How?
<At the cross> like my blind old Dachshuendchen stops against an unexpected object placed in her way?
No; thus nothing ended—nothing of “The Sabbath-OF-THE-LORD-GOD”, what of <<the Saturday Sabbath>> that never existed except in the strange minds of Sabbath-Law applicants.
There’s no Law to apply to see The Living WORD-LAW-OF-GOD JESUS CHRIST made an end of ON, the cross. THAT was the ONLY <<Old Covenant APPLICATION of the Sabbath PRINCIPLE>> seen ‘LIVE’ as were it seen ‘LIVE’ on TV screen.
But I cannot see behind the ‘LIVE’-visible; sorry. I see Jesus Christ crucified and his life being obliterated as were it all the leaven from the land of The Living.
Yes, often I am forced to <apply> allegory instead of Law. Because Law cannot go beyond Law; it must stop exist BEFORE the cross. Only the Living God is seen ON the cross. What goes on the cross goes on it IN HIM. What goes into the grave goes into it IN HIM. IN HIM death and grave are conquered and IN HIM is raised from it THAT WHICH IS OF THE LORD. What is “co-raised in and together with Christ” must have been “co-buried-in-death in and together with Christ.” If the Sabbath was not “co-buried-in-death in and together with Christ”, the Sabbath could not and was not “co-raised in and together with Christ”.
Is Sunday seen, “co-buried-in-death in and together with Christ”?
That’s the question you should ask and answer before you try any argument that Sunday is the Lord’s Day! Sunday or the First Day of the week was never, and was never foretold, to die and be taken into oblivion in and together with Jesus Christ; so it can NEVER take the Sabbath’s place that was killed and was taken out of the way and was made to nothing in Christ and together with Him on the cross.
That leaves you with whichever application of the Law you depend most on for your Sunday sacredness, not even on the side-line; it leaves you out of the picture completely. Not the worst allegory even can serve the good of Sunday worship.
The Sabbath was not Changed
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by BobRyan, Jun 29, 2013.
Page 15 of 15
-
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
-
This is why your theology so often falls apart.
By your own admission it is "a forced allegory."
Do you know who first came up with the allegorical method of interpreting the Bible?
It was the heretic, Origen. Even the RCC admitted that he was a heretic. He was considered the father of Arianism.
Yet you interpret the Bible the same way he did, the inventor of this method of interpretation. And then, the one who popularized this method--allegorization--is none other than Augustine--one of the founders of the RCC. No wonder the RCC can get away with so many man-made doctrines. One can believe anything they want to when they are able to allegorize the Bible.
But when you take things literally, it is hard to believe that these things are taking place now:
Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
Does the wolf dwell with the lamb at the present time?
Does the sucking child play on the hole of the asp?
This doesn't happen now, as you well know. But when Christ comes and lifts the curse from this sin-sickened world, then these things will be possible. Perfect harmony will return to this earth. For there will be no more curse.
We do not live in the Millennial Kingdom now.
Christ must come first. The Bible does speak of a thousand year reign when these things will happen, on this earth, not a new earth.
-
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
Therein that DHK declares,
<<This is why your theology so often falls apart.
By your own admission it is "a forced allegory."
Do you know who first came up with the allegorical method of interpreting the Bible?
It was the heretic, Origen. Even the RCC admitted that he was a heretic. He was considered the father of Arianism.
Yet you interpret the Bible the same way he did, the inventor of this method of interpretation. And then, the one who popularized this method--allegorization--is none other than Augustine--one of the founders of the RCC. No wonder the RCC can get away with so many man-made doctrines. One can believe anything they want to when they are able to allegorize the Bible. >>
...therefore it seems for basis of his theology, he chooses for the Law.
Ah well; 'It's everybody's choice' as they say.
On the other hand ... therein that DHK declares,
<<But when you take things literally, it is hard to believe that these things are taking place now:
[/SIZE]
Isaiah 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
Does the wolf dwell with the lamb at the present time?
Does the sucking child play on the hole of the asp?
This doesn't happen now, as you well know. But when Christ comes and lifts the curse from this sin-sickened world, then these things will be possible. Perfect harmony will return to this earth. For there will be no more curse.
We do not live in the Millennial Kingdom now.
Christ must come first. The Bible does speak of a thousand year reign when these things will happen, on this earth, not a new earth.>>
... therefore it seems for basis of his theology, DHK prefers allegory!
-
Gerhard Ebersoehn Active MemberSite Supporter
Never mind.
To close, Augustine did not stay a RC!
Why don't you tell that?
Perhaps because he joined a Sabbatharian sect?
Now bring it all together:
Why do people have a dislike in Free Grace? Because they are taught what villains the great teachers of Free Grace were.
By the way, 'Biblical allegory' is good.
How does one know if allegory is Biblical and when, evil?
When allegory lifts Christ Jesus out from the pages of Holy Writ, it is good and lawful; maybe required.
When with illustration and proof "from the Scriptures" allegory lifts man above or equal with God—'LIKE God'—, it is bad, unlawful and evil; and never necessary.
Please show me if I sank to that level.
Allegory is like a good gun in a bad guy's hands ... There I go with my <allegorization> again! Can't help it; got so accustomed to it.
-
Origen lived in the fourth century, and Augustine well after that. If Origen was the first one to come up with the allegorical method, then what did the Apostles use, and what did their followers use, and the other earlier ECF use? It wasn't the allegorical method of interpretation was it?
-
You make the 7 day Creation of earth and mankind - nothing more than "JEWISH" as if Adam were created by Abraham as a JEW.
Your bible bending in that case - is beyond belief.
Hopefully you knew that.
in Christ,
Bob -
Sabbath was not changed in the Bible , but was changed after the Bible was complete.
Lord's day of Re 1:10 was Sabbath as Jesus was Lord of Sabbath, Sabbath was Jehovah's day.
1 Cor 16:2 the first day of the week was the day on which the believers had to save the money At Home.
Many translation omit (e auto) but Darby correctly reflected it.
Acts 20:7 was the saturday evening which was the first day of the week by Jewish calender. Next day (Sunday) Paul took a journey
Women kept the Sabbath just before His resurrection, then suddenly changed the Sabbath without notice?
Do we proclaim His resurrection until He comes, or His Death?
Read 1 Cor 11:26. -
The resurrection is proclaimed every time we meet, and every time the gospel is shared.
The early church met daily and proclaimed the resurrection every day. No one day was more important than another. -
Jews used to have Habdala in the evening of Sabbath and in the Habdala they had Lord's Supper as well.
Habdala was a kind of house warming party for the members of congregation which was mentioned in Jude 12.
Therefore Acts 20:7 cannot be the proof of Sunday wordhip.
Sunday worship gained the power only after Constantine, Pope Sylvester, Laodicean Council. -
Rev 1:10 is a good example of a text that makes no mention at all of week-day-1.
1 Cor 16:2 mentions week-day-1 but says nothing about it being a day of worship -- or the Lord's Day.
Acts 20:7 may well have been Saturday evening which was the first day of the week by Jewish calender. Next day (Sunday) Paul took a journey. And the problem is that Paul's travel on Sunday was a distinct example of not keeping it as a holy day - of rest and worship.
Women kept the Sabbath just before His resurrection, then suddenly changed the Sabbath without notice?
in Christ,
Bob -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
I've been away for a while and I was looking over these "Sabbath" debates from one Youtube video with a supposed Bishop (not sure he's even Catholic or someone dressed up as one or a Crack pot Bishop which I admit Catholics have their Crack pot bishops like Baptist have their crack pot preachers) and I had to laugh. The fact is the Sabbath is from Friday evening to Saturday evening. Always has been. The question is why and when did Christians start worshiping on Sunday which is the first day of the week. I've seen some nonsense written about it but what is the truth? Well, I'll tell you. It happened very early in the Christian Church probably during the time of the Apostles we have a witness to this practice from Ignatius of Antioch
-
Church of God
Messianic Jews
Seventh day Baptists
SDA
There were millions, millions of Christians gathering on Sabbaths before Ellen White was born.
As for Ignatius, Eusebius and Jerome testified there were 7 epistles written by him, but in15-17 century there started to be 15 epistles.
Basically the portion of the epistle related to Sabbath was interpolated.
Such fabrication might have been done by RCC as they contain Mary Worship also.
As for Justin Martyr, he was a kind of the excommunicated from Eastern assemblies at that time. He also admitted that the most of the churches in the Eastern part of Rome gathered on Sabbaths, kept the Holy Days, ate Unleavened Bread, which he didn’t want to.
Ignatius Misquoted
The epistles of Ignatius, so often quoted in behalf of first-day observance, next claim our attention. Concerning Ignatius and his epistles Neander writes:--
“Ignatius, bishop of the church at Antioch, is said, in the reign of Trajan, to have been conveyed as a prisoner to Rome, where he was expecting to be thrown to the wild beasts. On the way, he is said to have written seven epistles.” 35
Eusebius and Jerome enumerate seven Ignatian epistles, but in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries this number was swelled to fifteen, among them two letters to the apostle John and one to the Virgin Mary. Although these epistles “swarm with offences against history and chronology,” yet the Catholics at first accepted them all as genuine. Calvin condemned the whole lot as “abominable trash“ 36
The later Catholics surrendered at least eight as utterly untenable. But of the remaining seven, a shorter Greek recension was discovered in a Latin version by Archbishop Usher, 1644, and in Greek by Isaak Vossius, from a Medicean Codex in 1646. Henceforth the longer recension, which had thus far been about the only one known, was generally set aside even by Catholic scholars, as interpolated. But when in 1839 and 1843 a Syriac version was found, containing only the epistles to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans, and even these in a much reduced form, a number of scholars insisted that, if any, they only were genuine.
As to the character of their contents, the Magdeburg centuriators protested that “there were such terrible things intermingled with the text as to horrify the reader.” 37 Mosheim remarks as follows:--
“A regard for truth requires it to be acknowledged that so considerable a degree of obscurity hangs over the question respecting the authenticity of not only a part, but the whole, of the epistles ascribed to Ignatius, as to render it altogether a case of much intricacy and doubt.” 38
Neander says of the shorter edition:--
“Even the briefer revision, which is the one most entitled to confidence, has been very much interpolated.” 39
Schaff makes the following explicit statement concerning the contents and genuineness of the Ignatian epistles:--
“In the ‘catholic church’--an expression introduced by him--that is, the Episcopal orthodox organization of his day, the author sees, as it were, the continuation of the mystery of the incarnation, on the reality of which he laid great emphasis against the Docetists; and in every bishop, a visible representative of Christ, and a personal center of ecclesiastical unity, which he presses home upon his readers with the greatest solicitude and almost passionate zeal,” “. Here lies the chief importance of these epistles; and the cause of their high repute with catholics and prelatists, and their unpopularity with anti-episcopalians, and modern critics of the more radical school. .”
“It is remarkable that the idea of the Episcopal hierarchy…should be first clearly and boldly brought out, not by the contemporary Roman bishop Clement, but by a bishop of the Eastern Church; though it was transplanted by him to the soil of Rome. And there sealed with his martyr blood. Equally noticeable is the circumstance that these oldest, documents of the hierarchy soon became so interpolated, curtailed, and mutilated by pious fraud that it is today almost impossible to discover with certainty the genuine Ignatius of history under the hyper- and pseudo- Ignatius of tradition.”40
Doubtful as the seven Ignatian epistles, even in their shorter version, may seem, for they stand side by side on the same manuscripts with decidedly spurious epistles, yet as one of them is often adduced in favor of Sunday, we will consider it. The passage often used occurs in the epistle to the Magnesians, chapters 8 and 9: To guard against the charge of a wrong rendering, we quote the text as it is given in the noted Bampton lectures by J.A. Hessey:--
“Be not deceived with heterodox opinions, nor old, unprofitable fables. For if we still live according to Judaism, we confess that we have not received grace. For even the most holy prophets lived according to Jesus Christ…..
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/historyofsabbath/hos_thirteen.html
Justin Martyr
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/church-history/justin-martyr-important-saint-or-important-apostate/ -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
Now to get to your accusation about my quotation which I find ludicrous. Let me explain why. Here is your first insinuation.
Your next argument is long winded and partly built off your initial argument that its based on newer writings ascribed to Ignatius. However, Your quotes and references ignore scholarly reviews since the 1700's as if new discoveries like the dead sea scrolls had not occurred since then giving us a better picture of the writings of the times. First the letter I quoted wasn't quoted from the spurious long recension. Which was argued over during the Reformation. Since those arguments these discoveries have been made a sole surviving Greek text was found which is "almost universally accepted and recognized as authentic" - Andrew Louth Early Christian Writings p.52. In 1845 a Syriac manuscript was discovered and also Armenian and Coptic translations were found. And once again I must remind you that the letter I quoted from is one of the seven attested to and not a spurious letter of a later period. The authenticity of the letter I quoted is generally recognized. I refer you to these specialist Chadwick,H, "The silence of Bishops in Ignatius," Harvard theological review 1950; Corwin, V. "St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch", Hew Haven 1960; Perler, O. "Das vierte Makkabaerbuch , Ignatius von Antiochein und die altesten, Martyrerberitchte", Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 1949; Richardson, C. C. "The Christianity of Ignatius of Antioch". 1935
The Translation I used is from Maxwell Staniforth.
In the end Ignatius provides a solid explanation as why Christian worship on Sunday. -
As I am going to the work I didn’t read thru yours thoroughly, but please allow me to answer as follows:
Before Ellen White, there were so many groups of Believers who kept the worship service on Sabbath ( not the full Sabbath keepers but at least the worship day was Saturday)
They were Albigenes, Waldensians, Anabaptists ( not all of them but some of them). You can be sure to find this fact.
As for Ignatius, even the portion of the epistle testified by Eusebius and Jerome must have been Interpolated.
Please read the following.
IGNATIUS’S SPURIOUS EPISTLES STILL MORE INTERPOLATED
Justin Edwards demonstrates how the second link of this chain has been forged. After assuming that when John the revelatory spoke of the Lord’s day, all Christians knew that it was the day of the resurrection, on which they were to meet, he continues:
Hence Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, A.D. 101 only about half a dozen years after the death of the apostle, speaks of the Lord’s day familiarly and without explanation, as if everybody understood it. And he gives this title to the first day of the week exactly after the manner of the apostle himself. ‘Let us (Christians) no more Sabbatize,’ he says, --that is, keep the seventh day, as the Jews did--’but let us keep the Lord’s day,’ ‘Let everyone that loves Christ keep holy the Lord’s Day, the queen of days, the resurrection day, the highest of all days.’” 30
As usual, Justin Edwards saves himself the trouble of giving the reference. Had he done so, his deception would have been evident, viz., that the above statements which, seemingly, fit together so nicely, are fabricated in this manner: First, he suppresses the phrase in the shorter version of the epistle to the Magnesians, “living according to the Lord’s life;” secondly, he substitutes for it, from the enlarged and still worse interpolated version manufactured probably in the fourth century, the term, “celebrate the Lord’s day;” and, finally to strengthen it, he joins the rest of the statement from the enlarged version to his own interpolated shorter version.
Dr. Edwards, we are sorry to say, is not the only one who has done this kind of work. A number of writers are guilty of this sort of deception, and among them must be included Archbishop Wake, in his translation of the Fathers, which is thus ably reviewed by Cox:--
“There is, however, in the original no word or phrase which corresponds to the phrase ‘the Lord’s day,’ or to the word ‘ keeping:’ the literal translation is, ‘No longer observing Sabbaths, but living according to the Lord’s life, [Greek phrase] in which also our life is sprung up’. Indeed, the archbishop admits, in a note, that this translation would be correct; while his own is by many thought inconsistent, not only with the expressions in the original, but with the whole scope of the passage. (See Domville, I, 241-251; and Powell in Kitto’s Cyclop,II, 270, first edition.)
“To such an extent have the epistles of Ignatius been corrupted by interpolation (see Chevallier, Introd. 43-54). That even those considered genuine (among which is the one above quoted) were suspected by Lardner and Beausobre to have been tampered with (Domville, vol. I, 241), and have recently been pronounced by Mr. Cureton (with whom Lipsius agrees) to have been copiously interpolated for the same dogmatically purposes which prompted to the forgery of four of the seven, and by the same forging hand. (Cureton’s Corpus Ignatianum, London, 1849; and Lipsius in Jour, of the Historico-Theological Society of Germany for 1856). But not to insist upon this, it is more important to mention that a passage still frequently quoted in popular treatises from one of the epistles as genuine, has for two centuries past been rejected by every scholar as spurious. The words are:
Let us therefore no longer observe Sabbaths after the manner of the Jews: 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 lover of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week].
[See Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesia’s] 31
It is sad enough that writings of such men as Ignatius, and others of the post apostolic period, have been thus shamefully interpolated for “dogmatically purposes,” -- in this instance manifestly to smuggle in Sunday as the Lord’s day. But is it not still more wicked to interpolate, and to misquote their compositions, with the avowed purpose of making null and void the direct commands of the divine Word of God? That there was not only one instance of this, and that interpolation has been frequently perpetrated, Cox plainly shows, giving instances such as that of the above-mentioned Bishop Wilson, and others. How long this has been going on, and how early it was reproved, is seen fro the correspondence between Dr. Priestley and E. Evanson, near the end of the eighteenth century. Dr. Priestley had, in his Theological Repository, published at Birmingham in 1786 and 1788, given this very quotation from Ignatius, as “keeping the Lord’s day”. In consequence of this, Mr. Evanson wrote to him as follows:
But pray, good sir, by what rules of construction do you translate [the Greek phrase] as ‘keeping’. The only meaning of those two Greek words that I am acquainted with is ‘living according to’. And if the word [Greek word] be allowed to be part of the original sentence, the phrase ‘living according to the Lord’s life,’ viz., the spiritual life he now lives in heaven, is perfectly intelligible, and much of the same kind with what we meet with in several places of the canonical epistles, particularly in that to the Colossians, chapter 3. But if the phrase ‘living according to the Lord’s day’ has any meaning at all, it is entirely beyond my comprehension.” 32
Much more might be said to show up the improper use of the writings of Ignatius; but the reader will readily concede that enough has been brought forward to show that this second link in the chain to connect the Lord’s day of John with the Sunday Lord’s day of tradition, will not hold.
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/historyofsabbath/hos_fourteen.html -
After 30 pages this thread needs to close.
Page 15 of 15