowing up wealth insatiably; from whom may ye be delivered by the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ!"

SHORTER FORM.

"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's-day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death - whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master - how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead." (Ignatius to the Magnesians, chapter 9. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 1., pp. 180-182.)

Without noting the grammatical construction of the sentence, the reader will see that the passage as it reads is untruthful, since it asserts that the "most holy prophets" ceased to keep Sabbaths, and kept the Lord's-day. The discussion concerning this passage in Kitto's Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature (article Lord's-day) is so full that it is here quoted somewhat at length as follows:

"But we must here notice one other passage of earlier date than any of these, which has often been referred to as bearing on the subject of the Lord's-day, though it certainly contains no mention of it. It occurs in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (about A.D. 100). The whole passage is confessedly obscure, and the text may be corrupt. It has, however, been understood in a totally different sense, and as referring to a distinct subject; and such we confess appears to us to be the most obvious and natural construction of it.

Then follows an analysis of the Greek text, showing that interpolating the word "day" does violence to the Grammatical construction, and to the obvious meaning of the passage. After such an analysis the Encyclopedia adds the following translation of the passage:

"If those who lived under the old dispensation have come to the newness of hope, no longer keeping Sabbaths, but living according to our Lord's life, (in which, as it were, our life has risen again, through him, and his death, [which some deny], through whom we have received the mystery, etc., . . . ) how shall we be able to live without him?" etc.

In this way (allowing for the involved style of the whole) the meaning seems to us simple, consistent, and grammatical, without any gratuitous introduction of words understood; and this view has been followed by many, though it is a subject on which considerable controversy has existed. On this view, the passage does not refer at all to the Lord's-day; but even on the opposite supposition, it cannot be regarded as affording any positive evidence to the early use of the term "Lord’s-day" (for which it is often cited) since the material word it hemera – day - is purely conjectural. It however offers an instance of that species of contrast, which the Early Fathers were so fond of drawing between the Christian and Jewish dispensations, and between the new life of the Christian and the ceremonial spirit of the law, to which the Lord's-day (if it be imagined to be referred to) is represented as opposed."

The foregoing rendering and interpretation are fully sustained by a late writer of high authority concerning Sunday, James Augustus Hessey, D. C. L. Relative to the passage under consideration he says:

"Ignatius, the disciple of St. John, is the first writer whom I shall quote. Here is a passage from his Epistle to the Magnesians, containing, as you will observe, a contrast between Judaism and Christianity, and, as an exemplification of it, an opposition between sabbatizing and living the life of the Lord …. If they, then, who were concerned in old things, arrived at a newness of hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord's life, by which our life sprung up by him, and by his death, (whom certain persons deny,) . . . how can we live without him, whose disciples even the prophets were, and in spirit waited for Him as their teacher? Wherefore, He whom they justly waited for, when He came, raised them up from the dead. . . . We have been made His disciples, let us live according to Christianity. (Bampton Lectures, preached before the University of Oxford, in the year 1860, p. 41.)

Sir William Domville makes the following just criticism:

"It seems not a little strange that the Archbishop should so widely depart from the literal translation, which is this: "No longer observing Sabbaths, but living according to the Lord's life, in which also our life is sprung up." For there is no phrase or word in the original which corresponds to the phrase, "the Lord's-day," or to the word "keeping." In a note referring to this word, the Archbishop says: "Or living according to;" so that he acknowledges this translation would be correct, but the consequence of his throwing it into a note is to lead the reader to suppose that, though the original may be so translated, the preferable translation is that which is given in the text, when in truth, so far from being a preferable translation it is no translation at all. (Sabbath, etc., p. 242.)

This examination of the passage has been made thus full in order to show that there is no reference to Sunday-keeping except by a fraudulent and unscholarly translation, and by interpolation. The examination has also proceeded upon the supposition that the Epistle is genuine. That it is not genuine will fully appear from the following testimony:

Dr. Killen gives the following history of the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius:

"In the sixteenth century, fifteen letters were brought out from beneath the hoary mantle of antiquity, and offered to the world as the productions of the pastor of Antioch. Scholars refused to receive them on the terms required, and forthwith eight of them were admitted to be forgeries. In the seventeenth century, the seven remaining letters, in a somewhat altered form, again came forth from obscurity, and claimed to be the works of Ignatius. Again discerning critics refused to acknowledge their pretensions; but curiosity was aroused by this second apparition, and many expressed an earnest desire to obtain a sight of the real Epistles. Greece, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt were ransacked in search of them, and at length three letters are found. The discovery creates general gratulation; it is confessed that four of the Epistles, so lately asserted to be genuine, are apocryphal, and it is boldly said that the three now forthcoming are above challenge. But truth still refuses to be compromised, and sternly disowns these claimants for her approbation. The internal evidence of these three Epistles abundantly attests that, like the last three books of the Sibyl, they are only the last shifts of a grave imposture. (Ancient Church, sec. 2, chap. 3.)

In a note, Doctor Killen adds that "Bunsen rather reluctantly admits that the highest literary authority of the last century, the late Dr. Neander, declined to recognize even the Syriac version of the Ignatian Epistles."

Rev. Lyman Coleman testifies in the following words:

"Certain it is that these Epistles, if not an entire forgery, are so filled with interpolations and forgeries as to be of no historical value with reference to the primitive Christians and the apostolic churches. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. 1, see. 2, p. 48.)

John Calvin says:

"Nothing can be more absurd than the impertinences which have been published under the name of Ignatius. (Institutes, Book 1, chap. 13.)

Rev. Roswell D. Hitchcock, D. D., late Professor of Church History in Union Theological Seminary, in an article on the "Origin and Growth of Episcopacy," sums up the case as follows:

"1. Killen, the Irish Presbyterian, thinks these Ignatian Epistles all spurious, but is of the opinion that the Syriac three were the first to be forged in the time of Origen [185 - 254 A. D.], soon after which they were translated into Greek, and others were added before the time of Eusebius, who is admitted to have had the seven.

2. Baur and Hilgenfeld think them all spurious, but are of the opinion that the seven of the shorter Greek recensions were the first to be forged after 150 A.D., and that the Syriac three are simply fragmentary translations from the Greek.

3. Cureton, Bunsen, Ritschel, and Lipsius contend for the Genuineness of the Syriac three. This as the matter now stands, appears to be the weakest position of all.

4. A strong array of the ablest and soundest critics, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, such is Moehler and Gieseler, Hefele and Uhlhorn, may still be found on the side of the shorter Greek recension." (American Presbyterian and Theological Review, January, 1867.)
The following conclusions seem to be just and imperative:

1. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians is a forgery, made long after the death of Ignatius.

2. It makes no mention of the Sunday or Lord's-day.

3. To interpolate the word "day" in the oft quoted passage perverts the meaning, and destroys the grammatical arrangement of the sentence. Whatever opinion any one may adopt concerning the Ignatian Epistles, the fact remains that a correct rendering of the text gives no support to Sunday-observance.
Thus it appears that there is absolutely no explicit testimony in favor of Sunday, or the Lord's-day as referring to Sunday, by any of the "Apostolic Fathers".

continued in next post

Kamoroso

08-07-2005, 11:48 AM

CHAPTER V. JUSTIN MARTYR, THE F’IRST DIRECT REFERENCE TO SUNDAY, AND THE RISE OF NO-SABBATHISM.

THE middle of the second century marks the beginning of a new era in the Sabbath question. The first direct and indisputable reference to any form of Sunday-observance by Christians is made it this time, and simultaneously and by the same man the no-Sabbath theory is propounded. Up to this time, the Scriptures had held the better part of the church to the Sabbath as taught in the Decalogue. Polytheism and heathen philosophy ignored this idea, and openly proclaimed a type of no-lawism and absolute no-Sabbathism. It was a part of the fruitage which came from the corrupting of the church and the gospel by admixture with heathen fancies and speculations. Under the sway of these loose ideas, Sunday, already a festival among the heathen, found gradual welcome at the hands of the semi-Christianized leaders in the church, and final recognition by a still less Christianized form of civil government during the third and fourth centuries. Justin Martyr stands as a prominent representative of this no-Sabbathism, and also as an apologist for Christianity, who sought to soften the fury of the heathen persecutors by claiming a similarity between Christianity and heathenism. The entire passage concerning Sunday is as follows; only a part of it is usually quoted by writers who claim that Sunday is the Sabbath:

"And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgiving, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday), and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration." ( The First Apology of Justin, chapter 67. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 2, pp. 65, 66.)

The foregoing extracts will be better understood if the reader remembers that the author was a Grecian philosopher who accepted - we dare not say was converted to Christianity, after reaching the age of manhood, and who retained many of his heathen notions and sympathies through life. The days referred to, Saturn’s and the Sun’s, are designated only by their heathen names, and the reasons which are given for meeting on Sunday are at once fanciful and unscriptural. The passage shows Justin in his true place is an Apologist, who sympathized with both parties, and sought to soften the feelings of the Emperor by indicating those points in which Christianity and heathenism agreed. The following extracts from the same author show that he could not entertain any idea of the Sun’s day as being in any sense the Sabbath, or even a Sabbath. In his Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, the differences between Justin’s theories of Christianity and Judaism are strongly set forth, and the Sabbath is frequently referred to. In the 23d section of the Dialogue he says:
"You have no need of a second circumcision, though you glory greatly in the flesh. The new law requires you to keep perpetual Sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you; and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true Sabbaths of God. If any one has impure hands, let him wash and be pure." (Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 2. Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 12, p. 101.)

In another place he says:

"But if we do not admit this, we shall be liable to fall into foolish opinions, as if it were not the same God who existed in the times of Enoch and all the rest, who neither was circumcised after the flesh, nor observed Sabbaths, nor any other rites, seeing that Moses enjoined such observances; or that God has not wished each race of mankind continually to perform the same righteous actions; to admit which, seems to be ridiculous and absurd. Therefore we must confess that He who is ever the same, has commanded these and such like institutions on account of sinful men, and we must declare Him to be benevolent, fore-knowing, needing nothing, righteous and good. But if this be not so, tell me, sir, what you think of those matters which we are investigating. And when no one responded:
"Wherefore, Trypho, I will proclaim to you, and to those who wish to become proselytes, the divine message which I heard from that man. Do you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths Remain as you were born. For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts, and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now, after that, according to the will of God, Jesus Christ the Son of God has been born without sin, of a virgin sprung from the stock of Abraham." (Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 2. Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 23, pp. 115, 116.)

Be it here remembered that the Sabbath is often referred to in Justin’s Dialogue, and that in the passage just quoted he is answering a charge which Trypho brings against Christians, who, he declares, "differ in nothing from the heathen in their manner of living, because they neither observe festivals, nor Sabbaths, nor the rite of circumcision. (Dialogue, chap. 10.)

Justin’s reply seeks to defend himself against the charge by showing that such things were not required of men under the gospel. In this way, Justin shows that he did not predicate any observance of Sunday upon the Fourth Commandment, or upon any transfer of the "Jewish" to the "Christian" Sabbath. He does not link Sunday with the former dispensation by any such claims. In the forty-first section of the Dialogue he gives another fanciful reason in addition to those given in the Apology for giving Sunday a religious pre-eminence. This reason he expresses in the following words:
The command of circumcision, again, bidding [them] always circumcise the children on the eighth day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through Him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath, [namely through] our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] remains the first." (Ante- Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 2, p. 139.)

Thus it appears that Justin is at once the first of the "Fathers" who makes any authentic mention of the pre-eminence of Sunday among Christians, and the first exponent of absolute no-Sabbathism. It is also pertinent to note, as Dr. Hessey has done, (Sunday, p. 43, sec. 11,) that Justin always uses sabbatizeiv "with exclusive reference to the Jewish law," and that "he carefully distinguishes Saturday [Sabbath], the day after which our Lord was crucified, from Sunday upon which he rose from the dead." In the face of these facts, it is manifestly unjust to claim Justin as an advocate of the sacredness of Sunday in any sense. It were better to let him stand in his true place as the exponent of semi-pagan no-Sabbathism.

What we do learn from Justin, inferences and suppositions aside, is this: At the middle of the second century, certain Christians held some form of religious service on Sunday. All that Justin says is compatible with the idea that the day was not regarded as a Sabbath, and his silence concerning any sabbatic observance is strong negative proof, of the absence of any such idea. His no-Sabbathism is added proof of this. It is further apparent that since be undertook to describe the things which were done on Sunday, and to give the reasons therefor, that had anything like the modern theory of a Sunday Sabbath then obtained, he must have mentioned the fact. Domville sums up the case as follows:

"This inference appears irresistible when we further consider that Justin, in this part of his Apololgy, is professedly intending to describe the mode in which Christians observed the Sunday. . . . He evidently intends to give all information requisite to an accurate knowledge of the subject he treats upon. He is even so particular as to tell the Emperor why the Sunday was observed; and he does, in fact, specify every active duty belonging to the day, the Scripture reading, the exhortation, the public prayer, the Sacrament, and the alms-giving: why then should he not also inform the Emperor of the one inactive duty of the day, the duty of abstaining from doing in it any manner of work ?

If such was the custom of Christians in Justin's time, his description of their Sunday duties was essentially defective. . . . But even were it probable he should intend to omit all mention of it in his Apology to the Emperor, it would be impossible to imagine any sufficient cause for his remaining silent on the subject in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew; and this whether the Dialogue was real or imaginary, for if the latter, Justin would still, as Dr. Lardner has observed, "chose to write in character.'' The testimony of Justin, therefore, proves most clearly two facts of great importance in the Sabbath controversy; the one, that the Christians in his time observed the Sunday as a prayer day, the other that they did not observe it as a Sabbath-day. (Sabbath, Examination of the Six Texts: p. 274, seq. London, 1849.)

Such is the summary of the case at the year 150 A.D. No-Sabbathisrn, and a form of Sunday-observance were born at the same time. Trained in heathen philosophies until manhood, Justin accepted Christianity as a better philosophy than he had found before. Such a man, and those like him, could scarcely do other than build a system quite unlike apostolic Christianity. That which they did build was a paganized rather than an apostolic type.

continued in next post

Kamoroso

08-07-2005, 11:55 AM

CHAPTER VII. TERTULLIAN AND HIS FOLLOWERS.

THE following, from the pen of Neander, will fairly introduce the next writer to be examined:

"Quintus Septimus Tertullianus was born in the later years of the second century, probably at Carthage, and was the son of a centurion in the service of the Proconsul at Carthage. He was at first an advocate or rhetorician, and arrived at manhood before he was converted to Christianity; and be then obtained, if the account given by Jerome is correct, the office of a Presbyter. . . . He was a man of ardent mind, warm disposition, and deeply serious character, accustomed to give himself up with all his soul and strength to the object of his love, and haughtily to reject all which was uncongenial to that object. He had a fund of great and multifarious knowledge, but it was confusedly heaped up in his mind without scientific arrangement. His depth of thought was not united with logical clearness and judgment; a warm ungoverned imagination that dwelt in sensuous images was his ruling power." (Church History, First Three Centuries, p. 425.)

Tertullian wrote extensively concerning almost all points of Christian doctrine. The following extracts will show what his opinions were relative to the Sunday:

"It follows, accordingly, that, in so far as the abolition of carnal circumcision and of the old law is being demonstrated as having been consummated at its specific times, so also the observance of the Sabbath is being demonstrated to have been temporary.

For the Jews say, that from the beginning God sanctified the seventh day, by resting on it from all His works which He made; and that thence it was, likewise, that Moses said to the people: "Remember the day of the Sabbaths, to sanctify it: every servile work ye shall not do therein, except what pertaineth to life." Whence [we Christians] understand that we still more ought to observe a Sabbath from all "servile work" always, and not only every seventh day, but through all time. And through this arises the question for us, what Sabbath God willed us to keep? For the Scriptures point to a Sabbath eternal and a Sabbath temporal. For Isaiah the prophet says, "Your Sabbaths my soul hateth;" and in another place he says, "My Sabbaths ye have profaned." Whence we discern that the temporal Sabbath is human, and the eternal Sabbath is accounted divine; concerning which He predicts through Isaiah: "And there shall be," He says, "month after month, and day after day, and Sabbath after Sabbath, and all flesh shall come to adore in Jerusalem, saith the Lord;" which we understand to have been fulfilled in the times of Christ, when "all flesh" - that is, every nation – "came to adore in Jerusalem" God the Father, through Jesus Christ His Son, as was predicted through the prophet; "Behold, proselytes through me shall go unto Thee." Thus, therefore, before this temporal Sabbath, there was withal an eternal Sabbath foreshown and foretold; just as before the carnal circumcision there was withal a spiritual circumcision foreshown. In short, let them teach us [as we have already premised] that Adam observed the Sabbath; or that Abel, when offering tc, God a holv victim, pleased Him by a religious reverence for the Sabbath; or that Enoch, when translated, had been a keeper of the Sabbath; or that Noah the ark-builder observed, on account of the deluge, an immense Sabbath; or that Abraham, in observance of the Sabbath, offered Isaac his son; or that Melchizedek in his priesthood received the law of the Sabbath.

But the Jews are sure to say, that ever since this precept was given through Moses, the observance has been binding. Manifest accordingly it is, that the precept was not eternal nor spiritual, but temporal, which would one day cease. In short, so true is it that it is not in the exemption from work of the Sabbath - that is, of the seventh day - that the celebration of this solemnity is to consist, that Joshua, the son of Nun, at the time that he was reducing the city of Jericho by war, stated that he had received from God a precept to order the people that priests should carry the ark of the testament of God seven days, making the circuit of the city; and thus, when the seventh day's circuit had been performed, the walls of the city would spontaneously fall. Which was so done; and when the space of the seventh day was finished, just as was predicted, down fell the walls of the city. Whence it is manifestly shown, that in the number of those seven days there intervened a Sabbath-day. For seven days, whencesoever they may have commenced, must necessarially include within them a Sabbath-day; on which day not only must the priests have worked, but the city must have been made a prey by the edge of the sword by all the people of Israel. Nor is it doubtful that they ‘wrought servile work,’ when in obedience to God's precept, they drave the preys of war. For in the times of the Maccabees, too, they did bravery in fighting on the Sabbaths, and routed their foreign foes, and recalled the law of their fathers to the primitive style of life by fighting on the Sabbaths. Nor should I think it was any other law which they [thus] vindicated, than the one in which they remembered the existence of the prescript touching "the day of the Sabbaths."

Whence it is manifest that the force of such precepts was temporary, and respected the necessity of present circumstances; and that it was not with a view to its observance in perpetuity that God formerly gave them such a law." (Tertullian, "An Answer to the Jews," chapter 4. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 18, pp. 211-213.)

The foregoing shows that Tertullian was a warm advocate of the no-Sabbath theory. His views reveal a fuller development of that no-lawism which appeared fifty years before, in the writings of Justin. Tertullian's ardent nature accepted and proclaimed the full fruitage of this theory, as is shown by the following from another work:

"The Holy Spirit upbraids the Jews with their holydays. "Your Sabbaths and new moons, and ceremonies," says he, "my soul hateth." By us to whom Sabbaths are strange, and the new moons and festivals formally beloved by God, the Saturnalia and New Year's and Midwinter's festivals and Matronalia are frequented - presents come and go - New Year's gifts - games join their noise -banquets join their din. Oh, better fidelity of the nations to their own sect, which claims no solemnity of the Christians for itself. Not the Lord's-day, not Pentecost, even if they had known them, would they have shared with us; for they would fear lest they should seem to be Christians. We are not apprehensive lest we seem to be heathens. If any indulgence is to be granted to the flesh, you have it. I will not say your own days, but more too; for to the heathens each festive day occurs but once annually; you have a festive day every eighth day. Call out the individual solemnities of the nations, and set them out in a row, they will not be able to make up a Pentecost. (Tertullian on Idolatry, chapter 14. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 11, pp. 162, 163.)

Here we have the native character of the Sunday truly set forth. "If thou must needs have some indulgence to the fiesh, thou hast it every eighth day." Such was the unavoidable fruitage of this semi-pagan festivalism, a fruitage which poisoned the church as fast as it ripened.
Certain other passages from Tertullian are much sought after by writers in favor of Sunday; among them is the following, only a part of which is usually given:

"Even in pleading tradition, written authority you say, must de demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the President, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then, when we are taken up [as new-born children] we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in meetings before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the Presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist. which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at mealtimes, and enjoined to be taken by all [alike]. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honors. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's-day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign [of the cross]." (Tertullian, De Corona, chapter 13. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 11, p. 336.)

Again Tertullian says:

"In the matter of kneeling, also, prayer is subject to diversity of observance, through the act of some few who abstain from kneeling on the Sabbath; and since this dissension is particularly on its trial before the churches, the Lord wilt give his grace that the dissentients may either yield, or else indulge their opinion without offense to others. We, however, (just as we have received), only on the day of the Lord's resurrection ought to guard not only against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude; deferring even our business, lest we give any place to the devil. Similarly too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we distinguish by the same solemnity of exultation. But who would hesitate every day to prostrate himself before God, at least in the first prayer with which we enter on the daylight. At fasts, moreover, and Stations, no prayer should be made without kneeling, and the remaining customary marks of humility; for [then] we are not only praying, but deprecating [wrath], and making satisfaction to God our Lord. Touching times of prayer nothing at all his been prescribed, except clearly "to pray at every time and place."" (Tertullian On Prayer, chapter 23. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 11, p. 199.)

In order to understand the foregoing, the reader will need to remember that "kneeling" was deemed an expression of sorrow not suited to the joyful festivals, but rather befitting to the sorrowful fasts. The suggestion relative to "deferring even our business" is made to impress the idea that nothing should be allowed to interrupt the joys of the day. The expression is far from denoting a sabbatic rest, especially since the whole "season of Pentecost" was to be spent in this manner, with the same immunity from kneeling and from care.

Bishop Kaye sums up the testimony of Tertullian concerning the question before us in the following statements:

"From incidental notices scattered over Tertullian's works, we collect that Sunday, or the Lord's-day, was regarded by the primitive Christians as a day of rejoicing and that to fast upon it was unlawful. The word Sabbatum is always used to designate, not the first, but the seventh day of the week, which appears in Tertullian's time to have been also kept as a day of rejoicing. . . . The custom of observing every Saturday as a fast, which became general throughout the Western church, does not appear to have existed in Tertullian's time. That men who like our author, on all occasions contended that the ritual and ceremonial law of Moses had ceased, should observe the seventh day of the week as a festival, is, perhaps, to be ascribed to a desire of conciliating the Jewish converts. (Eccl. Hist. of the Second and Third Centuries, Illustrated from the writings of Tertullian, p. 388. London, 1845.)

The foregoing suggestion of Bishop Kaye concerning the consistency of Tertullian's positions and statements leads us to say in passing that consistency was not Tertullian's strong point. He often contradicts himself, asserting in one treatise that which he denies in another. The first quotation which have presented to the reader is full of no-Sabbathism. In other places he asserts the perpetuity of the Sabbath, at least in a spiritual sense. Note the following:
"Similarly on other points also, you reproach him with fickleness and instability for contradictions in his commandments, such as that he forbade work to be done on Sabbath-days, and yet at the siege of Jericho ordered the ark to be carried round the walls during eight days; in other words, of course, actually on the Sabbath. You do not, however, consider the law of the Sabbath; they are human works, not divine, which it prohibits. For it says, "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." What work? Of course your own. The conclusion is, that from the Sabbath-day he removes those works which he had before enjoined for the six days, that is your own works; in other words, human works of daily life. Now, the carrying around of the ark is evidently not an ordinary daily duty, nor yet a human one; but a rare and a sacred work, and, as being then ordered by the direct precept of God, a divine one. And I might fully explain what this signified, were it not a lengthy process to open out the forms of all the Creator's proofs, which You would, moreover, probably refuse to allow. It is more to the point, if you be confuted on plain matters by the simplicity of truth rather than curious reasoning. Thus, in the present instance, there is a clear distinction respecting the Sabbath's prohibition of human labors, not divine ones. Accordingly, the man who went and gathered sticks on the Sabbath-day was punished with death. For it was his own work which he did; and this the law forbade. They, however, who on the Sabbath carried the ark around Jericho, did it with impunity. For it was not their own work, but God's which they executed, and that, too, from his express commandment. (Against Marcion, book 2, chapter 21. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 7, pp. 100, 101.)

The late J. N. Andrews aptly describes the position and character of Tertullian in the following words:

"This writer contradicts himself in the most extraordinary manner concerning the Sabbath and the law of God. He asserts that the Sabbath was abolished by Christ, and elsewhere emphatically declares that he did not abolish it. He says that Joshua violated the Sabbath, and then expressly declares that he did not violate it. He says that Christ broke the Sabbath, and then shows that he never did this. He represents the eighth day as more honorable than the seventh, and elsewhere states just the reverse. He asserts that the law is abolished, and in other places affirms its perpetual obligation. He speaks of the Lord's-day as the eighth day, and is the second of the early writers who makes an application of this term to Sunday, if we allow Clement to have really spoken of it. But though he thus uses the term like Clement he also like him teaches a perpetual Lord's-day, or, like Justin Martyr, a perpetual Sabbath in the observance of every day. And with the observance of Sunday as the Lord's-day he brings in "offerings for the dead" and the perpetual use of the sign of the cross. But he expressly affirms that these things rest, not upon the authority of the Scriptures, but wholly, upon that of tradition and custom. And though he speaks of the Sabbath as abrogated by Christ, he expressly contradicts this by asserting that Christ "did not at all rescind the Sabbath," and that he imparted an additional sanctity to that day which from the beginning had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father. This strange mingling of light and darkness plainly indicates the age in which this author lived. He was not so far removed from the time of the apostles but that many clear rays of divine truth shone upon him; and he was far enough advanced in the age of apostasy to have its dense darkness materially affect him. He stood on the line between expiring day and advancing night. Sometimes the law of God was unspeakably sacred; at other times tradition was of higher authority than the law. Sometimes divine institutions were alone precious in his estimation, at others he was better satisfied with those which were sustained only by custom and tradition. (Testimony of the Fathers, pp. 63, 64.)

Mr. Andrews evidently refers to book 4, chap. 12 of "Against Marcion," in which Tertullian, with many strange twistings and turnings, discusses the question as to whether Christ broke or annulled the Sabbath. As the passage makes no reference to Sunday, our pages do not yield it space. It will be found in Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. 7, pp. 215-220.

The lesson which is taught in the writings of Tertullian, and which is especially pertinent to our present inquiry is this. Under the influence of no-Sabbathism, at the close of the second century, the observance of the Sabbath was declining, and the Sun's day had become a festival for "indolence to the flesh."

continued in next post

Kamoroso

08-07-2005, 11:58 AM

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

comes next in the order of our examination. He died about the beginning of the third century. The quotations from this author are generally made from fragmentary writings called Stromata, Miscellaneous Discourses. By ingenious paraphrasing and by interpolating here and there a word, careless and prejudiced authors have attempted to draw evidence from Clement in favor of a transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. (M.A.A. Phelp's "Perpetuity of the Sabbath," Boston, 1841; and Mr. James' "Four Sermons," London, 1830, are prominent examples of misuse of Clement's words.) An eminent critic and commentator upon the writings of Clement confutes this claim in the following words:

"I deem it scarcely necessary to observe that Clement never applies the name Sabbath to the first day of the week, which he calls the Lord's-day." (Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria, by John, Bishop of Lincolon, p. 413. London, 1835.)

We select a passage or two from the mystical references which Clement makes to the Sabbath and Sabbath-keeping to illustrate his theories. Of the Fourth Commandment he says:

"And the fourth word is that which intimates that the world was created by God, and that he gave us the seventh day as a rest, on account of the trouble that there is in life. For God is incapable of weariness, and suffering, and want. But we who bear flesh need rest. The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest - abstraction from ills – preparing for the Primal Day, our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed. From this day the first wisdom and knowledge illuminate us. For the light of truth, a light true, casting no shadow, is the Spirit of God indivisibly divided to all, who are sanctified by faith, holding the place of a luminary, in order to the knowledge of real existences. By following him, therefore, through our whole life, we become impassible; and this is rest.

Wherefore Solomon also says, that before heaven and earth, and all existences, Wisdom had arisen in the Almighty; the participation of which - that which is by power, I mean, not that by essence - teaches a man to know by apprehension things divine and human. Having reached this point, we must mention these things by the way; since the discourse has turned on the seventh and the eighth. For the eighth may possibly turn out to be properly the seventh, and the seventh manifestly the sixth, and the latter properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work. For the creation of the world was concluded in six days. For the motion of the sun from solstice to solstice is completed in six months in the course of which, at one time the leaves fall, and at another plants bud and seeds come to maturity. And they say that the embryo is perfected exactly in the sixth month, that is in one hundred and eighty days in addition to the two and a half as Polybus, the physician, relates in his book "On the Eighth Month," and Aristotle, the philosopher, in his book: "On Nature." Hence the Pythagoreans, as I think, reckon six the perfect number, from the creation of the world, according to the prophet, and call it Meseuthys and Marriage, from its being the middle of the even numbers, that is of ten and two. For it is manifestly at an equal distance from both." (Clement of Alexandria, "The Miscellanies," Book 6, chapter 16. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 12, p. 386.)

His theory concerning the observance of days and times is clearly set forth in the following:

"Now we are commanded to reverence and to honor the same one, being persuaded that he is Word, Saviour and Leader, and by him, the Father, not on special days, as some others, but doing this continually in our whole life, and in every way. Certainly the elect race justified by the precept says, "Seven times a day have I praised thee." Whence not in a specified place, or selected temple, or at certain festivals and on appointed days, but during his whole life, the Gnostic in every place, even if he be alone by himself, and wherever be has any of those who have exercised the like faith, honors God, that is, acknowledges his gratitude for the knowledge of the way to live.

And if the presence of a good man, through the respect and reverence which he inspires, always improves him with whom he associates, with much more reason does not he who always holds uninterrupted converse with God by knowledge, life and thanksgiving, grow at every step superior to himself in all respects - in conduct, in words, in disposition? Such an one is persuaded that God is ever beside him, and does not suppose that he is confined in certain limited places; so that under the idea that at times he is without him, he may indulge in excesses night and day.

Holding festival, then in our whole life, persuaded that God is altogether on every side present, we cultivate our fields, praising; we sail the sea, hymning; in all the rest of our conversation we conduct ourselves according to rule. The Gnostic, then, is very closely allied to God, being at once grave and cheerful in all things, grave on account of the bent of his soul toward the Divinity, and cheerful on account of his consideration of the blessings of humanity which God has given us." (Clement of Alexandria, "The Miscellanies," Book 7, chapter 7. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 12, p. 431.)

In another place Clement sets forth his idea of days in which it appears that he discards the observance of any specific day, and teaches that the observance of both the Sabbath and the Sunday is accomplished by living as the true Gnostic ought to live. Speaking of the Gnostic, the name Clement applies to a Christian, he says:

"He knows also the enigmas of the fasting of those days – I mean the Fourth and the Preparation. For the one has its name from Hermes, and the other from Aphrodite. He fasts in his life, in respect of covetousness and voluptuousness, from which all the vices grow. For we have already often shown above the three varieties of fornication, according to the apostle - love of pleasure, love of money, idolatry. He fasts, then, according to the law, abstaining from bad deeds, and according to the perfection of the Gospel, from evil thoughts. Temptations are applied to him, not for his purification, but, as we have said, for the good of his neighbors, if, making trial of toils and pains, he has despised and passed them by.
The same holds of pleasure. For it is the highest achievement for one who has had trial of it, afterwards to abstain. For what great thing is it, if a man restrains himself in what he knows not? He, in fulfillment of the precept, according to the Gospel, keeps the Lord's-day, when be abandons an evil disposition, and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself. Further also, when he has received the comprehension of scientific speculation, he deems that he sees the Lord, directing his eyes toward things invisible, although he seems to look on what he does not wish to look on; chastising the faculty of vision, when be perceives himself pleasurably affected by the application of his eyes; since he wishes to see and hear that alone which concerns him." (Clement of Alexandria, "The Miscellanies," Book 7, chapter 12. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 12, p. 461.)

Thus the reader finds Clement teaching the same no-Sabbathism, and making the same analogies and contrasts between the old and new dispensations, and between sin and holiness, which abound in the representative writings of his time. We have already quoted from Clement a passage in which, as Bishop Kaye remarks, Clement is trying to bring out the properties and virtues of the numbers 6, 7, and 8, the hidden meanings of which numbers he frequently speaks of. Some writers have paraphrased and interpolated that passage trying to make it appear that he is drawing a contrast between the seventh and eighth day. In connection with what we have quoted, Clement's discussion concerning the numbers 7 and 8 becomes too gross to be fit for this page. Further quotations from him are not necessary to show that be belongs to the extreme school of no-Sabbathists, and that his teachings were destructive of all true Sabbath-observance.

continued in next post

Kamoroso

08-07-2005, 12:06 PM

CYPRIAN.

Cyprian was Bishop of Carthage. He died A. D. 258. His views concerning the Sunday were patterned after those of Tertullian. Neander states that "the study of the writings of Tertullian had plainly a peculiar influence on the doctrinal development of Cyprian. Jerome relates, after a tradition supposed to come from the secretary of Cyprian, that he daily read some part of Tertullian's writings, and was accustomed to call him by no other name than that of Master." The passage usually quoted in favor of the Sunday is from his Epistles. He is considering the proper time for the baptism of infants, and says:

"For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's-day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us. (Cyprian, Epistle 58, section 4. Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Vol. 8, p. 198.)

Such vague, unmeaning mysticism needs no comment. Instead of showing that these writers deemed Sunday to be either a Sabbath, or the Sabbath, it rather shows how much the works of these leading men of the third century are marred by their efforts to find a hidden meaning in all ceremonies, numbers, and days.

CONCLUSIONS.

The foregoing are all of the important witnesses in favor of the Sunday for the first three centuries. Collating their testimony, the following conclusions are unavoidable:

1. No traces of the observance of the Sunday are found until about the middle of the second century. Those appear first in Justin Martyr's First Apology. The leading reason assigned by him for its observance is founded on a mystical interpretation of certain passages supposed to refer to the millennium. The supposed resurrection of Christ on that day is mentioned incidentally as a secondary reason. About the close of the second century, the idea of commemorating the resurrection by the observance of the Sunday increases, and the term "Lord's-day" begins to be applied to it.

2. During the third century, no-lawism and the no-Sabbath theory gain the ascendency in the theories of the leaders. The representative writers of that century teach that there is no sacred time under the gospel dispensation. That no days are holy, and no observance of specific times religiously binding. That the true idea of the Sabbath consists in rest from sin. The fancies of Cyprian concerning circumcision as a type of the eighth day appear toward the close of the third century.

3. The observance of the Sunday which then prevailed was not sabbatic. In the second century there is no trace of the sabbatic idea connected with it. It is a day, some part of which is used for the purpose of public religious instruction. In the third century the celebration of the Lord's Supper on Sunday seems to have become quite general. This was also celebrated regularly on the Sabbath. The interdiction of business and kneeling on that day which appears during the last half of the third century, was made because business cares interrupted the festal enjoyment of the day, and not because any true idea as of a Sabbath was entertained. This is shown from the language of those passages in which such interdiction appears, and in the fact that these same writers plead strenuously for the Sabbath as a life-rest from sin, and not as a weekly rest from labor. Dr. Hessey, in speaking of the Sunday at this period, says:

"It was never confounded with the Sabbath, but was carefully distinguished from it as an institution under the law of liberty, observed in a different way and with different feelings, and exempt from the severity of the provisions which were supposed to characterize the Sabbath. (Lectures on Sunday, p. 49. London, 1866.)

Robert Cox, speaking of the close of the third century, gives the following:

"But although Christian theology had not at this time assumed the systematic form which it afterward attained, there is no ground for saying that the Fathers, or "the Church," represented by them, had formed no theory, Sabbatarian or dominical of the Lord's-day. Often did the question occur to them, Why do we honor the first day of the week and assemble for worship upon it? And to this question not one of them who lived before the reign of Constantine has either answered, with Mr. Gilfillan, "Because the Fourth Commandment binds the Christian Church as it did the Jews, and the Sabbath-day was changed by Christ or his apostles from Saturday to Sunday," or replied with Dr. Hessey, "Because the apostles, who had a divine commission, appointed the Lord's-day to be observed as a Christian festival." On the contrary, they give sundry other reasons of their own, fanciful in most cases, and ridiculous in some. The best of them is that on the first day the Saviour had risen from the dead; and the others chiefly are, that on the first day God changed darkness and matter, and made the world; that on a Sunday Jesus Christ appeared to and instructed his disciples; that the command to circumcise children on the eighth day was a type of the true circumcision, by which we were circumcised from error and wickedness through our Lord, who rose from the dead on the first day of the week; and that manna was first given to the Israelites on a Sunday. From which the inevitable inference is, that they neither had found in Scripture any commandment - primeval, Mosaic or Christian - appointing the Lord's-day to be honored or observed, nor knew from tradition any such commandment delivered by Jesus or his apostles. (Sabbath Literature, Vol. 1, p. 353.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

Kamoroso

08-07-2005, 12:30 PM

The follwoing from the same source as the previous posts.

CHAPTER IX.

POST-APOSTOLIC HISTORY OF THE SABBATH TO THE FOURTH CENTURY.

IN former chapters we have seen that the current of Sabbath history runs full and clear through the Gospels and the book of Acts. Those post-apostolic writings which are assigned the earliest place show no trace of any practice or teaching opposed to the doctrine and practice of Christ and his apostles on this point. The first mention of any form of Sunday-observance, or of no-Sabbathism, appears simultaneously, and in the same man, Justin, about the middle of the second century. These theories, so antagonistic to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles, did not and could not appear until the heathen element gained control of the church.

Since the Sabbath was a prominent feature in Judaism, the bitter prejudice which grew up between the heathen and the Jewish elements in the church bore heavily upon it; and when the heathen element gained control of the church, it set about the development of theories and practices which would efface, if possible, this so-called feature of Judaism from the church. The fact that Justin and his successors pressed their no-Sabbath philosophy shows that the Sabbath was yet vigorous in its hold upon the church, even after the Jewish element had been driven out. The strongest weapon with which no-Sabbathism fought the Sabbath during the last half of the second century, and the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, was that the observance of the Sabbath was Judaistic. It is clear that if the Sabbath had died during the new Testament period, as some claim, it could not have been resurrected and restored to such vigor by the Pagan element in the church as to make it necessary for that same element to introduce its no-Sabbath philosophy as a weapon against the Sabbath. The urgency with which no-Sabbathism was pressed from the time of Justin forward shows that the Sabbath had a hold even on Gentile Christians, which could not be broken except by continued appeal to man's natural desires for a weekly festival of "indulgence to the flesh," as Tertullian calls Sunday. Viewed in the light of the philosophy of history, the fact that the Sabbath was so persistently opposed, and at length legislated against, in that portion of the church which had been for several generations under the control of the Gentile Christians, is more than an answer to the assertion that the Sabbath ceased to be observed during the apostolic period.

Another important fact must be remembered here. The authors of no-Sabbathism which began with Justin were men of Pagan rather than Apostolic culture. The doctrine was a residuum of Pagan philosophy. There was a modicum of Christian truth in that part of the theory which some propounded that the true Christian made every day a Sabbath. But that statement is rather a description of certain results in high spiritual culture which can never be attained except through the agency of the Sabbath in lifting men to that high standard. Another element of truth was that the Sabbath should not be kept by idleness, as the Jews were charged with keeping it. But the fundamental misconception lay in teaching that the law was abrogated, that men were free from restraint. These elements of truth gilded the theory to eyes which looked with bitter prejudice on all things associated with Judaism, while the fundamental, practical lawlessness of the theory was regarded as its great merit by the prevailing Paganism. Men whose gods were only enlarged editions of themselves, reveling on Olympus, and delighting in sensuous indulgences, were not ready to embrace the new religion until the rigidness of the Fourth Commandment had been so softened that the Sabbath could be put aside, and a weekly festival put along side of it, and at length in its place. But the facts show that in spite of this abrogation of the Sabbath in the theories of the philosophers, the influence of Apostolic Christianity was so strong that the people continued to keep the Sabbath long after the philosopher had condemned it. Keep in mind the fact that neither the Sunday festival nor the doctrine of no-Sabbathism appear in history until a half century after the time when Uhlhorn says the Western wing of the church was ruptured from the Jewish element, and filled with Pagan converts.

But evidence is not wanting to show that the no-Sabbathism of Justin and his successors was not universally accepted, and that it was opposed by some whose theories were far more apostolic than Justin's philosophic vagaries were. Irenaeus, who was Bishop of Lyons, France, during the latter part of the second century, wrote his noted work Against Heresies about 185 A.D., about twenty years after the death of Justin. He treats the idea that Christ abolished the Sabbath as a heresy, as it was, from the apostolic standpoint. These are his words:

"For the Lord vindicated Abraham's posterity by loosing them from bondage and calling them to salvation, as be did in the case of the woman whom be healed, saying openly to those who had not faith like Abraham, "ye hypocrites, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath-days loose his ox or his ass, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath-days?" It is clear, therefore, that he loosed and vivified those who believed in him as Abraham did, doing nothing contrary to the law when he healed upon the Sabbath-day. For the law did not prohibit men from being healed upon the Sabbaths: [on the contrary,] it even circumcised them upon that day, and gave command that the offices should be performed by the priests for the people; yea it did not disallow the healing even of dumb animals. Both at Siloam and on frequent subsequent occasions, did he perform cures upon the Sabbath; and for this reason many used to resort to him on the Sabbath-days. For the law commanded them to abstain from every servile work, that is from all grasping after wealth which is procured by trading and by other worldly business; but it exhorted them to attend to the exercises of the soul, which consist in reflection, and to addresses of a beneficial kind for their neighbor's benefit. And, therefore, the Lord reproveth those who unjustly blamed him for having healed upon the Sabbath-days. For he did not make void, but fulfilled the law, by performing the offices of the high priest, propitiating God for men, and cleansing the lepers, healing the sick, and himself suffering death, that exiled man might go forth from condemnation, and might return without fear to his own inheritance." (Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book 4, chapter 8, Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. 5, p. 397.

We have also certain "Remains" of one Archelaus, a Bishop who also wrote against Heresies. His Disputation with Manes dates probably from 280 A.D. In this he speaks as follows: (Sec. 42.)

"Again as to the assertion that the Sabbath has been abolished, we deny that he has abolished it plainly (plane). For he was himself also Lord of the Sabbath. And this, the law's relation to the Sabbath, was like the servant who his charge of the bridegroom's couch, and who prepares the same with all carefulness, and does not suffer it to be disturbed or touched by any stranger, but keeps it intact against the time of the bridegroom's arrival; so that when be is come, the bed may be used as it pleases himself, or as it is granted to those to use it whom he has bidden enter along with him. (Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. 20, p. 373.)

Tertullian is more noted as a voluminous writer than as a consistent one. He sometimes advocates no-Sabbathism undisguisedly; but at other times he taught a more Scriptural doctrine. The exact date of his writings against Marcion is unknown, although the first book is fixed at 208 A.D. The fourth book came at a later period. Bishop Kaye supposes his death to have occurred about 220 A.D. We may safely conclude that the fourth book against Marcion appeared during the first quarter of the third century. Chapter 12 of that book is "Concerning Christ's authority over the Sabbath," etc. His conclusions are as follows:
"Thus Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath. He kept the law thereof, and both in the former case did a work which was beneficial to the life of his disciples (for he indulged them with the relief of food when they were hungry), and in the present instance cured the withered hand, in each case intimating by facts, "I came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it"; although Marcion has gagged his mouth by this word. For even in the case before us he fulfilled the law, while interpreting its condition. [Moreover.] He exhibits in a clear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the law excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath, [and] while imparting to the Sabbath-day itself, which from the beginning, had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by his own beneficent action. For he furnished to this day divine safeguards - a course which his adversary would have pursued for some other days, to avoid honoring the Creator's Sabbath, and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for it. Since, in like manner, the prophet Elisha, on this day restored to life the dead son of the Shunammite woman, you see, O Pharisee, and you, too, O Marcion, how that it was [proper employment] for the Creator's Sabbaths of old to do good, to save life, not to destroy it; how that Christ introduced nothing new, which was not after the example, the Gentleness, the mercy, and the prediction also of the Creator. For in this very example he fulfills the prophetic announcement of a specific healing: "The weak hands are strengthened," as were also, "the feeble knees," in the sick of the palsy. (Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. 7, pp. 219, 220.)

If Tertullian, in the above, contradicts his own words in other places, the ultimate test is not between his inconsistencies, but between his theories and the facts of the Bible. Judged by this standard, the foregoing is essentially correct. Incidental proof that the Sabbath, in its proper character, and under its proper name, continued through the centuries, while no-Sabbathism was developing, is found in the fact that Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicea, who was a mathematician of repute, prepared a Chronology of Easter, evidently to aid in the settlement of that much-discussed question. The date of that work is placed in the latter part of the third century. This "Easter table" uses the terms Sabbath and Lord's-day in their regular order, showing how the names and the days were then held. (Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. 14, p. 423.)

The foregoing extracts show that no-Sabbathism did not come in unchallenged, but that it was opposed as a heresy, and that the truth was defended on good and Scriptural grounds. There is no reason to believe that Sunday gained any pre-eminence over the Sabbath, even though it did appeal to the lower elements of men's nature by its festal character, until after the time of Constantine, when it was exalted through civil legislation.

No one claims that the "Longer" form of the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians is genuine. Its date is unknown; but we deem it to belong to the last half of the fourth century, or to the fifth. But we are willing, for sake of the argument, to grant it an Ante-Nicene place, that is, before 325 A.D. Whenever it was written, it shows that at that time the writer taught a just and Scriptural view of Sabbath-observance, and asked for Sunday only a festal character. It was to him the "Queen" of the days because it was a feast as opposed to the Sabbath, the Friday, and the Wednesday, which were held to be sorrowful fasts. In chapter 9 - Long Form - speaking of Christ, the writer says:

"The prophets were his servants, and foresaw him by the Spirit, and waited for him as their Teacher, and expected him as their Lord and Saviour, saving, "He will come and save us." Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat." For say the [holy] oracles, " In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread." But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's-day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. (Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. 3, p. 181.)

The foregoing from authors who wrote previous to the fourth century is fully sustained by the statements of both earlier and later historians.

Socrates, whose work was brought down to 439 A.D., in his Ecclesiastical History (Book 5, chap. 22) tells of the various practices respecting the celebration of Easter, baptism, fasting, marriage, public assemblies and other rites and ceremonies. The references to the Sabbath in this chapter as related to public assemblies and the observance of Easter show that it still held a prominent and in many respects its proper place in the Christian church. He says:

"Such is the difference in the churches on the subject of fasts. Nor is there less variation in regard to religious assemblies. For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this. The Egyptians in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and the inhabitants of Thebais, hold their religious assemblies on the Sabbath, but do not participate of the mysteries in the manner usual among Christians in general: for after having eaten and satisfied themselves with food of all kinds, in the evening making their offerings they partake of the mysteries." (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 2, p. 132.)

In another place Socrates, speaking of the conflict between the Orthodox Christians and the Arians as to their services and public assembles, says:

"The Arians, as we have said, held their meetings without the city. As often, therefore, as the festal days occurred - I mean Saturday [Sabbath] and Lord's-day - in each week, on which assemblies are usually held in the churches, they congregated within the city gates about the public squares, and sang responsive verses adapted to the Arian heresy. This they did during the greater part of the night; and again in the morning, chanting the same songs which they called responsive, they paraded through the midst of the city, and so passed out of the gates to go to their places of assembly. (Ecc. History, Book 6, chap. 8. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 2, p. 144.)

Sozomen, a contemporary of Socrates, writing probably ten or fifteen years later (about A.D. 460), has the following:

"Assemblies are not held in all churches on the same time or manner. The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria. There are several cities and villages in Egypt where, contrary to the usage established elsewhere, the people meet together on Sabbath evenings, and, although they have dined previously, partake of the mysteries. The same prayers and psalms are not recited nor the same lections read on the same occasions in all churches." (Ecc. History, Book 7, chap. 19. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 2, p. 390.)

The reader will readily see why the Sabbath was not observed at Rome and Alexandria. Sozomen wrote nearly one hundred and fifty years after the passage of the first "Sunday Law" by Constantine, and the subsequent enactments against the Sabbath.

Thus men living in the fifth century, and having access to all the existing material, bear testimony to the fact that it was the almost universal custom of the church at that time to observe the Sabbath. Corresponding with the foregoing is the testimony of modern writers.
Lyman Coleman says:

"The observance of the Lord's-day, as the first day of the week, was at first introduced as a separate institution. Both this and the Jewish Sabbath were kept for some time; finally, the latter passed wholly over into the former, which now took the place of the ancient Sabbath of the Israelites. But their Sabbath, the last day of the week, was strictly kept, in connection with that of the first day, for a long time after the overthrow of the temple and its worship. Down even to the fifth century, the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church but with a rigor and solemnity gradually diminishing; until it was wholly discontinued. . . . Both were observed in the Christian church down to the fifth century, with this difference, that in the Eastern church both days were regarded as joyful occasions; but in the Western, the Jewish Sabbath was kept as a fast. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. 26, sec. 2.)

Heylyn, after giving the words of Ambrose, that he fasted when at Rome on the Sabbath, and when away from Rome did not, adds:

"Nay, which is more, St. Augustine tells us, that many times in Africa, one and the self church, at least the several churches in the self-same province had some that dined upon the Sabbath, and some that fasted. And in this difference it stood a long time together, till, in the end, the Roman church obtained the cause, and Saturday became a fast almost through all the parts of the Western world. I say of the Western world, and of that alone; the Eastern churches being so far from altering their ancient custom, that, in the sixth Council of Constantinople, Anno, 692, they did admonish those of Rome to forbear fasting on that day, upon pain of censure." (Hist. of the Sabbath, part 2, chap. 2, sec. 3.)

King, discussing the passage from Ignatius, of which we have spoken, on page 16 ff, says:
"So that their not Sabbatizing did not exclude their keeping of the Lord's-day, nor the Christian, but only the Judaical observance of the Sabbath, or seventh day; for the Eastern churches, in compliance with the Jewish converts, who were numerous in those parts, performed on the seventh day the same public religious services that they did on the first day, observing both the one and the other, as a festival. Whence Origen enumerates Saturday as one of the four feasts solemnized in his time, though, on the contrary, some of the Western churches, that they might not seem to Judaize, fasted on Saturday. So that, besides the Lord's-day, Saturday was an usual season whereon many churches solomnized their religious services. ("Primitive Church," first published 1691, pp. 126, 127.)

An old work on the "Morality of the Fourth Commandment," by William Twisse, D. D., has the following:

"Yet, for some hundred years in the primitive church, not the Lord's-day only, but the seventh day also, was religiously observed, not by Ebion and Cerinthus only, but by pious Christians also, as Baronius writeth, and Gomarus confesseth, and Rivert also. (P. 9, London, 1641.)

"A Learned Treatise of the Sabbath," by Edward Brerewood, Professor in Gresham College, London, has the following:

"And especially because it is certain (and little do you know of the ancient condition of the church if you know it not) that the ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed (together with the celebration of the Lord's-day) by the Christians of the East Church, above three hundred years after our Saviour's death." (P. 77, London, 1630.)

The learned Joseph Bingham, says:
"We also find in ancient writers frequent mention made of religious assemblies on the Saturday, or seventh day of the week, which was the Jewish Sabbath. It is not easy to tell either the original of this practice, or the reasons of it, because the writers of the first ages are altogether silent about it. In the Latin churches [excepting Milan] it was kept as a fast; but in all the Greek churches, as a festival; I consider it here only as a day of public divine service, on which, as the authors who mention it assure us, all the same offices were performed as were used to be on the Lord's-day. For Athanasius, who is one of the first that mentions it, says: They met on the Sabbath, not that they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. And Timotheus, one of his successors in the See of Alexandria, says, the communion was administered on this day, as on the Lord's-day. Which were the only days in the week that the Communion was received by the Christians of his time at Alexandria. Socrates is a little more particular about the service; for he says: In their assemblies on this day they celebrated the communion; only the churches of Egypt and Thebais differed in this from the rest of the world, and even from their neighbors at Alexandria, that they had the communion at evening service. In another place, speaking of the churches of Constantinople, in the time of Chrysostom, he reckons Saturday and Lord's-day, the two great weekly festivals, on which they always held church assemblies. And Cassian takes notice of the Egyptian churches that among them the service of the Lord's-day and the Sabbath, was always the same; for they had the lessons then read out of the New Testament only, one out of the Gospels; and the other out of the Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles; whereas, on other days they had them partly out of the Old Testament, and partly out of the New. In another place be observes that in the monasteries of Egypt and Thebais, they had no public assemblies on other days, besides morning and evening, except upon Saturday and the Lord's-day, when they met at, three o'clock, that is, nine in the morning, to celebrate the Communion. (Antiquities of the Christian Church, Book 13, chap. 9, see. 3.)

William Cave, D. D., in a work entitled "Primitive Christianity," testifies as follows:

"Next to the Lord's-day, the Sabbath, or Saturday, for so the word Sabbatum is constantly used in the writings of the fathers when speaking of it as it relates to Christians, was held by them in great veneration, and especially in the Eastern parts, honored with all the public solemnities of religion. For which we are to know, that the Gospel in those parts mainly prevailing amongst the Jews, they being generally the first converts to the Christian faith, they still retained a mighty reverence for the Mosaic institutions, and especially for the Sabbath, as that which had been appointed by God himself (as the memorial of his rest from the work of creation) settled by their great master Moses and celebrated by their ancestors for so many ages as the solemn day of their public worship, and were therefore very loth that it should be wholly antiquated and laid aside. . . . Hence they usually had most parts of divine service performed upon that day; they met together for public prayers, for reading the Scriptures, celebration of the Sacraments, and such like duties. This is plain, not only from some passages in Ignatius, and Clemens, his Constitutions, but from writers of more unquestionable credit and authority. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria tells us that they assemble on Saturdays, not that they were infected with Judaism, but only to worship Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath; and Socrates speaking of the usual times of their public meeting, calls the Sabbath and the Lord's-day, the weekly festivals on which the congregation was wont to meet in the church for the performance of divine services. Therefore the council of Laodicea amongst other things decreed (Can.16), that upon Saturdays the gospels and other scriptures should be read. . . . Upon this day also, as well as upon Sunday, all fasts were severely prohibited (an infallible argument they counted it a festival day) one Saturday in the year only excepted, viz.: that before Easter day, which was always observed as a solemn fast; things so commonly known as to need no proof. . . . Thus stood the case in the Eastern church; in those in the West we find it somewhat different. Amongst them it was not observed as a religious festival, but kept as a constant fast. The reason whereof (as it is given by Pope Innocent, in an epistle to the Bishop of Eugubium, where he treats of this very case) seems most probable. "If (says he) we commemorate Christ's resurrection, not only at Easter, but every Lord's-day, and fast upon Friday because it was the day of his passion, we ought not to pass by Saturday, which is the middle time between the days of grief and joy; the apostles themselves spending those two days, (viz.) Friday and the Sabbath, in great sorrow and heaviness; and he thinks no doubt ought to be made, but that the apostles fasted upon those two days; whence the church had a tradition, that the sacraments were not to be administered on those days, and therefore concludes that every Saturday, or Sabbath, ought to be kept a fast. To the same purpose the council of Illiberis ordained that a Saturday festival was an error that ought to be reformed, and that men ought to fast on every Sabbath. But, though this seems to have been the general practice, yet it did not obtain in all places of the West alike. In Italy itself, it was otherwise at Milan, where Saturday was a festival; and it is said in the life of Saint Ambrose, who was bishop of that See, that he constantly dined as well upon Saturday as the Lord's-day, and used also upon that day to preach to the people. (P. 117-119, Oxford, 1846.)

Dr. Charles Hase says:

"The Roman church regarded Saturday as a fast day in direct opposition to those who regarded it is a Sabbath. (History of the Christian Church, p. 67, paragraph 69, New York, 1855.)
Rev. James Cragie Robertson states that:
"In memory of our Lord's betrayal and crucifixion the fourth and sixth days of each week were kept as fasts, by abstaining from food until the hour at which he gave up the Ghost, the ninth hour, or 3 P.M. In the manner of observing the seventh day the Eastern church differed from the Western. The Orientals, influenced by the neighborhood of the Jews, and by the ideas of Jewish converts, regarded it as a continuation of the Mosaic Sabbath, and celebrated it almost in the same manner as the Lord's-day; while their brethren in the West - although not until after the time of Tertullian, extended to it the fast of the preceding day. (History of the Church, p. 158, London. 1854.)

Rev. Philip Schaff bears the following testimony:

"The observance of the Sabbath among the Jewish Christians gradually ceased. Yet the Eastern church to this day marks the seventh day of the week (excepting only the Easter Sabbath) by omitting fasting, and by standing in prayer; while the Latin church, in direct opposition to Judaism, made Saturday a fast day. The controversy on this point began as early as the end of the second century. Wednesday, and especially Friday, were devoted to the weekly commemoration of the sufferings and death of the Lord, and observed as days of penance, or watch days, and half fasting, (which lasted till three o'clock in the afternoon.) (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, p. 205. New York 1883.)

Neander recognizes the observance of the Sabbath by the church in general during the first three centuries:

"In the Western churches, particularly the Roman, where opposition to Judaism was the prevailing tendency, this very opposition produced the custom of celebrating the Saturday in particular as a fast day. This difference in customs would of course be striking where members of the Oriental church spent their Sabbath-day in the Western church." (History of the Christian religion and church, during the first three centuries, p. 186, Rose's translation. Nearly the same language is used in his General History, Vol. 1, P. 298, Torrey's translation.)

Gieseler bears the following testimony:
"While the Christians of Palestine, who kept the whole Jewish law, celebrated of course all the Jewish festivals, the heathen converts observed only the Sabbath, and, in remembrance of the closing scenes of our Saviour's life, the Passover though without the Jewish superstitions. Besides these, the Sunday, as the day of our Saviour's resurrection, was devoted to religious worship. (Church History, Apostolic Age to A. D. 70, sec. 29.)

In the prolegomena to the "Institutes of John Cassian," which were written about 420 A.D., we find an incidental reference to the practice of the Monks of that time which shows the observance of the Sabbath up to the end of the first quarter of the fifth century even in the Western church. These are the words:
"He was an aged priest who had lived for years the life of an Anchorite, only leaving his cell for the purpose of going to the church, which was five miles off, on Saturday and Sunday, and returning with a large bucket of water on his shoulders to last him for the week. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 11, p. 187.)

Gregory the Great gives us a glimpse of the position which the Sabbath and Sunday occupied at Rome when he was Pope. He was ordained Sept. 3, 590 A.D., and held the office about fifteen years. The Epistle quoted below dates from the year 602-3 A. D. The first Epistle of Book 13 is addressed "To the Roman Citizens" as follows:
"Gregory, servant of the servants of God, to his most beloved sons the Roman citizens. It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath-day. What else can I call these but preachers of Antichrist, who, when he comes, will cause the Sabbath-day is well as the Lord's-day to be kept free from all work. For, because he pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord's-day to be kept in reverence; and, because be compels the people to Judaize that be may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed.

For this which is said by the prophet, ye shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath-day (Jer. 17:24), could be held to as long as it was lawful for the law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of Almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For, if anyone says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered; he must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the Apostle Paul saying in opposition to him. If ye be circumcised, Christ profiteth you nothing. (Gal. 5: 2.)

We therefore accept spiritually, and hold spiritually this which is written about the Sabbath. For the Sabbath means rest. But we have the true Sabbath in our Redeemer Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ. And who so acknowledges the light of faith in Him, if he draws the sins of concupiscence through his eyes into his soul, he introduces burdens through the gates on the Sabbath-day. We introduce, then, no burden through the gates on the Sabbath-day if we draw no weights of sin through the bodily senses to the soul. For we read that the same our Lord and Redeemer did many works on the Sabbath-day, so that he reproved the Jews, saying, Which of you doth not loose his ox or his ass on the Sabbath-day, and lead him away to watering. (Luke 13:15?) If, then, the very Truth in person commanded that the Sabbath should not be kept according to the letter, whoso keeps the rest of the Sabbath according to the letter of the law, whom else does he contradict but the Truth himself?

Another thing also has been brought to my knowledge; namely that it has been preached to you by perverse men that no one ought to wash on the Lords-day. And indeed if anyone craves to wash for luxury and pleasure, neither on any other day do we allow this to be done. But if it is for bodily need, neither on the Lord's-day do we forbid it. For it is written, No man ever hated his own flesh but nourisheth it and cherisheth it. (Ephe. 5: 29.) And again it is written, Make not provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. (Romans 13:14.) He, then, who forbids provision for the flesh in the lusts thereof certainly allows it in the needs thereof. For, if it is sin to wash the body on the Lord's-day, neither ought the face to be washed on that day. But if this is allowed for a part of the body, why is it denied for the whole body when need requires? On the Lord's-day, however, there should be a cessation of earthly labor, and attention given in every way to prayers so that if anything is done negligently during the six days, it may be expiated by supplications on the day of the Lord's resurrection. (Epistles, Book 13, Epistle 1, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Second Series, Vol. 13, p. 92.)

Thus appears an unbroken chain of evidence, showing that the Sabbath was generally observed by the Christian church for centuries after Christ. Its decline was more rapid in the Western or Romanized branch of the church, where it was made a sorrowful fast, and where no-Sabbathism was pushed to the front. The Eastern church, less corrupted by Romish influences, retained the Sabbath more nearly after the New Testament conception. Let it be borne in mind also that the writers quoted in this chapter wrote after the rupture between the Jewish and the Pagan elements in the church, which began to occur at the opening of the second century. The evidence here presented shows that even in the West the Sabbath continued to hold its place as late as the seventh century, although condemned by the Catholic church and legislated against. With such facts within the reach of every student of the Sabbath question, it is difficult to understand how men can repeat the assertion so frequently made, that the Sabbath was not observed by Christians after the resurrection of Christ. Inexcusable ignorance, or worse, is the only explanation in such a case.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

Kamoroso

08-07-2005, 07:24 PM

More from the same source.

CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES.

The question of their date, authorship, etc., is stated by the Encyclopedia Britannica as follows:

"According to some authors, they are first quoted in the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople, in 394 A.D., and in those of the Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon, in 431 and 451 A.D. Some have said that they are mentioned in the Decretum de libris recipiendis, issued by Pope Gelasius, (492 - 496 A.D.) while others have pointed out that the name occurs in those manuscripts only which have the decree of Hormisdas, (514 - 523). Perhaps the soundest decision is, that the collection is not mentioned in history until about the end of the 5th century; it is undoubted that it was in existence before the beginning of the sixth, for the Latin translation of the first fifty canons dates from the year 500 A.D. (Vol. 2, p. 170, American Reprint, 9th edition.)

Dr. Hessey speaks of the Constitutions as follows:

"I have delayed until now the consideration of the remarkable document called the "Apostolic Constitutions." It is impossible, for many reasons to suppose that it was written by Clemens Romanus. And its whole tone, and its preceptive manner, and the state of things to which it alludes, make the notion of its being even an Ante-Nicene collection very questionable. It is probably to be relegated to the latter part of the fourth or the earlier part of the fifth century. (Lectures on Sunday, p. 76.)

In his note, 203, Hessev quotes Lardner in favor of the date as given by him. In Ante-Nicene Library, Vol. 17, page 4, of Introductory Notice of Constitutions, we find this:

"Modern critics are equally at sea in determining the date of the collections of canons given at the end of the eighth book. Most believe that some of them belong to the Apostolic Age, while others are of a comparatively late date."

The safest conclusion seems to be this. The Constitutions describe a state of things which came about gradually between the third and sixth centuries, and are of value as collateral historic evidence; as such, the references to the Sabbath question are given below. Book I., which is "Concerning the Laity," does not refer to the question. Book II. treats of "Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons." In this are the following references to the question under consideration. Chapter 36 treats of the Ten Commandments as follows:

"Have before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember the Ten Commandments of God - to love the one and only Lord God with all thy strength, to give no heed to idols, or any other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or demons. Consider the manifold workmanship of God, which received its beginning through Christ. Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of him who ceased from his work of creation, but ceased not from his work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands." (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 17, pp. 65, 66, of Apostolic Constitutions.)

Nothing is said in this chapter about any observance of Sunday. In accepting the idea that Christians should not go to law before unbelievers, there is reference to a custom by which the Bishop, Presbyters and Deacons heard and decided questions of difference between brethren. Several chapters are occupied in giving directions concerning such adjudications. The 47th chapter indicates that such courts were held on the Sabbath and on the Sunday. The instructions are as follows:

"Let your judicatures be held on the second day of the week, that if any controversy arise about your sentence, having an interval till the Sabbath, you may be able to set the controversy right, and to reduce those to peace who have the contests one with another, against the Lord's-day." (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 17, p. 75), of Apostolic Constitutions.)

Chapter 59 gives directions concerning public assemblies in the following words:
"When thou instructest the people, Oh Bishop, command and exhort them to come constantly to church morning and evening every day, and by no means to forsake it on any account, but to assemble together continually. . . . Be not careless of yourselves, neither deprive your Saviour of his own members, neither divide his body nor disperse his members, neither prefer the occasions of this life to the Word of God; but assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord's house, in the morning singing the sixty-second Psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally on the Sabbath-day. And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's-day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent him to us, and condescended to let him suffer, and raised him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection, on which we pray thrice standing, in memory of him who arose in three days, in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food." (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 18, pp. 87, 88, of Apostolic Constitutions.)

Book III., " Concerning Widows; " and Book IV., "Concerning Orphans," are silent on the Sabbath question. Book V., See. 18, is "On Feast Days and Fast Days;" chapter 18 is as follows:

"Do you, therefore, fast on the days of the passover, beginning from the second day of the week until the preparation, and the Sabbath, six days, making use of only bread, and salt and herbs and water for your drink; but do you abstain on these days from wine and flesh, for they are days of lamentation and not of feasting. Do ye who are able fast the day of the preparation and the Sabbath-day entirely, tasting nothing till the cock-crowing of the night but if any one is not able to join them both togetber, at least let him observe the Sabbath-day; for the Lord says somewhere, speaking of himself: "When the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, in those days shall they fast." In these days, therefore, he was taken away from us by the Jews, falsely so named, and fastened to the cross, and was numbered among the transgressors. . . . Chap. 20. - We enjoin you to fast every fourth day of the week, and every day of the preparation, and the surplusage of your fast bestown upon the needy; every Sabbath-day excepting one, and every Lord's-day, hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice; for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord's-day, being the day of the resurrection, or during the time of Pentecost, or, in general, who is sad on a festival day to the Lord. For on them we ought to rejoice, and not to mourn. (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 17, pp. 138, 143 of Apostolic Constitutions.)

Book VI., treats of "Heresies," etc., and contains nothing pertinent to the Sabbath question. Book VII., chapter 23, discusses the time for fasting in nearly the same language already quoted from Book V. It is as follows:

"But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth days of the week. But do you either fast the entire five days, or on the fourth day of the week, and on the day of the preparation, because on the fourth day the condemnation went out against the Lord. Judas then promising to betray him for money; and you must fast on the day of the preparation, because on that day the Lord suffered the death of the cross under Pontius Pilate. But keep the Sabbath and the Lord's-day festival; because the former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection. But there is one only Sabbath to be observed by you in the whole year, which is that of our Lord's burial, on which men ought to keep a fast, but not a festival. For inasmuch as the Creator was then under the earth, the sorrow for him is more forcible than the joy for the creation; for the Creator is more honorable by nature and dignity than his own creatures." (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 17, p. 186 of Apostolic Constitutions.)

Chapter 36 gives a form of prayer in which Sabbath and Lord's-day appear as follows:

"Oh Lord Almighty, thou hast created the world by Christ, and hast appointed the Sabbath in memory thereof. because that on that day thou hast made us rest from our works, for the meditation upon thy laws. Thou hast also appointed festivals for the rejoicing of our souls, that we might come into the remembrance of that wisdom which was created by thee; how he submitted to be made of a woman on our account. He appeared in life, and demonstrated himself in his baptism; how he that appeared is both God and man. He suffered for us by thy permission, and died, and rose again by thy power; on which account we solemnly assemble to celebrate the feast of the resurrection on the Lord's-day, and rejoice on account of him who has conquered death, and has brought life and immortality to light. . . . Thou didst enjoin the observation of the Sabbath, not affording them an occasion of idleness, but an opportunity of piety for their knowledge of thy power, and the prohibition of evils, having limited them as within an holy circuit for the sake of doctrine, for rejoicing upon the seventh period. . . . On this account he permitted men every Sabbath to rest, that so no one might be willing to send one word out of his mouth in anger on the day of the Sabbath. For the Sabbath is the ceasing of the creation, the completion of the world, the inquiry after laws, and the grateful praise to God for the blessings he has bestowed upon men. All which the Lord's-day excels, and shows the Mediator himself, the Provider, the Lawgiver, the cause of the resurrection, the First-born of the whole creation, God the Word, and man, who was born of Mary alone, without a man, who lived holily, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died and rose again from the dead. So that the Lord's-day commands us to offer unto thee, O Lord, thanksgiving for all. For this is the grace afforded by thee, which on account of its greatness has obscured all other blessings. (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 17, pp. 196, 197 of Apostolic Constitutions.)

Book VIII., chapter 33, presents a law said to have been made by the apostles, Peter and Paul, in the following words:

"I Peter and Paul do make the following Constitutions, Let the slaves work five days, but on the Sabbath-day and the Lord's-day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety. We have said that the Sabbath is on account of the creation, and the Lord's-day of the resurrection. Let slaves rest from their work all the great week, and that which follows it - for the one in memory of the passion, and the other of the resurrection; and there is need they should be instructed who it is that suffered and rose again, and who it is permitted him to suffer, and raised him again. Let them have rest from their work on the ascension, because it was the conclusion of the dispensation by Christ. Let them rest at Pentecost because of the coming of the Holy Spirit, which was given to those that believed in Christ. Let them rest on the festival of his birth, because on it the unexpected favor was granted to men, that Jesus Christ, the Logos of God, should be born of the virgin Mary, for the salvation of the world. Let them rest on the festival of the Epiphany, because on it a manifestation took place of the divinity of Christ, for the Father bore testimony to him at the baptism, and the Paraclete, in the form of a dove, pointed out to the bystanders him to whom testimony was borne. Let them rest on the days of the Apostles; for they were appointed your teachers [to bring you] to Christ, and made you worthy of the Spirit. Let them rest on the day of the first martyr, Stephen, and of the other holy martyrs who preferred Christ to their own life." (Ante-Nicene Lib., Vol. 17, pp. 246, 247 of Apostolic Constitutions.)

When we are told that Paul and Peter wrote or taught such things as the above, we can easily judge as to the genuineness of the "Constitutions." But the above is of worth as indicating the mass of holidays, which had grown up at the beginning of the Dark Ages. Book VIII. closes with

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

Kamoroso

08-07-2005, 08:33 PM

CHAPTER XV.

THE SABBATH IN THE WESTERN CHURCH DURING THE DARK AGES.

PAPACY never succeeded in driving the Sabbath wholly from its dominions. As the Romanized church gradually expelled the Sabbath from the Orthodox body, those who were loyal to the law of God and the practices of the apostolic church stood firm, regardless of excommunication and persecution. Dissenters who kept the Sabbath existed under different names and forms of organization from the time of the first Pope to the Reformation. They were either the descendants of those who fled from the heathen persecutions previous to the time of Constantine, or else those who, when he began to rule the church and force false practices upon it, refused submission and sought seclusion and freedom to obey God in the wilderness in and around the Alps. In their earlier history they were known as Nazarenes, Cerinthians and Hypsistarii, and later as Vaudois, Cathari, Toulousians, Albigenses, Petrobrusians, Passagii, and Waldenses. We shall speak of them in general under this latter name. They believed the Romish church to be the "Anti-Christ" spoken of in the New Testament. Their doctrines were comparatively pure and Scriptural, and their lives were holy, in contrast with the ecclesiastical corruption which surrounded them. The reigning church hated and followed them with its persecutions. In consequence of this unscrupulous opposition, it is difficult to learn all the facts concerning them, since only perverted accounts have come to us through the hands of their enemies. Before the age of printing, their books were few; and from time to time these were destroyed by their persecutors, so that we have only fragments from their own writers. At the beginning of the twelfth century they had grown in strength and numbers to such an extent as to call forth earnest opposition and bloody persecution from the Papal power. Their enemies have made many unreasonable and false charges concerning their doctrines and practices, but all agree that they rejected the doctrine of "Church Authority," and appealed to the Bible as their only rule of faith and practice. They condemn the usurpations, the innovations, the pomp and formality, the worldliness and immorality of the Romish hierarchy. Even their bitter enemies have not denied that which all accord to them, viz., moral excellence and holiness of life far in advance of their times and surroundings.

There are three lines of argument which show that these dissenters were Sabbath-keepers.

1. Apriori argument, founded upon the following facts. They accepted the Bible as their only standard. They were familiar with the Old Testament, and held it in great esteem. They acknowledged no custom or doctrine is binding upon Christians which was not established before the ascension of Christ. Such a people must have rejected those feasts which the church had appointed, and must have observed the Sabbath. But there is direct testimony showing their antiquity, their high moral character and piety, and their special character as Sabbath-keepers.

The following from the pen of Mr. Benedict, the Baptist historian, shows that it is almost a miracle that any information concerning them has come down to this time:

"As scarcely any fragment of their history remains, all we know of them is from the accounts of their enemies, which were always uttered in a style of censure and complaint; and without which we should not have known that millions of them ever existed. It was the settled policy of Rome to obliterate every vestige of opposition to her decrees and doctrines, everything heretical, whether persons or writings, by which the faithful would be liable to be contaminated and led astray. In conformity to this their fixed determination, all books and records of their opposers were hunted up and committed to the flames. Before the art of printing was discovered in the fifteenth century, all books were made with a pen; the copies, of course, were so few that their concealment was much more difficult than it would be now, and if a few of them escaped the vigilance of the inquisitors, they would be soon worn out and gone. None of them could be admitted and preserved in the public libraries of the Catholics from the ravages of time, and the hands of barbarians with which all parts of Europe were at different times overwhelmed. (History of the Baptists, p. 50. New York, 1848.)

Dean Waddington bears testimony as follows:

"Rainer Sacho, a Dominican, says of the Waldenses: "There is no sect so dangerous as the Leonists, for three reasons: first, it is the most ancient; some say it is as old as Sylvester, others, as the apostles themselves. Secondly, it is very generally disseminated; there is no country where it has not gained some footing. Third, while other sects are profane, and blasphemous, this retains the utmost show of piety; they live justly before men, and believe nothing concerning God which is not good."" (Church History, chap. 22, sec. 1.)

This same writer, Sacho, admits that they flourished at least five hundred years before the time of Peter Waldo. Their great antiquity is also allowed by Gretzer, a Jesuit, who wrote against them. Cratitz, in his "History of the United Brethren," speaks of this class of Christians in the following words:

"These ancient Christians date their origin from the beginning of the fourth century, when one Leo, at the great revolution in Religion under Constantine the Great, opposed the innovations of Sylvester, Bishop of Rome. Nay, Rieger goes further still, taking them for the remains of the people of the valleys, who, when the Apostle Paul, as is said, made a journey over the Alps into Spain, were converted to Christ. (Latrobe's Trans., p. 16. London, 1780.)

Jortin bears the following testimony:

"In the seventh century, Christianity was preached in China by the Nestorians and the Valdenses who abhorred the papal usurpations, and are supposed to have settled themselves in the valleys of the Piedmont." (Eccl. Hist., Vol. 2, sec. 38.)

President Edwards says:

"Some of the popish writers themselves own that that people never submitted to the Church of Rome. One of the popish writers speaking of the Waldenses, says: The heresy of the Waldenses is the oldest in the world. It is supposed that this people first betook themselves to this desert, secret place among the mountains to hide themselves from the severity of the heathen persecutions, which were before Constantine the Great, and thus the woman fled into the wilderness from the face of the serpent. Rev. 12:6-14. And the people being settled there, their posterity continued there from age to age afterward; and being, as it were, by natural walls as well as God's grace separated from the rest of the world, never partook of the overflowing corruption. . . . Theodore Belvedere, a popish monk, says that the heresy had always been in the valleys. In the preface to the French Bible the translators say that they (the Valdenses) have always had the full enjoyment of the heavenly truth contained in the Holy Scriptures ever since they were enriched with the same by the apostles, having preserved, in fair manuscripts the entire Bible in their native tongue from generation to generation. (History of Redemption, pp. 293, 294.)

Thus history furnishes full and explicit testimony concerning the antiquity of these un-Romanized Christians, showing that their separation began very early, and that they never submitted to the Papal power, nor accepted its false teachings. Their numbers is a matter of no less interest than their antiquity. Jones bears the following testimony:

"Even in the twelfth century their numbers abounded in the neighborhood of Cologne in Flanders, the south of France, Savoy, and Milan. They were increased, says Egbert, to great multitudes throughout all countries, and although they seem not to have attracted attention in any remarkable degree previous to this period, yet, as it is obvious they could not have sprung up in a day, it is not an unfair inference that they must have long existed as a people wholly distinct from the Catholic church, though, amidst the political squabbles of the clergy, it was their good fortune to be almost entirely overlooked. …. Toward the middle of the twelfth century, a small society of tbe Puritans, as they were called by some, or Waldenses, as they are termed by others, or Paulicians as they are denominated by our old monkish historian, William of Newburg, made their appearance in England. This latter writer speaking of them says: "They came originally from Gascoyne, where, being as numerous is the sand of the sea, they sorely infested France, Italy, Spain and England. (Hist. of the Waldenses, Vol. 1, chap. 4, see. 3, pp. 509, 510. London, 1816.)

Benedict says:

"In the thirteenth century, from the accounts of Catholic historians, all of whom speak of the Waldenses in terms of complaint and reproach, they had founded individual churches, or were spread out in colonies in Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Bohemia, Poland, Lithuania, Albania, Lombardy, Milan, Romagna, Vicenza, Florence, Valeponetine, Constantinople, Philadelphia, Sclavonia, Bulgaria, Diognitia, Livonia, Saramatia, Croatia, Dalmatia, Briton, and Piedmont. (Hist. of the Baptists, p. 31.)
It is not claimed that there was perfect agreement in sentiment on all points among these different sects in all the different localities. That they agreed on the fundamental point of rejecting the Romish Hierarchy, and appealing to the Bible as the only standard of faith and practice, is undeniable. The following testimonies will show what they were in these respects. Allix speaks as follows:

"They can say a great part of the Old and New Testaments by heart. They despise the decretals, and the sayings and expositions of holy men, and only cleave to the text of Scripture. . . . They say that the doctrine of Christ and his apostles is sufficient to salvation, without any church statutes and ordinances. That the traditions of the church are no better than the traditions of the Pharisees; and that greater stress is laid on the observation of human traditions than on the keeping of the law of God. "Why do you transgress the law of God by your traditions?" They condemn all approved ecclesiastical customs which they do not read of in the gospel, as the observation of Candlemas, Palm Sunday, the reconciliation of penitents, and the adoration of the cross on Good Friday. They despise the feast of Easter and all other festivals of Christ and the Saints, because of their being multiplied to that vast number, and say that one day is as good as another, and work upon holy days where they can do it without being taken notice of. . . . They declare themselves to be the apostles' successors, to have apostolic authority, and the keys of binding and loosing. They hold the church of Rome to be the Whore of Babylon, and that all who obey her are damned, especially the clergy that are subject to her since the time of Pope Sylvester. . . . They hold that none of the ordinances of the church that have been introduced since Christ's ascension ought to be observed, being of no worth; the feasts, fasts, orders, blessings, officers of the church and the like, they utterly reject." (Ecc. Hist. of the Ancient Piedmont Church, pp. 209. 216, 217. London, 1690.)

This is said of them in Bohemia. As late as the time of Erasmus these Bohemians continued to keep the Sabbath with great strictness, as will be seen by the following.

An old German historian, John Sleidan, speaking of a sect in Bohemia called "Picards," says:

"They admit of nothing but the Bible. They choose their own priests and bishops; deny no man marriage, perform no offices for the dead, and have but very few holy days and ceremonies. (Historv of the Reformation, etc., p. 53. London, 1689.)

These are the same people to whom Erasmus refers, representing them as extremely strict in observing the Sabbath. Robert Cox, (Sabbath Literature, Vol. 2, pp. 201,202) quotes from Erasmus, and comments as follows:

"With reference to the origin of this sect [Seventh-day Baptists], I find a passage in Erasmus, that at the early period of the Reformation when he wrote, there were Sabbatarians in Bohemia, who not only kept the seventh day, but were said to be so scrupulous in resting on it, that if anything went into their eyes they would not remove it till the morrow. He says: Nunc audimus apud Bohemos exoriri novum Judaeorum genus Sabbatarios appellant, qui tanta superstitone servant Sabbatum, ut si quid eo die inciderit in oculum, nolint eximere; quasi non sufficiat eis pro Sabbato Eies Dominicus qui Apostolis etiam erat sacer, aut quasi Christas non satis expresserit quantum tribuendum sit Sabbatti." (De Amabili Ecclesiae Concordia, Op. tom., V, p. 506; Lugd. Bat., 1704.)

Hospinian of Zurich, in his treatise De Festis Judaeorum et Ethnicorum, Cap. iii, (Tiguri.-1592.) replies to the arguments of these Sabbatarians. (Sabbath Literature, Vol. 2, pp. 201, 202.)

The story concerning their extreme strictness on the Sabbath is probably a mistake. But inasmuch as they accepted the Bible as their only guide, it is not wonderful that they refused to place the "Dies Dominicus before the Sabbath," since the Bible gives no authority for such a course. Doctor Hessey refers to these same Sabbatarians as the origin of the present Seventh-day Baptists. A voluminous work by Alexander Ross, speaking of those people at the beginning of the Reformation, says:

"Some only will observe the Lord's-day; some only the Sabbath; some both, and some neither." (A View of All Religions in the World, etc., p. 237. London, 1653.)

In his history of the Christian church, Jones gives their "confession of faith," article tenth of which is as follows:

"Moreover, we have ever regarded all the inventions of men (in affairs of religion) as an unspeakable abomination before God; such as the festival days and vigils of the saints, and what is called holy water, the abstaining from flesh on certain days, and such like things, but above all, the Masses. (History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, p. 43. New York, 1824.)

On page 65 of the same volume Jones quotes various other authorities. Claudius Seisselius, Archbishop of Turin, is pleased to say:

"Their heresy excepted, they generally live a purer life than the Christians. They never swear but by compulsion, and rarely take the name of God in vain. They fulfill their promises with punctuality, and living for the most part in poverty, they profess to preserve the apostolic life and doctrine. They also profess it to be their desire to overcome only by the simplicity of faith, by purity of conscience, and by integrity of life not by philosophical niceties, and theological subtleties. And he very candidly admits that, "In their lives and morals they are perfect, irreprehensible, and without reproach among men, addicting themselves with all their might to observe the commandments of God."
Lielenstenius, a Dominitian, speaking of the Waldenses of Bohemia, says: "I say that in morals and life they are good, true in words, unanimous in brotherly love, but their faith is incorrigible and vile as I have shown in ‘my Treatise.’" (History of the Waldenses, Vol. 2, p. 71. London, 1816.)

Again Jones says:

"Louis XII., king of France, being informed by the enemies of the Waldenses, inhabiting a part of the province of Provence, that several henious crimes were laid to their account, sent the Master of Requests, and a certain doctor of the Sorbonne, who was confessor to his majesty, to make inquiry into this matter. On their return, they reported that they had visited all the parishes where they dwelt, had inspected their places of worship, but that they had found there no images, nor signs of ornaments belonging to the Mass, nor any of the ceremonies of the Romish church; much less could they discover any traces of the crimes with which they were charged. On the contrary, they kept the Sabbath-day, observed the ordinance of baptism, according to the Primitive church, and instructed their children in the articles of Christian faith, and the commandments of God. (History Christian Church, chap. 5, sec. 1. New York, 1824.)

Eccolampadius, Luther, Beza, Bullinger, De Vignaux, Chassagnon, Milton and others unite in bearing testimony to their uprightness and faithful adherence to the Word of God. Their observance of the Sabbath is also further attested as follows. Jones says:

"Because they would not observe saints' day they were falsely supposed to neglect the Sabbath also, and called Inzabbatati, or Insabbtathists. (History Christian Church chap. 5, sec. 1. New York, 1824.)

Benedict has the following:

"We find that the Waldenses were sometimes called Insabbathos, that is regardless of Sabbaths. Mr. Milner supposes this name was given to them because they observed not the Romish festivals and rested from their ordinary occupations only on Sundays. A Sabbatarian would suppose that it was because they met for worship on the seventh day, and did not regard the first day Sabbath. (Hist. Baptists, Vol. 2, p. 412. Ed. 1831.)

Not only must a Sabbatarian thus conclude, but all must agree; since no fact is better established than this, viz., that the Sunday was understood to be purely a church festival, one of the very things which they rejected. Blair's History of the Waldenses gives the following:
"Among the documents we have by the same peoples is an explanation of the ten commandments, dated by Boyer, 1120. It contains a compendium of Christian morality. Supreme love to God is enforced, and recourse to the influence of the planets and to sorcerers is condemned. The evil of worshiping God by images and idols is pointed out. A solemn oath to confirm anything doubtful is admitted, but profane swearing is forbidden. Observation of the Sabbath, by ceasing from worldly labors and from sin, by good works, and by promoting the edification of the soul, through prayer and hearing the word, is enjoined. Whatever is preached without Scripture proof, is accounted no better than fables. (Vol. 1, pp. 216, 220. Edinburg, 1833.)

From a historical work of the early part of the seventeenth century, entitled "Purchase's Pilgrimages," a sort of universal history, we learn that the Waldenses, in different localities, "Keep Saturday holy, nor esteem Saturday fasts lawful. But on Easter, even, they have solemn services on Saturdays, eat flesh, and feast it bravely, like the Jews." (Vol. 2, p.1269. London, 1625.)

During the twelfth century they were known in some parts of France and Italy as Passaginians. Of these Mosheim has the following:
"Like the other sects already mentioned, they had the utmost aversion to the dominion and discipline of the church of Rome; but they were, at the same time, distinguished by two religious tenets, which were peculiar to themselves. The first was a notion that the observation of the law of Moses, in everything except the offering of sacrifices, was obligatory upon Christians, in consequence of which they circumcised their followers, abstain from those meats, the use of which was prohibited under the Mosaic economy, and celebrated the Jewish Sabbath. (Eccl. Hist., Vol. 3, p. 127. London, 1810.)

The charge of circumcision is made only by their enemies, the Romanists, and is not well sustained; but if it were true, they were not Jews, but, even as their enemies admit, were most blameless and worthy Christians. Concerning this charge, Benedict says:

"The account of their practicing circumcision is undoubtedly a slanderous story, forced by their enemies, and probably arose in this way: Because they observed the seventh day, they were called, by way of derision, Jews, as the Sabbatarians are frequently at this day; and if they were Jews they either did, or ought to, circumcise their followers. This was probably the reasoning of their enemies. But that they actually practiced the bloody rite is altogether improbable. (Hist. Baptists, Vol. 2, pp. 412-418. Ed. 1813.)

Another direct and important testimony is found in a "Treatise on the Sabbath," by Bishop White. Speaking of Sabbath-keeping as opposed to the practice of the church and as heretical, he says:

"It was thus condemned in the Nazarenes and in the Cerinthians, in the Ebionites and in the Hypsistarii. The ancient Synod of Laodicea made a decree against it, chap. 29; also Gregory the Great affirmed that it was Judaical. In St. Bernard's days it was condemned in the Petrobrussians. The same, likewise being revised in Luther's time, by Carlstadt, Sternberg, and by some secretaries among the Anabaptists, hath both then, and ever since, been condemned as Jewish and heretical. (P. S. London, 1635.)

The various and slanderous charges of corruption and religious excesses which certain Romish writers have made against the Waldenses are truthfully and fairly disposed of by Mr. W. S. Gully, in a work entitled "Valdenses," etc.:

"We may, therefore, consider that all the licentious tales which have been told at the expense of Valdo and his disciples, were the inventions of aftertimes. That individuals among them may have broached some extravagant and fanatical dogmas is not improbable, but we have no contemporary evidence in proof of their having departed from the strictest rules of moral and religious purity, or of their having been guilty of any other than the unpardonable offense of disobeying a spiritual authority which had become as tyrannical in the exercise of its power as it was remiss in the discharge of the sacred trusts committed to it. "The worst thing that can be said of them," said the inquisitor Reiner, whose business it was to accuse and hunt them down, "is that they detest the Romish church." (P. 57, Edinburg edition.

Allix reproduces the following testimony from high Roman Catholic authority:

"The Bishop of Meaux highly chargeth Beza for saving that the Waldenses time out of mind, had stiffly opposed the abuses of the Romish church, and that they held their doctrine from father to son ever since the year 120, as they had heard and received it from the elders and ancestors. He tells us that the first disciples of Waldo were content to allege for themselves, that they had separated themselves from the Romish church at the time when, under Pope Sylvester, she had accepted of temporal endowments and possessions. (History Churches of Piedmont, p. 177.)

Other testimony might be added, but the case does not demand it. It is clear that when the great apostacy began, which culminated in the establishment of the Papacy and the union of Church and State, there were those who refused to join with the apostate throng, or recognize its unscriptural doctrines; that they rejected the false dogma of church infallibility, and adhered to the Bible, Old and New Testaments, as the only divine authority and rule of Christian living. As a result of this their lives were holier and purer than those of the apostate church. Being driven from the central arena of ecclesiastical and civil strife, they increased in strength and numbers until they came to be feared by their enemies, when they were eagerly hunted, relentlessly condemned, and slaughtered without mercy. In common with the other truths of the Bible, they obeyed the law of the Fourth Commandment and kept God's Sabbath. Their history forms a strong link in the unbroken chain of Sabbath-keepers which unites the years when the "Lord of the Sabbath" walked upon the earth with these years in which he is marshaling his forces for its final vindication. Traces of these Sabbath-keepers are still found in the Alps.

OK enough already.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-08-2005, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by av1611jim:
FYI;
The "Sabbath Rest" in Hebrews is talking about the coming Millenial Rest of 1000 years.

To try and use it to justify Sabbatarianism is to do violence to Scripture.

In HIS service;
Jim Don't advertise your ignorance so, and don't judge in things you show total inability.

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-08-2005, 04:46 PM

Dear Keith,

All your above quotations come long after the time that mattered. That makes them rather useless imformation.
Where did Sunday sacredness - ondeed Sunday-worship - begin? That's the important question.

I have just added to my web-page my latest book on just this topic - The Origin of Sunday Sacredness - Galatians 4. You may find it on http://www.biblestudents.co.za.
Before anything else - I have nothing to do with the Russelites.

But to the point: Sunday "Observation" - or, "worship / divination / venaration / service", began already in the first century after Christ, and during the Apostolic Age!
Galatians 4:8-10 is as solid prove of it as you will ever find.
Next Sunday-propogandist was Justin Martyr.
Neither Barnabas nor Ignatius knew or said a thing about Sunday-observance. For Ignatius "The Lord's Day" was the Sabbath; and for Barnabas "the Eighth Day" was symbolised by the Sabbath.
You may also find my study of the 2nd century apologetics around the Sabbath from my page, in the book so described there.

But Sunday idolatry all had its beginnings already in Paul's day, and I challenge the world's scholarship to prove me wrong.

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-08-2005, 05:25 PM

Said Jim, (AV1611jim),

"It (the Sabbath) is NOT there in Heb 3-4."

That is too sweeping a statement, dear Jim!
In fact, says this Scripture in 4:4-5: "Thus God concerning the Seventh Day spoke: And God the Seventh Day rested from ALL His works". Remember this is a New Testament statement about God's works - it therefore implies God's works in Jesus Christ!
It does not surprise therefore, that when supplying the ultimate REASON for being of "A KEEPING OF THE SABBATH DAY" in 4:9, that reason or basis or explanation consists of and directly calls on the ultimate, ALL-encompassing WORK of God - according to Ephesians 1:19 further - "WHEN HE RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD" and "JESUS GAVE THEM REST ... FOR HE THAT ENTERED INTO HIS REST, RESTED FROM HIS OWN WORKS AS GOD ..."!
The 'anapausis / katapausis' of Hebrews 3-4 is NOT the Sabbath, but is Jesus Christ; JUST SO, the 'sabbatismos' of 4:9 is NOT Christ, but is BASED on Christ and on God's works - "all the works of God" - "finished / perfected / completed".
plainer it cannot be said than how it is said, not by me or by any 'sabbatharians', but "spoken" by "God in these last days ... in the SON!"

Who is next to dare declare this is viloating the Scriptures? Come on, audacious liars, who?

BobRyan

08-08-2005, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
Dear Keith,

All your above quotations come long after the time that mattered. That makes them rather useless imformation.
I do not find them "useless". They are good historic corrections to some of the usages that many have sought to make of the supposed ECF sources. It shows which ones are without historic support.

Clears away some of the muddy water surrounding claims about the ECFs.

It also shows what they did NOT say in support of a supposed change of the Sabbath Commandment.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

08-08-2005, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
I have just added to my web-page my latest book on just this topic - The Origin of Sunday Sacredness - Galatians 4. You may find it on http://www.biblestudents.co.za.
Before anything else - I have nothing to do with the Russelites.

But to the point: Sunday "Observation" - or, "worship / divination / venaration / service", began already in the first century after Christ, and during the Apostolic Age!
Galatians 4:8-10 is as solid prove of it as you will ever find.
Since I could not get your link to work - what is in Gal 4:8-10 that points to Sunday?? (I Know it references the observance of pagan days -- I just dont see where weekly first day observance is mentioned).

In Christ,

Bob

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-08-2005, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
Dear Keith,

All your above quotations come long after the time that mattered. That makes them rather useless imformation.
I do not find them "useless". They are good historic corrections to some of the usages that many have sought to make of the supposed ECF sources. It shows which ones are without historic support.

Clears away some of the muddy water surrounding claims about the ECFs.

It also shows what they did NOT say in support of a supposed change of the Sabbath Commandment.

In Christ,

Bob [/QUOTE]Sorry Bob, I sommer fell in into this discussion - haven't got an overall picture.
After my recent study of Gal.4:10 I'm in a fighting mood, so tired have I become of the tereotype defence against the Christian Sabbath in the Word of God for His People! - a defence for what? : for nothing but idolatry and false prophetic claim! (changing the Scriptures to suit satanic doctrine)!

So I'm not getting the picture here fully yet. What, for example, does "the EFC's" stand for?

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-08-2005, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
I have just added to my web-page my latest book on just this topic - The Origin of Sunday Sacredness - Galatians 4. You may find it on http://www.biblestudents.co.za.
Before anything else - I have nothing to do with the Russelites.

But to the point: Sunday "Observation" - or, "worship / divination / veneration / service", began already in the first century after Christ, and during the Apostolic Age!
Galatians 4:8-10 is as solid prove of it as you will ever find.
Since I could not get your link to work - what is in Gal 4:8-10 that points to Sunday?? (I Know it references the observance of pagan days -- I just don't see where weekly first day observance is mentioned).

In Christ,

Bob [/QUOTE]It needs not be "mentioned" in order to be IMPLIED; and being implied it there absolutely is implied. Where - you know - does the 'names' of the week-days come from? From NOTHING but its "VENERATION/OBSERVATION/SUPERSTITIOUS WORSHIP"; from NOTHING but the "SLAVING/BONDAGE/SERVICE" - "weak and beggarly", idolatrous stuff - payed it by the PAGANS; "DIVINATION" of their OWN and erstwhile "by-nature-not-GODS/ELEMENTS/PRINCIPLES/PRINCIPALTIES/LORDS/RULERS" - the heavenly bodies "studied with great veneration and awe"! To THESE 'not-gods' the Galatians "returned" and "DESIRED/LUSTED/WANTONLY URGED" to "PRAY TO" again and be "IN BONDAGE TO" "AGAIN". Paul declared: You're cut off from Christ ... you're fallen from grace" FOR IT! "IN VAIN all my effort on you", IDOLATERS!

BobRyan

08-09-2005, 03:44 PM

I thought Gal 4:8-10 was talking about the pagan practice of emperor worship which did call for pagan observance of "days, months, seasons and years" - the very formula mentioned there.

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

08-09-2005, 03:47 PM

Here are some more comments on Gal 4

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
8 however at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no Gods.
Clearly Paul addresses the gentile churches in Galatia and mentions that in their lost state - before becoming Christian they were worshipping false gods. The Hebrew nation-church by contrast was established by the one true God of creation who was to send his only son as messiah-Christ-savior was known by the Hebrews and Paul agrees to this in Romans 3:1-3 as well as his reference to Timothy's up-bringing.

9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
Clearly Paul refers to going back to practices of the pagan system - returning to be enslaved by the pagan superstitious practices - again.

1. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) calls obedience to God’s Word – “Slavery”. Yet some Christians today prefer to think of it that way.
2. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) refers to God’s Word as “The weak and elemental things of this World” – yet some Christians do.
3. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) says that the Word of God is “worthless” and “pertaining to that “which by nature is not God”.

Rather – when it comes to abuses of the Word of God – Paul speaks of God’s Word as “Holy Just and Perfect” and as “condemning the sinner” – it is not the Law or the Word of God that he condemns – it is always the sinner that IT condemns. Yet some Christians today – want to so much to abolish Christ the Creator’s Law – that they are willing to turn the text of Gal 4 as it addresses the pagan lifestyle of the gentiles in Galatia and their practices – and attribute to God – the authoring of paganism..

10 you observe days and months and seasons and years.
NOTE: . This pagan practice is also condemned in the OT

Lev 19: 26 You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor observe times (KJV).
Bible scholars have long recognized the pagan system being referenced here.

Martin Luther "Almost all doctors have interpreted this reference as concerning the astrological days of the Chaldeans"

A commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, rev, trans, [London: James Clarke, 1953], 392

Troy Martin agrees with Luther
“In 4.8 Paul mentions the former pagan life of the Galatian Christians. In 4.9, he asks them how they can desire their former life again. He then proposes their observance of the time-keeping scheme in 4.10 as a demonstrative proof of their reversion to their old life…Considering only the immediate context of Gal 4.10 the list must be understood as a pagan temporal scheme”

“Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-keeping Schemes in Gal 4:10 and Col 2:16” NTS 42 (1996):105-119 ( p 113) Troy Martin

R. A. Cole “it is not necessary…to see any Jewish influence in these Galatians; in all forms of paganism there is some form of ‘casting horoscopes’, with consequent ‘lucky’ and ‘unlucky’ days”

(The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary,, R. A. Cole. TNTC [London: Tyndale, 1969], 119)

S. Mitchell writes “the major obstacle which stood in the way of the progress of Christianity, and the force which would have drawn new adherents back to conformity with the prevailing paganism, was the public worship of he Emperor. The packed calendar of the ruler cult dragooned the citizens…into observing days, months, seasons and years which it laid down for special recognition and celebration”

S. Mitchell, Anatolia; Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor, Volume 2 The rise of the Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), P. 10.

Even authors that “insist” on using Gal 4 as a method to attack Christ the Creator’s memorial of His creative act – and given as His holy day in Gen 2:3 (a blessing for all mankind Mark 2:27) – admit that their blind use of 4:10 as a reference to God’s Ordinances in His Word – is merely a preference not a fact dictated by the text.

:”They (the days, months, seasons and years) could equally well of course refer to the quasi-magical observances that we know to have been rife in Ephesus and presumably in other parts of Asia Minor too (Acts 19:19) Heterodox Jews as well as pagans certainly practices these arts as we see from Acts 19:”

The Rev. Cannon R. A. Cole, M.Th, Ph.D. The Letter of Paul to the Galatians (Inter-Varsity Press, 1965, 1989) P. 165)
Even those that presume that the only influence on the Galatian Christians are Jews – hoping even to limit it to orthodox Jews we find..

“Apparently on account of their pagan background, the Galatians, as aptly stated by W. Rordorf, ‘could only discern in the particular attention paid by the Jews to certain days and seasons nothing more than religious veneration paid to stars and natural forces’ “

Samuel Bacchiocchi Ph.D, The Sabbath in the New Testament, Biblical Perspectives 1995, p 122
(Graduate from Gregorian Pontifical University – Summa Cum Laude

Willy Rordorf Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church (Philadelphia, 1968), p133
#1 The Greek term for "observe" in Gal 4 is NOT the term used in Romans 14 that is also translated "observe". Rather in the unique Gal 4 case it means" to "watch with evil intent" and refers to something like the astrology practices seen today.

Lev 19 describes it in other Bile translations as –

26 "`Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood; neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe omens.(KJ21)
26You shall not eat anything with the blood; neither shall you use magic, omens, or witchcraft [or predict events by horoscope or signs and lucky days].(AMP)
So “instead” of the Gal 4 text addressing the popular notion of “obeying God’s Word when you don’t really have to if you don’t feel like it” – the Gal 4 text is condemning “observe” as in the pagan practice “...to inspect alongside" (i.e. to note insidiously). Where "Insidious" can be to "intended to entrap or beguile", or "stealthily treacherous or deceitful.
#2. God's Word did not command His people to "observe seasons or months".

#3. Using another word for “observance” -- The "observances of days" is mentioned in Romans 14 and the "Condemnation" there is against anyone who would "condemn" the "observances". Bending Gal 4 to point at the very practices employed in Romans 14 is a abusive example of eisegesis.

#4. In this case months and seasons are lumped in with days. The indication of a pagan system of practice is clearly - and repeatedly brought to view. Nothing here is ordained by God - established by God - given by God as a practice for God's people. It is utterly condemned as originating from pagan worship alone.

#5. Paul says this is “a return” and that they are “enslaved all over AGAIN” – these gentiles, these converted pagans – were never Jews. They are not returning to “salvation by keeping the Law of God” as something they “used to do”. This is simply “another” problem Paul is identifying among the Galatians that is in “Addition” to their problem with Judaizers

11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

Here is the ultimate proof - this is a practice never to be defended (so it is not anything like the practices being defended in Romans 14) . It is a practice that invalidates the gospel, salvation lost for those who engage in returning to those pagan systems of worship - pagan practices.

The speculation that Paul defended this practice is Romans 14 as a practice not to be condemned - only shows the lengths to which some will go to launch an attack on the creator's own holy day (made holy by him when he created earth) - as he calls it the Sabbath day (not merely leaving it with a day-number God tells us the 7th day is the Sabbath of God).

Of course the fact that the Jews themselves - who lived in these pagan centers - had begun to incorporate these pagan practices into the Hebrew faith, only made the problem more difficult for gentile Christians.

See the clear teaching in Gal 4 that this is the "lost state" not a statement about the "Spiritual holy just and true Law of God" in its "unholy, unjust, untrue, unspiritual" form of "elemental things that pertain only to The World" and not god at all.
It is precisely "because" Paul always holds the Law of God to be "Spiritual" where man is "sinful" and to always be "Holy Just and true" where man is rebellious and to always be binding so that we are to be "DOERS of the LAW are justified before God" Rom2:13 that Paul can say "Do we then abolish the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31. How embarrassing for those doctrines that say "Yes! we DO abolish the Law of God - Now we just keep the commandments of Christ - a New Law not that old Law of God".

#1. No text says that the Word of God is bondage.

#2. Gal 3 points out that the Law condemns ALL and that "Scripture places all under sin". Making God's LAW and Scripture - interchangeable. Indeed they are "The Word of God"

#3. Gal 04 references the practice of gentile Christians before their conversion of worshipping that "which is not god at all" and practices pertaining to the "Weak and beggarly things of this world".

#4. God's Word, God's Law, Scripture is never referenced as "a weak and beggarly thing" in all of scripture - much less by Paul.

#5. God's Word never says that obedience to the Word of God "is a form of slavery":.

[/QUOTE]

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-09-2005, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
I thought Gal 4:8-10 was talking about the pagan practice of emperor worship which did call for pagan observance of "days, months, seasons and years" - the very formula mentioned there.

In Christ,

Bob 'Emperor worship' called on the worship - 'divination'- making god - of the emperor. It might have entailed making of the emperor some celetial body or something; but the OBJECT of 'worship', was the person of the emperor. This 'phenomenon' actuallly developed only later in history, and in Christian literature is FIRST seen in Polycarp's martyrdom.

In Galatians the well-known mythological 'gods' of TIME, "days, months, seasons, and years" are not only mentioned, but implied in Paul's contrasting the "knowledge" of God, to their 'divination', as well as in the presupposed universal 'knowledge' of the god/goddess 'wisdom' "of the world", as contained in the "stoicheia" - the "ELEMENTAL (things)" or basic constituent parts thereof. Of the physical "world" - "kosmos", the constituent parts or 'elemental gods' were earth (dust), water, wind and fire - the parallel 'stoicheia' of the invisible 'world of time', "days, months, seasons and years". Compare Wisdom 7:17, for the 'parallellism' or "conclusive concepts" between the basic components or "powers". Here is my translation of the passage:
"For in his (wisdom's) hands are both we and our word,
all wisdom also and maturity,
For he gave me conclusive knowledge of the things that are,
namely,
how the world came together and the ruling of the priniples (stoicheiohn),
the elementals, beginning, end and centre of TIMES, (chronohn) (days and months),
the alternating of the tropics and changes of seasons (kairohn),
the turning of YEARS and stellar arrangements,
the NATURE (physeis) of living things and the furies of the beasts (reference to horoscopic 'principles'/'powers'),
the violence of winds and the mentality of people,
the advantages of plants and the powers of roots,
-ALL SUCH THINGS AS ARE SECRET OR MANIFEST, I know! (says 'Wisdom').

Eric B

08-09-2005, 07:36 PM

I answered all of that suff before, and you all rehash the same claims like I never said anything. (GE; I thought you changed your position before).

1) No one is calling the "word of God" or even "the Law" bondage, slavery, “The weak and elemental things of this World”, or “worthless” and “pertaining to that “which by nature is not God”. It was the Jews' condemned state trying to justify themselves by the works of the Law (without Christ) that was the bondage and the rest of those things.

2) "observe days and months and seasons and years" is NOT the same as "observe times" in Lev. Two totally different words in two totally different languages. And "observe" in Rom. is altogether different from those. You can't just pair things up like that without making sure it is the same thing.

3) the fact that "observe" in Gal. is “...to inspect alongside" (i.e. to note insidiously). Where "Insidious" can be to "intended to entrap or beguile", or "stealthily treacherous or deceitful", is the biggest proof of all, because it is the SAME WORD used for when the JEWS tried to "trap" both Jesus and Paul! There is NOTHING in the Greek AT ALL about "astrology"! Now are you saying the Jews used astrology to trap Jesus and Paul? Or was it the LAW they used?
Likewise, their WATCHing the NT Christians and juding them for not keeping OT laws was the same thing, as is those who continue to do it today!

4) Your schalars are only a handful, and do not make the majority.

5) Nobody says there were only Jewish influences in the NT church. However, people do seem to think there were only pagan influences, and have underestimated the Jewish pressure and even persecution of Christians.

I no longer have the time to argue this stuff anymore. If you all think you are sucessfully convicting us as idolaters and satanic doctrines, (which is the charge constantly being thrown out) then go ahead, but remember that we have to stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and we'll see if all these lies (which are a violation of the Law!) will pass! (Once again, what you are doing is the "watching with evil intent" discussed in the passage).

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-10-2005, 05:52 AM

Ah, Eric b, You're tiresome!
I changed my position - or more clearly took standpoint - ON GAL.4;3. Not on 4:7-11 at all! And if you think I'm double-talking, go have a look at my standpoint as published in 1994 already, 'The Lord's Day in the Covenenant of Grace', volume 4, "Paul", Paragrapgh 8.3.3, Galatians.

You haven't presented a single argument of substance otherwise that could have influenced me to "change position"! On the contrary, your every argument I have in the meantime analised and answered throughly since we have last corresponded.
Find our debate - and more - from my page, http://www.biblestudents.co.za, the latest addition "The Origin of Sunday Sacredness - Galtians 4".

Eric B

08-10-2005, 09:34 AM

If you accept 4:3, then the whole argument that 7-11 could not possibly be talking about "the Jews", or that taking it that way "calls God's Law paganism" falls. It all goes together. All were lost in bondage, and for any to return to their former way (whether pagan or Judastic) would be a "return" to bondage.

I do not see a page on your site called "The Origin of Sunday Sacredness - Galtians 4". I see mostly a bunch of stuff disputing the SDA's, particularly, Bacchiocchi on the time of the resurrection. And you do seem to have a bit of a point on "Today since these things the third day". As for Calvin and Servetus, whether what Servetus did was against the civil law or not, still the point is that it is not our job as Christians to make correct doctrine the civil law and torture and kill people over it. If he could not tell the difference between Servetus and the Muhammadans, he had no business being a church leader. Servetus' position actually was not that far off from the original truth. He was a bit more adoptionistic in the beginning (which did compromise the deity of Christ), but then modified it to say clearly that the Word was Christ. This made his position identical to the pre-Nicene fathers such as Tertullian and Hyppolytus, but Calvin still tried him for not saying "eternal Son of God", rather than "Son of the eternal God". The former is not in the Bible, but the latter is closer, yet Servetus was condemned over the unbiblical phrase.
This is the fruit of the union of church and state, and that is more a Romish tool of the endtimes than Sunday is! (And didn't Calvin also enforce Sunday as the sabbath and not the 7th day?) This was completely contrary to the gospel of Grace.

The points I presented above are of substance, you did not answer, at least not here, but both of you would simply go back to answering your own straw men and other tangents.

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-10-2005, 03:09 PM

None of us at the moment stick to the thread's theme: Hebrews 3-4!
And once again EricB takes the lead taking everybody with him off another "rabit chase" as Bob Ryan once remarked!

Eric B

08-10-2005, 08:58 PM

actually, it was you and Bob who took the discussion off Heb.3-4, when you commented on Gal., and then Bob jumped in with his non-sequitur points.

I am not trying to take you down any rabbit rail. (still in accusatory mode, I see). I have been trying to wind down the discussions, because of time. But that could not go unanswered.

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-11-2005, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Eric B:
actually, it was you and Bob who took the discussion off Heb.3-4, when you commented on Gal., and then Bob jumped in with his non-sequitur points.

I am not trying to take you down any rabbit rail. (still in accusatory mode, I see). I have been trying to wind down the discussions, because of time. But that could not go unanswered. Say you, Eric,
"If you accept 4:3, then the whole argument that 7-11 could not possibly be talking about "the Jews", or that taking it that way "calls God's Law paganism" falls."

How do I understand you now? Do you admit 7-11 is 'talking about' the Gentiles then? Then we have nothing to debate - then the 'days' are 'pagan' and idolatrous; then 'days' "known" by their pagan names, are implied; then Sunday is there, first and foremost!

Anyhow,
someone referred to Ignatius. Ignatius doesn't have an idea of Sunday; he thinks of the Sabbath - "sabbatidzontes" - "according to the life (or day) of the Lord" - "kata kuriakehn dzohntes" OR NOT AT ALL ("MEHKETI") which simply argues for TRUE, and CHRISTIAN, SABBATH-KEEPING. What the issue is about I really can't see - it (again) is something blown up by the Sundaydarians. As Ignatius says in 4,1, "We should be REALLY Christians, and not merely have the name!" "The unbelievers, bear the stamp of this world", says he in 5,2. So does its 'Day' - 'Sun's-Day' and "the Lord Sun's Day"!
See "Second Century" http://www.biblestudents.co.za

Sorry Eric, my son got "Origin of Sunday" on the net late. It is there now, I hope.

Eric B

08-11-2005, 09:01 PM

I don't see how you figure I "admit" any such thing. You are the one who "admitted" 4:3. I pointed out then that that proves that 7-11 are not necessarily talking about "pagan" "bondage". And the whole context of the chapter (v.21ff, ch.5, etc.) shows they are not.

BobRyan

08-11-2005, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Eric B:
[QB] actually, it was you and Bob who took the discussion off Heb.3-4, when you commented on Gal., and then Bob jumped in with his non-sequitur points.

The "details" will show that I simply noted other respected historians and Bible scholars that were willing to "admit" to the pagan system that was referenced in Gal 4.

Since the comment was made that SUNday was possibly one of those pagan days -- I pointed to the history of emperor worship that HISTORIANS admit to be a problem in the first century for gentiles-turned-Christian.

But that would be "the details" again and I am sure they are inconvenient for some models.

I suppose if one is happy to make God the author of paganism or to equate HIS word with paganism -- then my pointing out how REAL paganism was in fact the more likely problem - would be inconvenient.

In Christ,

Bob

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-12-2005, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Eric B:
I don't see how you figure I "admit" any such thing. You are the one who "admitted" 4:3. I pointed out then that that proves that 7-11 are not necessarily talking about "pagan" "bondage". And the whole context of the chapter (v.21ff, ch.5, etc.) shows they are not. Eric, you have just supplied yet another example of your confused reasoning. Just read your two statements together - can't you see?
And your insistent hammering on the whole context is bluff merely.

Eric B

08-12-2005, 08:22 PM

My two statements together:
1)v.7-11 are NOT necessarily talking about "pagan"...
That means that they at the most COULD refer to paganism; but MAYBE NOT!
2)the whole context of the chapter shows they are not.
This is the deciding factor. In #1, it was maybe or maybe not. #2 shows it was not. No contradiction. One builds upon the choice left by the other.

So it is not my "confused reasoning", but rather your confused perception! Just like:
I suppose if one is happy to make God the author of paganism or to equate HIS word with paganism -- then my pointing out how REAL paganism was in fact the more likely problem - would be inconvenient. It's like my father used to say: I wish we could take a screwdriver, open up your head, and see what is going on in there. Nobody has said that God's Word is paganism, but you keep seeing that somewhere. You talk so much about "the commandments", do you really thingk God accepts this lying? Break one commandment to try to prove another! But then you HAVE TO do something, because your whole basis for self-righteous judging of non-sabbath Christians falls on chapters like this. Anything but admit that 'I am no more obedient than anyone else, and by judging, I am the one who is actually not a "doer" of the Law!' (the spiritual Law, that is)

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-13-2005, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by Eric B:
My two statements together:
1)v.7-11 are NOT necessarily talking about "pagan"...
That means that they at the most COULD refer to paganism; but MAYBE NOT!
2)the whole context of the chapter shows they are not.
This is the deciding factor. In #1, it was maybe or maybe not. #2 shows it was not. No contradiction. One builds upon the choice left by the other.

So it is not my "confused reasoning", but rather your confused perception! Just like:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I suppose if one is happy to make God the author of paganism or to equate HIS word with paganism -- then my pointing out how REAL paganism was in fact the more likely problem - would be inconvenient. It's like my father used to say: I wish we could take a screwdriver, open up your head, and see what is going on in there. Nobody has said that God's Word is paganism, but you keep seeing that somewhere. You talk so much about "the commandments", do you really thingk God accepts this lying? Break one commandment to try to prove another! But then you HAVE TO do something, because your whole basis for self-righteous judging of non-sabbath Christians falls on chapters like this. Anything but admit that 'I am no more obedient than anyone else, and by judging, I am the one who is actually not a "doer" of the Law!' (the spiritual Law, that is) [/QUOTE]You even contradict yourself. First you say: "If you accept 4:3, then the whole argument that 7-11 could not possibly be talking about "the Jews", or that taking it that way "calls God's Law paganism" falls" - which says 7-11 speaks about GEBTILES. In your next post you reverted to your old stance it speaks of Jews (only).

Next, you quote Bob in your last post - not me, nowhere! In any case what Bob says is true; or is it not - for you?

You supply anyone with that screwdriver that fits the screws to the lid of your mind's interior. Only the screwdriver of the Word can open the Word though.
But go read some statistics on the context of Galatians about it being Jewish or Gentile, from the latest addition on http://www.biblestudents.co.za. It is there now.

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-13-2005, 02:17 AM

But it being Sabbath morning here in South Africa now, let's get something positive from Hebrews 3-4. Bob's theme was the Sabbath "REMAINS" for God's People. "Apoleipetai" - it mweans, "remains obligatory / true / valid / a given", for "God's PEOPLE", His Christian Congregation - not for 'the world'; not for UNbelievers; but for believers in HIM who 'HAD GIVEN THEM REST" - for believers in HIM who "HAD ENETERED INTO HIS OWN REST AS GOD (from His own works)". Jesus Christ had "FINISHED THE WORKS THE FATHER HAD GIVEN HIM"! Alleluiah! He had risen from the dead "the third day according to the Scriptures" - the 'third day' of GOD'S 'Passover' - of His Salvation by 'the exceeding geatness of His power when He raised Christ from the dead" ... "IN SABBATH'S-TIME'S FULNESS"! In the Fulness of God's "REST" that is, He, "rested", and "finished", and "perfected", and "revived", and "sanctified", and "blessed" - THIS IS THE DAY OF GOD'S TRIUMPH THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD! Let us raise the Sopng of Moses and of the Lamb - it the Song of Resurrection; it is a Sabbath's Song!

Eric B

08-13-2005, 10:29 AM

You still don't get it. You still are reading what you want to read. Look again: "If you accept 4:3, then the whole argument that 7-11 could not possibly be talking about "the Jews", or that taking it that way "calls God's Law paganism" falls". This you say "which says 7-11 speaks about GENTILES". How do you figure that? The whole argument that 7-11 could NOT be talking about Jews FALLS. The whole idea that TAKING IT THIS WAY (as applying to the Jews) calls God's Word "paganism" FALLS. That means it still COULD possibly be refering to the Gentiles, but NOT NECESSARILY, as we see that the Jews are NOT EXCLUDED. Then, the remaining context is the clincher, showing that it is in fact about those pushing "the Law". So no "reversion", only the same truth I was building up to all along.
You are just throwing out a bunch of charges without even reading thoroughly what you are responding to.
The screwdriver analogy was about checking to see what makes you two think the way you do, not really about fixing it. Only the Word [of CHRIST] can remove the blinders (2 Cor.3:14) that cause you to distort the teaching that refutes your position.

I still don't see that new page. The only "new" is "Shavuot-Pentecost (Pinkster)".

And the "sabbath that "remains" is SPIRITUAL. Even you once told me I could do my secular job on it, and both you and Bob go on the Internet on it. That is certainly NOT the sabbath commanded in the Law!

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-13-2005, 06:28 PM

Alright Eric, I admit I read and understood your statement wrong. I beg your pardon. I thought it - my own conclusion - strange, that you would indeed have changed your mind. What I have thought then, is of no consequence and in the end turned out to be a waste of words. Sorry.

Then you restate your position, that no real "keeping of the Sabbath (sabbatidzontas) remains for the People of God BECAUSE OF" (ara) the fact "Jesus had given them REST (katapausis/anapausis)", "BECAUSE OF" the fact "He who had entered into His REST (katapausis/anapausis) as God ALSO rested from his own works" - makaing of the TWO things, one.
But, what do YOU say, Ignatius means with his use of "sabbatidontes" - "NO LONGER sabbatidzontes"?
Don't you -like the Sundaydarians- say Ignatius speaks of "no longer keeping THE SABBATH" (Seventh Day)?
And what do you make of the papyri that use the word "sabbatismos/(sabbatidzontes)" "keeping of the Sabbath DAY"?
But most important, what do YOU, make of Hb.4:4-5, that says, "GOD, THUS, concerning the Seventh DAY did speak, And God the Seventh DAY, RESTED"? -No Eric B, your sophistry is transparent, like your whole argument restated above, that you actually DENY your own standpoint that you do not have anything against God's Law, because your whole argument is directed against the "keeping of the Sabbath DAY" commanded in the Fourth Commandment.
I'll never speak another word about this subject WITH YOU!

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-13-2005, 06:35 PM

Correction : Hebrews 4:9 uses the word "sabbatismos" -the almost exact equivalent of "sabbatidzontes" used by Ignatius.

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-13-2005, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Though Hebrews 4 quotes the Sabbath commandment of Christ the Creator and though it gives the positive affirmation that the Sabbath rest REMAINS for the people of God -- some have so "edited" their the text in their minds that they can ignore this entirely.

But it can not be denied that in Heb 3 and 4 there are TWO positive examples of REST given. The entrance into Canaan and also Christ the Creator's Holy Day.

These positive examples are used as a motivation to "persevere FIRM until the end" (as is pointed out repeatedly in chapter 3 and 4.

In addition the text of Psalms 95 - given to the Sabbath keeping saints of David's generation is offerred as a basis of "contrast" between the message to David vs the negative example of failure by the generation in Moses' day that died in the wilderness "due to unbelief" and "disobedience".

The argument in chapter 4:1 is that we should "fear" that such a failure to enter God's rest should also happen to us.

Paul argues that the Psalms 95 promise to the Sabbath-keeping saints of David's day - (given after so long a time following the failure of the generation in Moses' day enter Canaan) "remains". He argues that some still have failed to enter - and it "remains for some to enter".

So these two positive examples of rest are used as "Motivators" in the Heb 3 and 4 text EVEN after the cross!

This means that the intent is to UPHOLD them as good things that we would WANT - good exmaples of "rest" motivating us to ENTER and not to fail to enter - as did the generation in Moses' day.

How then could this be twisted as a means to abolish those VERY examples of rest!!??

IN Christ,

Bob Dear Bob,
I see things a bit different. The "rest" we are in danger of not entering, is faith in Christ - faith in God's works accomplished in and through Him. The writer refers to some illustrations from Scripture of man's unbelief. I am sure he also had in mind also Adam's failure to believe in God, so that God swore that man would not enter into His rest, and drove Adam and Eve out of paradise. Howbeit, ultimately, man rejected god's Rest - the Rest He entered into in and through Jesus Christ. And having rejected THIS rest of God, God has sworn no one would enter into his rest, because -as this Letter elsewhere states- there is NO "day after". Christ is (was) God's last word to mankind for salvation. Do you enter in; or do you not? is the CRISIS of the AGES! "IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE TODAY!" Therefore: "Harden not your hearts!" for this is the day of salvation. There is NO OTHER SAVIOUR! Accept Christ or die in your stif-necked sinning! That is the writer's MESSAGE - the Gospel! Nothing more!
Thus the writer has created a firm foundation for precluding Christ's triumph and God's success - He WILL find a People who "has entered"! Rejoice! Worship God for His salvation! A People is born; behold, the Church of God! All because of CHRIST'S DOING - "JESUS who had given them REST"; "HE WHO had entered into His OWN rest as God from His". This is the GRAND CLIMAX, and this is the very BASIS and GROUNDS FOR "a keeping of the Sabbath Day for the People of God".
Now the redemption of Jesus Christ -the redemption IN HIM- has become the NEW motive, the NEW reason, the FINAL FOUNDING, for the People of God's "keeping of their Sabbath" - the Sabbath of the LORD your God. Since of old -as the writer has amply illustrated- God's rest, God's salvation, God's Passover, has been the reason for His Commanding the Sabbath Day to be kept holy; the reason for and the blessing as such of it; the reason for and the sanctification as such of it; the reason for and the rest as such of it; the reason for and the perfecting as such on it; the reson for and the reviving as such in it it - the Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD your God.
Christians believe and keep the Sabbath DAY, for no reason but the redemption of God in Jesus Christ through resurrection from the dead!

Gerhard Ebersoehn

08-13-2005, 07:23 PM

A keeping of the Sabbath Day THUS has become the Christian's obligation, or not at all! The Gospel - nothing more! What more could there be?

BobRyan

08-13-2005, 08:19 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose if one is happy to make God the author of paganism or to equate HIS word with paganism -- then my pointing out how REAL paganism was in fact the more likely problem - would be inconvenient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said
It's like my father used to say: I wish we could take a screwdriver, open up your head,...

<obligatory ranting deleted>

Here is what we find in good scholarship and Bible historians when it comes to Gal 4 and the pagan days observed THERE but NEVER MENTIONED in all of the OT as something for God's people!!

6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "" Abba! Father!''
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
This is the “conversion” moment – when the lost becomes born again – an adopted child of God. It is a ‘contrast in faith’ between the lost state and the saved stated. It is not a contrast between the saved OT saint and the saved NT saint as many have vainly hoped in recent years.

7 therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. This ends the section applicable to all mankind “in general” apart from anything specific at Galatia.

But then Paul starts to focus “specifically” on the condition of the pagans-turned-Christian IN the church of Galatia. Comparing their condition before salvation with their condition afterwards and the errors they were starting to lapse BACK into.

Lets take a look at Gal 4 again where it specifically focuses on the error of the gentiles in Galatia worshipping pagan idols.

Gentiles who "did not even KNOW the ONE true creator God".

Gentiles who worshipped "THINGS" that were "BY NATURE" not gods at all.

Gentiles who are "turning back AGAIN" to the "Weak and elemental things of the WORLD"

Gentiles who USED to observe "days and months and seasons and years." in their old system of emperor worship and are now introducing something like it mixed with Christianity.

8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.
9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, [b]how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.
11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain
Obviously the problem with these Galatians pre-conversion is not about Gentiles in Galatia being obedient to the Law of God prior to being a Christian!
Obviously the problem IS about …

8 however at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no Gods.
Clearly Paul addresses the gentile churches in Galatia and mentions that in their lost state - before becoming Christian they were worshipping false gods. The Hebrew nation-church by contrast was established by the one true God of creation who was to send his only son as messiah-Christ-savior was known by the Hebrews and Paul agrees to this in Romans 3:1-3 as well as his reference to Timothy's up-bringing.

9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it [b]that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
Clearly Paul refers to going back to practices of the pagan system - returning to be enslaved by the pagan superstitious practices - again.

1. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) calls obedience to God’s Word – “Slavery”. Yet some Christians today prefer to think of it that way.
2. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) refers to God’s Word as “The weak and elemental things of this World” – yet some Christians do.
3. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) says that the Word of God is “worthless” and “pertaining to that “which by nature is not God”.

Rather – when it comes to abuses of the Word of God – Paul speaks of God’s Word as “Holy Just and Perfect” and as “condemning the sinner” – it is not the Law or the Word of God that he condemns – it is always the sinner that IT condemns. Yet some Christians today – want to so much to abolish Christ the Creator’s Law – that they are willing to turn the text of Gal 4 as it addresses the pagan lifestyle of the gentiles in Galatia and their practices – and attribute to God – the authoring of paganism..

10 you observe days and months and seasons and years.
NOTE: . This pagan practice is also condemned in the OT

Lev 19: 26 You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor observe times (KJV).
Bible scholars have long recognized the pagan system being referenced here.

Martin Luther "Almost all doctors have interpreted this reference as concerning the astrological days of the Chaldeans"

A commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, rev, trans, [London: James Clarke, 1953], 392

Troy Martin agrees with Luther
“In 4.8 Paul mentions the former pagan life of the Galatian Christians. In 4.9, he asks them how they can desire their former life again. He then proposes their observance of the time-keeping scheme in 4.10 as a demonstrative proof of their reversion to their old life…Considering only the immediate context of Gal 4.10 the list must be understood as a pagan temporal scheme”

“Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-keeping Schemes in Gal 4:10 and Col 2:16” NTS 42 (1996):105-119 ( p 113) Troy Martin

R. A. Cole “it is not necessary…to see any Jewish influence in these Galatians; in all forms of paganism there is some form of ‘casting horoscopes’, with consequent ‘lucky’ and ‘unlucky’ days”

(The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary,, R. A. Cole. TNTC [London: Tyndale, 1969], 119)

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
S. Mitchell writes “the major obstacle which stood in the way of the progress of Christianity, and the force which would have drawn new adherents back to conformity with the prevailing paganism, was the public worship of he Emperor. The packed calendar of the ruler cult dragooned the citizens…into observing days, months, seasons and years which it laid down for special recognition and celebration”S. Mitchell, Anatolia; Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor, Volume 2 The rise of the Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), P. 10.

[/QUOTE]Even authors that “insist” on using Gal 4 as a method to attack Christ the Creator’s memorial of His creative act – and given as His holy day in Gen 2:3 (a blessing for all mankind Mark 2:27) – admit that their blind use of 4:10 as a reference to God’s Ordinances in His Word – is merely a preference not a fact dictated by the text.

:”They (the days, months, seasons and years) could equally well of course refer to the quasi-magical observances that we know to have been rife in Ephesus and presumably in other parts of Asia Minor too (Acts 19:19) Heterodox Jews as well as pagans certainly practices these arts as we see from Acts 19:”

The Rev. Cannon R. A. Cole, M.Th, Ph.D. The Letter of Paul to the Galatians (Inter-Varsity Press, 1965, 1989) P. 165)
Even those that presume that the only influence on the Galatian Christians are Jews – hoping even to limit it to orthodox Jews we find..

“Apparently on account of their pagan background, the Galatians, as aptly stated by W. Rordorf, ‘could only discern in the particular attention paid by the Jews to certain days and seasons nothing more than religious veneration paid to stars and natural forces’ “

Samuel Bacchiocchi Ph.D, The Sabbath in the New Testament, Biblical Perspectives 1995, p 122
(Graduate from Gregorian Pontifical University – Summa Cum Laude

Willy Rordorf Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church (Philadelphia, 1968), p133
#1 The Greek term for "observe" in Gal 4 is NOT the term used in Romans 14 that is also translated "observe". Rather in the unique Gal 4 case it means" to "watch with evil intent" and refers to something like the astrology practices seen today.

Lev 19 describes it in other Bile translations as –

26 "`Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood; neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe omens.(KJ21)
26You shall not eat anything with the blood; neither shall you use magic, omens, or witchcraft [or predict events by horoscope or signs and lucky days].(AMP)
So “instead” of the Gal 4 text addressing the popular notion of “obeying God’s Word when you don’t really have to if you don’t feel like it” – the Gal 4 text is condemning “observe” as in the pagan practice “...to inspect alongside" (i.e. to note insidiously). Where "Insidious" can be to "intended to entrap or beguile", or "stealthily treacherous or deceitful.
#2. God's Word did not command His people to "observe seasons or months".

#3. Using another word for “observance” -- The "observances of days" is mentioned in Romans 14 and the "Condemnation" there is against anyone who would "condemn" the "observances". Bending Gal 4 to point at the very practices employed in Romans 14 is a abusive example of eisegesis.

#4. In this case months and seasons are lumped in with days. The indication of a pagan system of practice is clearly - and repeatedly brought to view. Nothing here is ordained by God - established by God - given by God as a practice for God's people. It is utterly condemned as originating from pagan worship alone.

#5. Paul says this is “a return” and that they are “enslaved all over AGAIN” – these gentiles, these converted pagans – were never Jews. They are not returning to “salvation by keeping the Law of God” as something they “used to do”. This is simply “another” problem Paul is identifying among the Galatians that is in “Addition” to their problem with Judaizers

11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

Here is the ultimate proof - this is a practice never to be defended (so it is not anything like the practices being defended in Romans 14) . It is a practice that invalidates the gospel, salvation lost for those who engage in returning to those pagan systems of worship - pagan practices.

The speculation that Paul defended this practice is Romans 14 as a practice not to be condemned - only shows the lengths to which some will go to launch an attack on the creator's own holy day (made holy by him when he created earth) - as he calls it the Sabbath day (not merely leaving it with a day-number God tells us the 7th day is the Sabbath of God).

Of course the fact that the Jews themselves - who lived in these pagan centers - had begun to incorporate these pagan practices into the Hebrew faith, only made the problem more difficult for gentile Christians.

See the clear teaching in Gal 4 that this is the "lost state" not a statement about the "Spiritual holy just and true Law of God" in its "unholy, unjust, untrue, unspiritual" form of "elemental things that pertain only to The World" and not god at all.
It is precisely "because" Paul always holds the Law of God to be "Spiritual" where man is "sinful" and to always be "Holy Just and true" where man is rebellious and to always be binding so that we are to be "DOERS of the LAW are justified before God" Rom2:13 that Paul can say "Do we then abolish the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31. How embarrassing for those doctrines that say "Yes! we DO abolish the Law of God - Now we just keep the commandments of Christ - a New Law not that old Law of God".

In Christ,

Bob

BobRyan

08-13-2005, 08:19 PM

A short follow on to Gal 4 from Eric's reference -

#1. No text says that the Word of God is bondage.

#2. Gal 3 points out that the Law condemns ALL and that "Scripture places all under sin". Making God's LAW and Scripture - interchangeable. Indeed they are "The Word of God"

#3. Gal 04 references the practice of gentile Christians before their conversion of worshipping that "which is not god at all" and practices pertaining to the "Weak and beggarly things of this world".

#4. God's Word, God's Law, Scripture is never referenced as "a weak and beggarly thing" in all of scripture - much less by Paul.

#5. God's Word never says that obedience to the Word of God "is a form of slavery":.

#6. God's Word never says "the New Moons feast days are made for mankind" - no are they included in the 10 commandments nor are they included in the pre-cross institutions given to mankind. "Whatever else" you may think of them.

#7. God's Word presents Christ the Creator's 7th day Sabbath as "Made for mankind" and "included" in the "10 commandments" as "continued even after the 2nd coming" in the New Earth and as "given before the sin of Adam" to all mankind.

#8. Christ the Creator's Holy day is never called "that which pertains to the weak and beggarly things of this world" in the NT or the OT.

#9. God's commandments are valid in the pre-cross NT text of MAtt, Mark, Luke John even by the most abusive doctrinal structures today. "Not repeated means deleted" fails there at the very start.

#10 instead of saying "Our faith now declares Scripture God's Law to be of the weak and beggarly things of this World and obedience to it is returning to paganism" - Paul says "Do we then abolish the Law Of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the LAw of God!" Rom 3:31

#11. Instead of saying "Being a DOER of God's LAW" is an optional choice and you should NOT expect others to obey it -- Paul says "IT is NOT the HEARERS of God's Law that are JUST before God but the DOERS will be Justified" Rom 2:13

Obviously this is a far cry from the eisegetical approach to Gal 04 that would claim that the "weak and beggarly things of this world" consist of a Christian who pays attention to the Law of God - because someone like Paul has said to him "IT is NOT the HEARERS of God's Law that are JUST before God but the DOERS will be Justified" Rom 2:13

#12. Christ said "If you LOVE Me KEEP My commandments" John 14:15 and John "continues" to show that same obligation in 1 John 2 and in Rev 12. Instead of turning and saying "no wait! To do as Christ commanded is now the Weak beggarly thing

Eric B

08-14-2005, 01:08 AM

But, what do YOU say, Ignatius means with his use of "sabbatidontes" - "NO LONGER sabbatidzontes"?
Don't you -like the Sundaydarians- say Ignatius speaks of "no longer keeping THE SABBATH" (Seventh Day)? I'm not sure. I assumed it mean no longer keeping the Sabbath. But then I have heard how "Lord's Day" is a mistranslation ("lordly", or "the Lord's life"). So who knows. I have never studied the fathers that extensively. What Ignatius said doesn't matter, because he and those after him must be subjected too the Bible.
But most important, what do YOU, make of Hb.4:4-5, that says, "GOD, THUS, concerning the Seventh DAY did speak, And God the Seventh DAY, RESTED"? -No Eric B, your sophistry is transparent, like your whole argument restated above, that you actually DENY your own standpoint that you do not have anything against God's Law, because your whole argument is directed against the "keeping of the Sabbath DAY" commanded in the Fourth Commandment. More attacks! Once again, YOU yourself do not keep the day according to "the Law"! You have spiritualized it away as much as I may have, into something completely different from what the Law commanded. You have even said something like it is a different Law; a Christian one, and not the OT one, or something like that, IIRC. Only difference is you go to church on the day, and thus "recognize" it a bit more. But that is not KEEPing it by RESTing in the literal fashion you all insist. Once again, you even said one could even work their job on it, and you use a computer for debates on it. So don't come with your accusations, because your position is closer to my position on Heb. than to other sabbathkeepers.
I'll never speak another word about this subject WITH YOU! Great. This whole argument is fruitless.

Eric B

08-14-2005, 01:34 AM

Here is what we find in good scholarship and Bible historians when it comes to Gal 4 and the pagan days observed THERE but NEVER MENTIONED in all of the OT as something for God's people!!
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "" Abba! Father!''
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the “conversion” moment – when the lost becomes born again – an adopted child of God. It is a ‘contrast in faith’ between the lost state and the saved stated. It is not a contrast between the saved OT saint and the saved NT saint as many have vainly hoped in recent years.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This ends the section applicable to all mankind “in general” apart from anything specific at Galatia.
But then Paul starts to focus “specifically” on the condition of the pagans-turned-Christian IN the church of Galatia. Comparing their condition before salvation with their condition afterwards and the errors they were starting to lapse BACK into.
Lets take a look at Gal 4 again where it specifically focuses on the error of the gentiles in Galatia worshipping pagan idols.
Gentiles who "did not even KNOW the ONE true creator God".
Gentiles who worshipped "THINGS" that were "BY NATURE" not gods at all.
Gentiles who are "turning back AGAIN" to the "Weak and elemental things of the WORLD"
Gentiles who USED to observe "days and months and seasons and years." in their old system of emperor worship and are now introducing something like it mixed with Christianity.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods[b/].
9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
10 You observe days and months and seasons and years.
11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously the problem with these Galatians pre-conversion is not about Gentiles in Galatia being obedient to the Law of God prior to being a Christian!
Obviously the problem IS about …
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 however at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no Gods.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly Paul addresses the gentile churches in Galatia and mentions that in their lost state - before becoming Christian they were worshipping false gods. The Hebrew nation-church by contrast was established by the one true God of creation who was to send his only son as messiah-Christ-savior was known by the Hebrews and Paul agrees to this in Romans 3:1-3 as well as his reference to Timothy's up-bringing.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly Paul refers to going back to practices of the pagan system - returning to be enslaved by the pagan superstitious practices - again.
1. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) calls obedience to God’s Word – “Slavery”. Yet some Christians today prefer to think of it that way.
2. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) refers to God’s Word as “The weak and elemental things of this World” – yet some Christians do.
3. There is no place where Paul (or any Bible author) says that the Word of God is “worthless” and “pertaining to that “which by nature is not God”.
Rather – when it comes to abuses of the Word of God – Paul speaks of God’s Word as “Holy Just and Perfect” and as “condemning the sinner” – it is not the Law or the Word of God that he condemns – it is always the sinner that IT condemns. Yet some Christians today – want to so much to abolish Christ the Creator’s Law – that they are willing to turn the text of Gal 4 as it addresses the pagan lifestyle of the gentiles in Galatia and their practices – and attribute to God – the authoring of paganism..
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 you observe days and months and seasons and years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: . This pagan practice is also condemned in the OT
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lev 19: 26 You shall not eat anything with the blood, nor observe times (KJV).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bible scholars have long recognized the pagan system being referenced here.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Luther "Almost all doctors have interpreted this reference as concerning the astrological days of the Chaldeans"
A commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, rev, trans, [London: James Clarke, 1953], 392
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Martin agrees with Luther
“In 4.8 Paul mentions the former pagan life of the Galatian Christians. In 4.9, he asks them how they can desire their former life again. He then proposes their observance of the time-keeping scheme in 4.10 as a demonstrative proof of their reversion to their old life…Considering only the immediate context of Gal 4.10 the list must be understood as a pagan temporal scheme”
“Pagan and Judeo-Christian Time-keeping Schemes in Gal 4:10 and Col 2:16” NTS 42 (1996):105-119 ( p 113) Troy Martin
R. A. Cole “it is not necessary…to see any Jewish influence in these Galatians; in all forms of paganism there is some form of ‘casting horoscopes’, with consequent ‘lucky’ and ‘unlucky’ days”
(The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians: An Introduction and Commentary,, R. A. Cole. TNTC [London: Tyndale, 1969], 119)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Mitchell writes “the major obstacle which stood in the way of the progress of Christianity, and the force which would have drawn new adherents back to conformity with the prevailing paganism, was the public worship of he Emperor. The packed calendar of the ruler cult dragooned the citizens…into observing days, months, seasons and years which it laid down for special recognition and celebration”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Mitchell, Anatolia; Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor, Volume 2 The rise of the Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), P. 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even authors that “insist” on using Gal 4 as a method to attack Christ the Creator’s memorial of His creative act – and given as His holy day in Gen 2:3 (a blessing for all mankind Mark 2:27) – admit that their blind use of 4:10 as a reference to God’s Ordinances in His Word – is merely a preference not a fact dictated by the text.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:”They (the days, months, seasons and years) could equally well of course refer to the quasi-magical observances that we know to have been rife in Ephesus and presumably in other parts of Asia Minor too (Acts 19:19) Heterodox Jews as well as pagans certainly practices these arts as we see from Acts 19:”
The Rev. Cannon R. A. Cole, M.Th, Ph.D. The Letter of Paul to the Galatians (Inter-Varsity Press, 1965, 1989) P. 165)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even those that presume that the only influence on the Galatian Christians are Jews – hoping even to limit it to orthodox Jews we find..
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Apparently on account of their pagan background, the Galatians, as aptly stated by W. Rordorf, ‘could only discern in the particular attention paid by the Jews to certain days and seasons nothing more than religious veneration paid to stars and natural forces’ “

Samuel Bacchiocchi Ph.D, The Sabbath in the New Testament, Biblical Perspectives 1995, p 122
(Graduate from Gregorian Pontifical University – Summa Cum Laude

Willy Rordorf Sunday: The History of the Day of Rest and Worship in the Earliest Centuries of the Christian Church (Philadelphia, 1968), p133
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 The Greek term for "observe" in Gal 4 is NOT the term used in Romans 14 that is also translated "observe". Rather in the unique Gal 4 case it means" to "watch with evil intent" and refers to something like the astrology practices seen today.
Lev 19 describes it in other Bile translations as –
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 "`Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood; neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe omens.(KJ21)
26You shall not eat anything with the blood; neither shall you use magic, omens, or witchcraft [or predict events by horoscope or signs and lucky days].(AMP)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So “instead” of the Gal 4 text addressing the popular notion of “obeying God’s Word when you don’t really have to if you don’t feel like it” – the Gal 4 text is condemning “observe” as in the pagan practice “...to inspect alongside" (i.e. to note insidiously). Where "Insidious" can be to "intended to entrap or beguile", or "stealthily treacherous or deceitful.
#2. God's Word did not command His people to "observe seasons or months".
#3. Using another word for “observance” -- The "observances of days" is mentioned in Romans 14 and the "Condemnation" there is against anyone who would "condemn" the "observances". Bending Gal 4 to point at the very practices employed in Romans 14 is a abusive example of eisegesis.
#4. In this case months and seasons are lumped in with days. The indication of a pagan system of practice is clearly - and repeatedly brought to view. Nothing here is ordained by God - established by God - given by God as a practice for God's people. It is utterly condemned as originating from pagan worship alone.
#5. Paul says this is “a return” and that they are “enslaved all over AGAIN” – these gentiles, these converted pagans – were never Jews. They are not returning to “salvation by keeping the Law of God” as something they “used to do”. This is simply “another” problem Paul is identifying among the Galatians that is in “Addition” to their problem with Judaizers
11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.
Here is the ultimate proof - this is a practice never to be defended (so it is not anything like the practices being defended in Romans 14) . It is a practice that invalidates the gospel, salvation lost for those who engage in returning to those pagan systems of worship - pagan practices.
The speculation that Paul defended this practice is Romans 14 as a practice not to be condemned - only shows the lengths to which some will go to launch an attack on the creator's own holy day (made holy by him when he created earth) - as he calls it the Sabbath day (not merely leaving it with a day-number God tells us the 7th day is the Sabbath of God).
Of course the fact that the Jews themselves - who lived in these pagan centers - had begun to incorporate these pagan practices into the Hebrew faith, only made the problem more difficult for gentile Christians.
See the clear teaching in Gal 4 that this is the "lost state" not a statement about the "Spiritual holy just and true Law of God" in its "unholy, unjust, untrue, unspiritual" form of "elemental things that pertain only to The World" and not god at all.
It is precisely "because" Paul always holds the Law of God to be "Spiritual" where man is "sinful" and to always be "Holy Just and true" where man is rebellious and to always be binding so that we are to be "DOERS of the LAW are justified before God" Rom2:13 that Paul can say "Do we then abolish the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31. How embarrassing for those doctrines that say "Yes! we DO abolish the Law of God - Now we just keep the commandments of Christ - a New Law not that old Law of God".
A short follow on to Gal 4 from Eric's reference -
#1. No text says that the Word of God is bondage.
#2. Gal 3 points out that the Law condemns ALL and that "Scripture places all under sin". Making God's LAW and Scripture - interchangeable. Indeed they are "The Word of God"
#3. Gal 04 references the practice of gentile Christians before their conversion of worshipping that "which is not god at all" and practices pertaining to the "Weak and beggarly things of this world".
#4. God's Word, God's Law, Scripture is never referenced as "a weak and beggarly thing" in all of scripture - much less by Paul.
#5. God's Word never says that obedience to the Word of God "is a form of slavery":.

#8. Christ the Creator's Holy day is never called "that which pertains to the weak and beggarly things of this world" in the NT or the OT.

#10 instead of saying "Our faith now declares Scripture God's Law to be of the weak and beggarly things of this World and obedience to it is returning to paganism" - Paul says "Do we then abolish the Law Of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we Establish the LAw of God!" Rom 3:31
This is all just copies of the same stuff you have said before, which I answered. How do you figure to answer me with the very statements that I was answering? You think your arguments are that infallible or "self-evident" or something?

Once again:

1) No one is calling the "word of God" or even "the Law" bondage, slavery, “The weak and elemental things of this World”, or “worthless” and “pertaining to that “which by nature is not God”. It was the Jews' condemned state trying to justify themselves by the works of the Law (without Christ) that was the bondage and the rest of those things. ***PLEASE NOTE THIS POINT AND STOP IGNORING IT!!! (and all were condemned, so your dichotomy of "the problem of Judaism ends here, and it is only the problems of paganism afterward" is manufactured).

2) "observe days and months and seasons and years" is NOT the same as "observe times" in Lev. Two totally different words in two totally different languages. You can't just pair things up like that without making sure it is the same thing.

3) the fact that "observe" in Gal. is “...to inspect alongside" (i.e. to note insidiously). Where "Insidious" can be to "intended to entrap or beguile", or "stealthily treacherous or deceitful", is the biggest proof of all, because it is the SAME WORD used for when the JEWS tried to "trap" both Jesus and Paul! There is NOTHING in the Greek AT ALL about "astrology"! Now are you saying the Jews used astrology to trap Jesus and Paul? Or was it the LAW they used?
Likewise, their WATCHing the NT Christians and juding them for not keeping OT laws was the same thing, as is those who continue to do it today!

4) Your schalars are only a handful, and do not make the majority. And your whole claim about "emperor worship" having "days and months and seasons" may or may not be true, but it is from extrabiblical sources, and cannot be used to decide an matter of interpretation such as this!. Scripture can interpret itself.

5) Nobody says there were only Jewish influences in the NT church. However, people do seem to think there were only pagan influences, and have underestimated the Jewish pressure and even persecution of Christians.

So put away your stock material and your sources and deal with these points only, and stop pretending not to even see them!
#6. God's Word never says "the New Moons feast days are made for mankind" - no are they included in the 10 commandments nor are they included in the pre-cross institutions given to mankind. "Whatever else" you may think of them.

#7. God's Word presents Christ the Creator's 7th day Sabbath as "Made for mankind" and "included" in the "10 commandments" as "continued even after the 2nd coming" in the New Earth and as "given before the sin of Adam" to all mankind.

#9. God's commandments are valid in the pre-cross NT text of MAtt, Mark, Luke John even by the most abusive doctrinal structures today. "Not repeated means deleted" fails there at the very start.

#11. Instead of saying "Being a DOER of God's LAW" is an optional choice and you should NOT expect others to obey it -- Paul says "IT is NOT the HEARERS of God's Law that are JUST before God but the DOERS will be Justified" Rom 2:13

Obviously this is a far cry from the eisegetical approach to Gal 04 that would claim that the "weak and beggarly things of this world" consist of a Christian who pays attention to the Law of God - because someone like Paul has said to him "IT is NOT the HEARERS of God's Law that are JUST before God but the DOERS will be Justified" Rom 2:13

#12. Christ said "If you LOVE Me KEEP My commandments" John 14:15 and John "continues" to show that same obligation in 1 John 2 and in Rev 12. Instead of turning and saying "no wait! To do as Christ commanded is now the Weak beggarly thing And this too is just more hot air that has been already repeately answered. No matter what you say, you basically pick and choose which aspects of the Law are still mandatory, and create a false dichotomy between the 10 and the rest, and you don't keep the fourth like it was to be done on the OT, and meanwhile you keep others outside the 10. God's Word never says "the dietary Laws are made for mankind" - no are they included in the 10 commandments nor are they included in the pre-cross institutions given to mankind". What a mess of contradiction. But you want to judge everyone else! Once again YOU are the one "watching with evil intent"! YOU keep the sabbath unto the Lord. If you can't do that without judging everyone else, then it is not about the Lord at all, but nothing but sinful pride. And you continuously have to LIE about God's Word being called paganism to get you accusations across. You need to repent of this instead of counting how many commandments others are keeping!

[ August 14, 2005, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]