Featured The Sabbath Law

As we both know there is nothing in Ps 118 telling David or his readers or anyone - to replace the 7th day as specified in the 4th commandment - with "week day 1".

Your attempt to eisegete in to the text - what is not even remotely there at all was already exposed.

Your summary of it -always includes the missing detail that was not available to you in the text itself - but it is yet another case of "you quoting you" to find the source and substance of support for your assumptions.

Your use of Ps 118 is a classic circular argument if ever there was one. Thus it serves your methods to refer to the text location - but never the text language.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I did respond to it - pointed out that you used tortured logic and eisegeted into the text all that you "wished it had said" without actually showing that any of your ideas were in fact IN the text itself about wee-day-1 being the new 4th commandment Sabbath or EVEN that week-day-1 is the Lord's Day.

Surely you "noticed".

Indeed you "inferred" a lot - but never showed that the text supported your highly creative, imaginative "out of whole cloth" inferences. So it was stuck at the point of blatant eisegesis.

And there "again" failed to show how a new Testament writer and Apostle such as Peter takes "this is the Lord's doing it is marvelous in our eyes" - then finally comes up with the missing-link statement "week day 1 is the Lord's Day" or "week-day-1 is the new 4th commandment Sabbath replacement" or any such thing.

BY CONTRAST

when you looked for near-NT authors that DID believe something like that - you show how they say - pretty much as you would.

So it is not as if these writers simply did not know how to say it when they actually believe it.

Thus the silence of the NT writers in making your claims by contrast to the loud insistence of it by other writers - who actually believe what you believe - is pretty hard to ignore.

Thus you keep "missing the point" but this is the elephant in the living for your eisegesis of Ps 118 and trying to put words into Peter's mouth.

in Christ,

Bob

 

wrong. No such statement in all of scripture to support it - so you "quote you". No six minute Sabbath, no six hour Sabbath, nor "Sabbath followed by six days" language in the Bible.

You simply make up whatever you need to make your case.

How convenient.

God selects the day - not man made tradition.

God did not say in Lev 23 that any of this replaces/edits/changes the 4th commandment Sabbath - which destroys your entire argument.

Were we "not supposed to notice"??


Then comes your most strained - most convoluted most bend-and-wrench of the text yet.

In all of that bending and wrenching NOTHING that says
"week-day-1 is the Lord's day"
"week-day-1 is the new 4th Commandment Sabbath"
"each week-day-1 is now Sabbath".

Sadly then - bending-wrenching of the text, combined with tortured logic and pure eisegesis - did not get you to the goal.

Were we "not supposed to notice"??

in Christ,

Bob

 

Ignatius pastor of Antioch and companion of the Apostles in about A.D. 70 says, (Writing about 100-118 AD)

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… Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James Editors, The Ante-Nicene Father’s, “Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians” Vol. I, p. 63
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthre...44#post2008344

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in A.D. 250 says,

The eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath is the Lord’s Day.
[FONT=&quot]http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=87193&page=12[/FONT]

You are using circular logic again.

1. In the quote above I contrast writers that want to make a statement about week-day-1 and the Lord's day - with your eisegete-bend-and-wrench of scripture where you try to bend scripture into saying what it does not say.

I point out that the difference between the NT text that is NOT saying what you "wished" and then finding some actual sources that do make some statements to your liking - is obvious. the NT text is not helping you - it is only the extrabiblical man-made-tradition sources that work somewhat in your favor.

2. The references above do not show "universal anything" so you once again "make it up".

3. You simply ignore the elephant in the living room - which is that even THESE "tradition" sources - are not using the term "Sabbath" to refer to week-day-1 ---- Which is your whole argument so far!!

4. You are using the "straw man" that no error - no man-made-tradition could arise before Constantine - which is not an argument I have ever agreed with. It is another fiction you apparently use in your collection of myths for this topic.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"? -- again??

in Christ,

Bob

 

Heeee Hee Hee Hee ... Hoooo Ho Ho Ho ... Haaaa Ha Ha Ha ...

Save your resourcefulness for the last day, chum!

 

Most obvious - not blunder but - bluffer, is this one,
<<Name and number in connection with six working days before and after ...>> re: <<...before and after>>
There is NOTHING in all Scripture like this nonsensical hallucination.
The real thing is six days work and after the six days of man's work comes GOD'S Rest-Day: Name-by-number: by Scripture: "the day The Seventh Day Sabbath-Rest-Day of the LORD GOD".

You fail to see that the number is the name of the day: “the day The Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD GOD”.

What you do not see is that the name of the day not necessarily is the number of the day, but that ‘rest-day’ or ‘sabbath’ can be merely a day to rest on—a day not necessarily or specifically the day-the-Seventh-Day-to-rest-on-OF-THE-WEEK.

Therefore <the principle>, <<The application varies because the principle is sufficient broad to include the various applications>>, is just your own fabricated whim to provide in the arbitrary needs of your scheming aiming at scoring the <<first day "of the week">> at the cost of the ONLY valid application by law or principle of law of “The Seventh Day Sabbath”.

 

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Ignatius pastor of Antioch and companion of the Apostles in about A.D. 70 says, (Writing about 100-118 AD)

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… Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James Editors, The Ante-Nicene Father’s, “Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians” Vol. I, p. 63
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthre...44#post2008344

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in A.D. 250 says,

The eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath is the Lord’s Day.
[FONT=&quot]http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=87193&page=12[/FONT]



You are using circular logic again.

1. In the quote above I contrast writers that want to make a statement about week-day-1 and the Lord's day - with your eisegete-bend-and-wrench of scripture where you try to bend scripture in Ps 118 into saying the first day of the week is the Lord's Day or more specifically in your case "the first day of the week is the Sabbath of the 4th commandment"

I point out that the difference between the NT text that is NOT saying what you "wished" and then finding some actual sources in church tradition that do make some statements to your liking - is obvious. the NT text is not helping you - it is only the extrabiblical man-made-tradition sources that work somewhat in your favor.

2. The references above do not show "universal anything" so you once again "make it up".

3. You simply ignore the elephant in the living room - which is that even THESE "tradition" sources - are not using the term "Sabbath" to refer to week-day-1 ---- Which is your whole argument so far!!

4. You are using the "straw man" that no error - no man-made-tradition could arise before Constantine - which is not an argument I have ever agreed with. It is another fiction you apparently use in your collection of myths for this topic.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"? -- again??

Indeed. Because

1. Mark 2:28 says Christ is "LORD of the Sabbath"
2. Is 58:13 calls the Sabbath the "Holy Day of the Lord"
3. There IS NO other text specifying another day for "The LORD's Day" in all of scripture
4. Thus the weekly Seventh day is given honor in title and name as not only "Sabbath" but also as "Holy Day of the Lord" and Christ being "Lord of the Sabbath" - no such honorary name ever associated with the weekly cycle of week-day-1 in all of scripture.

Your wild claim above that applying these two texts to the Rev 1:10 text of the "LORD's day" - as being an example of "circular reasoning" on the part of SDAs - falls flat.

(Or where you about to "Quote you" again to support your own accusation - in yet another example of circular reasoning?)

No place in OT or NT where week-day-1 is called Lord's day or Sabbath - in a repeating weekly cycle.

"They" in this case not being one single Bible writer.

"They" in this case being questionable sources where even a half dozen or so of Ignatius of Antioch's supposed letters are agreed to be forgeries.

"They" in this case being sources that appear AFTER the first century.

"They" in this case being the primary source for man-made-tradition.

Or where we simply "not supposed to notice"??

Hint: The RCC itself "Noticed"

The appeal to man-made-tradition over the Bible to make your case - is specifically noticed by the Catholic Church. Pretty hard to miss actually.

in Christ,

Bob

 

And obviously that last point brings us to ---


Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of Godin order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER';(Exodus 20:12) and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

 

Most obvious - not blunder but - bluffer, is this one,
<<Name and number in connection with six working days before and after ...>> re: <<...before and after>>
There is NOTHING in all Scripture like this nonsensical hallucination.
The real thing is six days work and after the six days of man's work comes GOD'S Rest-Day: Name-by-number: by Scripture: "the day The Seventh Day Sabbath-Rest-Day of the LORD GOD".

You fail to see that the number is the name of the day—the ONLY number-name of the ‘rest-day’ which is “the (ONLY) day The Seventh Day-Sabbath of the LORD GOD”.

You fail to see “the day The Seventh Day Sabbath=Rest Day of the LORD GOD” is “THE Sabbath-Rest day” “BESIDES”, OTHER, ‘rest-days / sabbaths’ of Israel’s ‘feasts’, in particular the “rest day / sabbath” of the passover


You fail to see the ‘rest-days / sabbaths’ of Israel’s ‘feasts’, in particular the “rest day / sabbath” of the passover, is in Exodus 12:14 for the ONLY time DATED “on the fourteenth day of the First Month”.

You fail to see the “rest day / sabbath” of the passover already had become “the fifteenth day of the First Month” in Exodus 12:1,41.

You fail to see “the fifteenth day of the First Month” in Leviticus 23:6 Numbers 33:3; 28:16,17

—which “fifteenth day of the First Month” you fail to see forty years later, in Deuteronomy 27:9-11.

You fail to see this “fifteenth day of the First Month”, “this day” in Deuteronomy 27:2, 9-11, a little later in Deuteronomy 32:48, “the selfsame BONE-day”.

You fail to see this “fifteenth day of the First Month” became “the fifteenth day of the First Month” in Josua 5:11—“the selfsame BONE-day” on which Israel ate unleavened cakes IN the Promised Land.


What you fail to see, is, that a descriptive word for any supposed day NEED NOT BE ITS NAME AT ALL, like in Leviticus 11,15,16, “the sabbath” in the phrase, “the day after the sabbath=rest-day” of the passover. Because the real name of this “rest-day // sabbath” of the passover’s was “The Feast”; and ‘feast’ means ‘to EAT’; and during passover “The Feast Day” was “Day of Unleavened Bread Eaten”. “Day of Unleavened Bread Eaten”—in fact “The First Day (of) Unleavened Bread” Exodus 12:15B—, is the actual NAME of “the rest-day // sabbath” of the passover’s “seven days you must EAT unleavened bread.”

What you do not see is that the name of the day not necessarily is the number of the day, but that ‘rest-day’ or ‘sabbath’ can be merely “A DAY TO REST ON”—a day not necessarily or specifically the day-the-Seventh-Day-to-rest-on-OF-THE-WEEK : by the ‘principle-of-Law’ of the Fourth of the ‘Ten Commandments’, but “a day to rest on” <<APART FROM>> “the day The Seventh Day SABBATH-OF-THE-LORD-GOD”.

What you do not see is that <the principle>, <<The application varies because the principle is sufficient broad to include the various applications>>, is just your own fabricated whim to provide in the arbitrary needs of your scheming aiming at scoring the <<first day "of the week">> at the cost of the ONLY valid application by law or principle of law of “The Seventh Day Sabbath”.

 

Dear Bob, your signature-line, <<John 8:32 "The Truth shall make you free">>

Why your fears for the truth?
Why your preference for the untruth?

You animadversion is so good!

But it is wanting in courage.

You kick against the sharp nails of God’s TRUTH with every effort you make to AVOID to FACE the TRUTH, or try to side-step it with every VAIN attempt of yours to NEGATE the obvious from the Old Testament and the eye-hitting apparent reality of its fulfilment in Jesus Christ in the New Testament.
For Christ’s ROSE from the dead, “SABBATHS”—“Sabbath’s-time”, “IN the Sabbath”, “ON the Sabbath”, “in the FULLNESS-of-the-Sabbath” having FULFILLED “all the Scriptures concerning the Christ that He had to SUFFER-PASSOVER.”

 

It’s so frivolous and callous I enjoy answering your post with no post.

 

jesus said that whoever receives Him thru faith as their Messiah already have passed over from death to life, have eternal life now, wonder why he forgot to add in, also those who keep sabbath day?

 

Amazing that you can with a straight face quote traditions of men to Him, while you hold to the false teaching on the Sabbath binding to NT saints of your false Prophetess Ellen White!