Opposing the 7th day Sabbath of the Lord Thy God

Recall my list of "we all can agree on this" --

You are making an assertion - you are not making a "sola scriptura" Bible statement of fact.

The whole point here is to take whatever assertions the various points of view would like to promote and then to show that they actually have some "substance in scripture".

In My list of "we all agree that" -- I simply point to "some" of the "substance in scripture" that in fact we "all agree to".

The idea is to get that tiny bit out in the oppen so that we are not left thnking "well I guess we really don't agree on anything when it comes to this topic".

That is a circular argument. You are saying "given my assumption as the starting point of proofs -- then we can take the bible and try to work it into my assumption".

I don't know that Exegesis really works that way. You are reasong "from conclusion to a retro-fit of scripture".

in Christ,

Bob

 

See - that is the point.

IF we want a "sola scriptura" discussion we can not "start with conclusion" and then "Reason from there to a point of retro-fitting scripture into our starting conclusions".

Rather we have to "Start with Scripture".

I was simply suggesting a start on "things that we will all agree with" then move out from there to less agreed upon points to "FIND" the right conclusoin.

in Christ,

Bob

 

One can hardly deny that almost every Christian will hear at least once a month "we meet this Lord's Day" or "see you next Lord's Day" or "we will meet this coming Lord's Day" etc etc.

Nothing new there for a group that actually BELIEVES that week-day one IS the Lord's day to see this common frequent often expressed idea JUST as we see it today.

In the same way the the RCC continually speaks of Mary as sinless and of the immaculate heart, immaculate conceptoin, the phrase "Mary Mother of God" ubiquitous in all RC documents that reference her --

And yet not ONE MENTION of either of these concepts in actual scripture. The point is that WHEN those who clearly TEACH a certain doctrine give expression to it often and frequently in a certain "predictable way" such that the salient points of their doctrine is in fact "stated" then we are being reasonable to note IF it turns out that bible authors coming to that SAME point of discussion make no mention AT ALL of the salient points being "assumed" in modern times.

In the case of "week day one" a Sabbath keeping Christian such as myself will "on occassion" attend a Church service "on week day one". Since I do not consider it "the Lord's Day" I would never say "I met on week day one -- the Lord's day" and since a church meeting that is "weekly" on "week day one" is ALSO not part of my practice I would not mention "meeting on week-day one week after week in memorial of Christ's resurrection".

So my practice TODAY is STILL consistent with the way that you see this day "week day one" always referenced in the NT. Whereas those who today believe that "week day one" is the "Lord's day" almost NEVER say "we are meeting next Week-day-one" but rather "Next Lord's Day" or "we are gathered here once again on this Lord's Day to ..."

I.e. it all makes perfect sense in the way we use the terms -- given a belief one way or the other on this topic.

Yet "curiously" the Bible writers are just using the ONE WAY of reference that a "Sabbath observant" Christian would use... How odd.

So they could not say the same thing of "The Lord's Day" (if one is to consider that week-day-one IS the Lord's Day) that Christians say today ALL the time???

I don't follow your argument there.

BOTH the Sabbath Keeping Christians AND the week-day-one Keeping Christians are referencing it the SAME way today.

BOTH groups have monthly if not weekly reminders that "we are gathered here this Sabbath day to ..." (if the group is Sabbath keeping) or "we are gathere here this Lord's Day" (if the group is week-day-one keeping).

Even in the NT we see Sabbath meeting mentioned as Sabbath meetings in Acts 13 and Acts 17 NOT as "Week-day-7 meetings".

You appear to argue that giving the day a title of honor like "The Lord's Day" would convey inappropriate honor or meaning for the day.

I don't find that to be true among Christians today - no reluctance at all to refer to Sunday as "The Lord's Day".

Tell me if you find that Christians are not inclined to use that term in your area of the country.

I simply see no reluctance at all in that regard among Sunday Churches.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Fine - then feel free to go ahead and point to even one other instance of that greek phrase in a context where it is agreed to mean "take up a collection in a public meeting" if you are going to make the case that this meaning is not limited to the Acts 20 case to get your POV to work.

As I said -- the Sunday Keeping Bible theologian Albert Barnes makes a great linguistic case that this means "By himself at home".

Thus showing that "EVEN among Sunday keeping Christians" -- there is not agreement on the point you are trying to make from Acts 20. Therefore as a "Sabbath keeping Christian" it is very likely that I would take up "at least the level of objecting" to the strained interpretation that "by himself" is to be interpreted as "go to a public meeting and take up a collection" as a Sunday Keeping Bible teacher is taking to that solution.

My stated on "all agree" has to do with the fact that EVEN given your argument - you have found no place other than Acts 20 where this meaning could possibly be given to these words.

Yet Mal 3 is not an example of the greek phrase (not repeated here for the sake of brevity) in Acts 20 being used to mean "engage in a public meeting and take up a collection".

in Christ,

Bob

 

In my "we can all agree" posts -- I am sticking with the facts in the text and leaving the "interpretation/explanation/word-smithing/spin-doctoring" for other parts of the discussion as various people have interest.

The point was to come out with the "undisputed facts" and I think (given your lack of dispute on any one of those actual facts" that you are in agreement even if "reluctantly so". Correct me if I am wrong - but I believe you have yet to point to a single fact in the "all agree" list that you don't actuall agree with.

Actually My Gen 2:3 "we all agree that" statement was simply what we find in that text -- that on the actual 7th day of Creation week "the event" that take place on THAT day is the Act of God in making the day Holy, Set aside, Sanctified.

One can easily add to that - as you appear to do above -- from the Exodus 20 statement spoken by God that this day was made in Gen 2 for mankind as a day of rest and as a blessing. I think that is a valid point.

I was not making it because I know that some would not agree to take it to that next logical step and I was trying to stick with a bare minimum "we all agree with" list as a data point to get out on the table.

True. And so the conclusion "bad man" not "bad Bible" , not "Bad memorial"

We can not negate the Word of God by saying "yes but bad-man later did this".

For example in the dark ages the RCC enjoyed the idea of persecuting Jews who refused the Gospel -- or who yielded to pressure to convert to Christianity then returned to Judiasm -- under the Bible guise that "Christ is the only way of salvation" --

So even though we argue AGAINST their errors in the dark ages we STILL agree with scripture that Christ is STILL the only way of salvation.

Simply arguing "Yes but the RCC did bad things using that idea" -- does not change the truth of the original Bible doctrine.

Persecution arose over "forms of Baptism" over refusal to baptize infants, refusal to pray to Mary, the correct teaching on the bread during communion

Yet EVEN though wrong use was made of these various underlying Bible doctrines - the RCC spin on it --did not negate the truth of the underlying doctrine any more than the Jewish spin negated the underlying Bible truths that they were using as disquise for their man-made traditions.

in Christ,

Bob

in Christ,

Bob

 

I realize you are kind of married to the "lying" argument in your posts --

But "the obvious" point is that I am free to argue that "it is at the very least CONSISTENT" to accept TCGreek's statement that Christ obeyed that actual Sabbath of the actual 4th commandment while He was here on earth and to say that when I follow Christ in that regard that shows a level of consistency with the point John makes in 1John 2 that Christians "should WALK as Jesus walked" --

Your following along saying "that is a lie" is neither logical nor well reasoned.

The point remains -- it is at least "a consistent" position to observe as TCGreek did that Christ KEPT the Sabbath and so if I also happen to choose to "walk as Jesus Walked" in regard to that one specific aspect of the Law of God -- it is not a bit "inconsistent".

Nor can we argue that it is out of step with Paul's instruction to the Corinthian church in 1Cor 7. "But what matters is keeping the commandments of God"

Some find it shocking that Paul might say to the church at Corinth –
1Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.