Sabbath-Keeping

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Phoneman777 said:
You should know that some new Bible versions translate Acts 20:7, "On the SATURDAY NIGHT, the disciples came together..."

This is due to the fact that most scholars know that a Bible day begins and ends with sunset, so what we read in Acts 20:7 KJV is that the seventh day Sabbath sun was setting and the first day of the week was beginning at which time the disciples came together to eat with Paul and listen to him preach for what many thought would be the last time they'd see him. His preaching went on well into the night which is why Eutychus fell down and died. Paul revived him, went back up to continue eating and preaching and finally when the sun came up (what we'd call Sunday morning) Paul left on a 30 mile foot journey to Troas. No Sunday morning service at all and no hint that Paul considered it sacred by virtue of his decision to walk 30 miles on that day.

The reason for the passage is not to identify a new day of worship, but to chronicle the miracle of the resurrection of Eutychus, but the passage is misused so much to try and establish Sunday sacredness that the miracle is often just an almost overlooked byword.
Phoneman,

One of the foremost N T Greek grammarians of the 20th century was the Dr A T Robertson. He focusses on the issues In Acts 20:7. This is from A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (1930. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, pp 338-340, available at: StudyLight.org),

Acts 20:7

Upon the first day of the week (εν δε μιαι των σαββατων — en de miāi tōn sabbatōn). The cardinal μιαι — miāi used here for the ordinal πρωτηι — prōtēi (Mark 16:9) like the Hebrew ehadh as in Mark 16:2; Matthew 28:1; Luke 24:1; John 20:1 and in harmony with the Koiné{[28928]}š idiom (Robertson, Grammar, p. 671). Either the singular (Mark 16:9) σαββατου — sabbatou or the plural σαββατον — sabbaton as here was used for the week (sabbath to sabbath). For the first time here we have services mentioned on the first day of the week though in 1 Corinthians 16:2 it is implied by the collections stored on that day. In Revelation 1:10 the Lord‘s day seems to be the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the grave. Worship on the first day of the week instead of the seventh naturally arose in Gentile churches, though John 20:26 seems to mean that from the very start the disciples began to meet on the first (or eighth) day. But liberty was allowed as Paul makes plain in Romans 14:5.

When we were gathered together (συνηγμενων ημων — sunēgmenōn hēmōn). Genitive absolute, perfect passive participle of συναγω — sunagō to gather together, a formal meeting of the disciples. See this verb used for gatherings of disciples in Acts 4:31; Acts 11:26; Acts 14:27; Acts 15:6, Acts 15:30; Acts 19:7, Acts 19:8; 1 Corinthians 5:4. In Hebrews 10:25 the substantive επισυναγωγην — episunagōgēn is used for the regular gatherings which some were already neglecting. It is impossible for a church to flourish without regular meetings even if they have to meet in the catacombs as became necessary in Rome. In Russia today the Soviets are trying to break up conventicles of Baptists. They probably met on our Saturday evening, the beginning of the first day at sunset. So these Christians began the day (Sunday) with worship. But, since this is a Gentile community, it is quite possible that Luke means our Sunday evening as the time when this meeting occurs, and the language in John 20:19 “it being evening on that day the first day of the week” naturally means the evening following the day, not the evening preceding the day.

To break bread (κλασαι αρτον — klasai arton). First aorist active infinitive of purpose of κλαω — klaō The language naturally bears the same meaning as in Acts 2:42, the Eucharist or the Lord‘s Supper which usually followed the Αγαπη — Agapē See note on 1 Corinthians 10:16. The time came, when the Αγαπη — Agapē was no longer observed, perhaps because of the abuses noted in 1 Corinthians 11:20. Rackham argues that the absence of the article with bread here and its presence (τον αρτον — ton arton) in Acts 20:11 shows that the Αγαπη — Agapē is ] referred to in Acts 20:7 and the Eucharist in Acts 20:11, but not necessarily so because τον αρτον — ton arton may merely refer to αρτον — arton in Acts 20:7. At any rate it should be noted that Paul, who conducted this service, was not a member of the church in Troas, but only a visitor.

Discoursed (διελεγετο — dielegeto). Imperfect middle because he kept on at length.

Intending (μελλω — mellō). Being about to, on the point of.

On the morrow (τηι επαυριον — tēi epaurion). Locative case with ημεραι — hēmerāi understood after the adverb επαυριον — epaurion If Paul spoke on our Saturday evening, he made the journey on the first day of the week (our Sunday) after sunrise. If he spoke on our Sunday evening, then he left on our Monday morning.

Prolonged his speech (Παρετεινεν τον λογον — Pareteinen ton logon). Imperfect active (same form as aorist) of παρατεινω — parateinō old verb to stretch beside or lengthwise, to prolong. Vivid picture of Paul‘s long sermon which went on and on till midnight (μεχρι μεσονυκτιου — mechri mesonuktiou). Paul‘s purpose to leave early next morning seemed to justify the long discourse. Preachers usually have some excuse for the long sermon which is not always clear to the exhausted audience.
Therefore, Dr Robertson, based on his understanding of the Greek grammar, disagrees with the view you espoused here.

Sincerely, Oz
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,405
2,596
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
Phoneman,

One of the foremost N T Greek grammarians of the 20th century was the Dr A T Robertson. He focusses on the issues In Acts 20:7. This is from A. T. Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (1930. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, pp 338-340, available at: StudyLight.org),


Therefore, Dr Robertson, based on his understanding of the Greek grammar, disagrees with the view you espoused here.

Sincerely, Oz
Thanks for joining us. “The man who speaks first seems right until another answers him”, so I'd like to answer Mr. Robertson.

For the first time here we have services mentioned on the first day of the week...”

There are no “services” mentioned here, but one post-Sabbath “get together” (the subjective implication is that this was some official, precedent-setting event) which took place as the Sabbath sun set and the beginning of the first day of the week began – what we would refer to as “Saturday evening”. Mr. R is attempting to use what he knows is an evening meeting as Biblical justification for the practice of Sunday morning church observance.

...though in 1 Corinthians 16:2 KJV it (church observance on the first day of the week) is implied by the collections stored on that day.”

All honest scholars know that 1 Corinthians 16:2 KJV means “in storage at home” and not the ever popular but false teaching of “in storage in a collection plate at church on Sunday morning”.

'Lord's day' seems to be the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the grave.”

“Seems to be” is hardly eminent scholarship, but subjectivity. The Bible is clear which day is the “Lord's Day”: “Therefore, the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath day” (Mark 2:28 KJV). “The Sabbath...My Holy day” (Isaiah 58:13 KJV).

Worship on the first day of the week instead of the seventh naturally arose in Gentile churches”

This is a blatant denial of church history, as this 5th century writer attests: “For although almost all Churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries [the Lord's Supper] on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this.” - Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 22, pp. 389

The Catholic church, not some "guiding natural principle" is what led to the abolishing of Sabbath and what eventually came to be universal observance of Sunday among Christians.

...seems to mean that from the very start the disciples began to meet on the first (or eighth) day.”

Mr. R could only have concluded this from Acts 20:7 KJV, 1 Corinthians 16:2 KJV, and John 20:19 KJV, which are the only verses appealed to by those who are pro-Sunday observance. However, none of these teach Sunday observance:


  • Acts 20:7 KJV was a post Sabbath, evening, non-Communion fellowship meal, not some official “formal” church gathering, and Paul left at sunrise – he didn't put on his “Sunday best” and preach up a storm before sitting down for potluck with the brethren, which is what we would have expected him to do if Sunday was the “new” day.

  • 1 Corinthians 16:2 KJV is a directive to put something on the side on Sunday at your house.

  • John 20:19 KJV is not a church service, but a gathering of scared Christians who didn't even know Jesus had been resurrected.

to gather together, a formal meeting of the disciples.”

Mr. R knows that “gathering” can mean plainly “to gather together”, but he since he wants it to be a “special, formal gathering” for the purpose of establishing a Biblical precedent for Sunday observance, he attempts to make it “formal” by association. It's interesting that one of the verses he lists refers to a Sabbath “gathering” by the church (!!!), so are we to believe that the church was confused as to which day they should be "gathering"?

To break bread”

Does Mr. R actually ignore the fact that “break break” is a common Biblical expression for “have a meal” in order to establish the “Eucharist” in which Catholicism incorporates the heretical doctrine of Transubstantiation? If so, then why did Paul “break bread” twice in verse 7 and verse 11? Perhaps the first “Eucharist” didn't “take” so a second was needed? Or, when the disciples were in one accord, breaking bread daily from house to house in Acts 2:46 KJV, should we derive from this that the “Eucharist” was daily practiced? One thing is for sure: if there was no mention of the “first day” in Acts 20, absolutely no one would be arguing that “break bread” meant anything other than “have a meal”.

If Paul spoke on our Saturday evening, he made the journey on the first day of the week (our Sunday) after sunrise. If he spoke on our Sunday evening, then he left on our Monday morning.”

Why does Mr. R remain aloof as to which day Paul spoke on? Since it is clear that Paul began speaking “on the first day of the week” during the part of that day when candles were needed, then this could only have been what we call Saturday night. Mr. R pathetically and deliberately introduces unwarranted doubt into the mix by suggesting that Paul may have spoken “on Sunday evening” when he knows full well that the only way for that to be possible is if the text said, “On the second day of the week the disciples came together...”

Paul‘s purpose to leave early next morning...”

Paul had no illusions that a pagan day dedicated to Satan was sacred, as evidenced by the fact that he left on foot on a 30 mile journey, which is hardly the example he would set for us if he meant to teach that Christians were to begin observing Sunday in place of Sabbath. The repeated testimony of Sabbath observance in the book of Acts is evidence enough to this.

Mr. R has used his command of Greek as a means to invest credibility into his misleading doctrine and to invest authority in men to change what God has written with His own finger in stone.
 

Keeth

New Member
Apr 11, 2015
94
3
0
Some voices from history regarding the establishment of Sunday sacredness -

[SIZE=12pt]Ignatius, Barnabas and Justin, whose writings constitute our major source of information for the first half of the second century, witnessed and participated in the process of separation from Judaism which led the majority of the Christians to abandon the Sabbath and adopt Sunday as the new day of worship. Their testimonies therefore, coming from such an early period, assume a vital importance for our inquiry into the causes of the origin of Sunday observance (Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University- FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY: A HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RISE OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY[/SIZE] -Chapter 7 -ANTI-JUDAISM AND THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY)

[SIZE=12pt]"Until well into the second century we do not find the slightest indication in our sources that Christians marked Sunday by any kind of abstention from work."--W. Rordorf, Sunday, p. 157. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]North African half-heathen Christians who led out in Christian worship on Sunday, were also the first to call Jesus Christ the true Sun-god, and to direct their prayers toward the east--the rising sun--to rise early in the morning that they pray facing the sun as it arose. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 AD.) frequently called Christ the true Sun, and he urged the pagans to accept Him as such. Origen (c. 185-254) said, "Christ is the Sun of Justice; if the moon is united, which is the Church, it will be filled with His light." Cyprian (d. 258), Bishop of Carthage told believers "to pray at sunrise to commemorate the resurrection . . . and to pray at the setting of the sun . . . for the advent of Christ." "They took a much easier view of certain pagan customs, conventions and images and saw no objection, after ridding them of their pagan content, to adapting them to Christian thought."--J. Danielou, Bible and Liturgy, p. 299.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"Cults of the sun, as we know from many sources, had attained great vogue during the second, third, and fourth centuries. Sun-worshipers indeed formed one of the big groups in that religious world in which Christianity was fighting for a place. Many of them became converts to Christianity . . . Worshipers in St. Peter's turned away from the altar and faced the door so that they could adore the rising sun."--Gordon J. Laing, Survivals of Roman Religion, p. 192. [Dr. Laing(1869-1945) was a Canadian-born university professor and later dean at the University of Chicago]. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]It was the Roman Imperial plan on several occasions, to unite all religions of the Empire into one religion--sun-worship: "The Jewish, the Samaritan, even the Christian, were to be fused and recast into one great system, of which the sun was to be the central object of adoration."--Henry Hart Milman, The History of Christianity, bk. 2, chap. 8 (Vol. II, p. 175). [Dr. Milman (1791-1868) was an important historian of England and dean of St. Paul's Cathedral in London]. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]Though Sunday is mentioned in so many different ways during the second century, it is not till we come almost to the close of the second century that we find the first; instance in which it is called “Lord’s day.” [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Clement, of Alexandria, A.D. 194, uses this title with reference to “the eighth day.” If he speaks of a natural day, he no doubt means Sunday. It is not certain, however, that he speaks of a natural day, for his explanation gives to the term an entirely different sense. THE HISTORY OF THE SABBATH by J.N. Andrews page 160[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Tertullian, A.D. 200, is the next writer who uses the term “Lord’s day[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt].” He[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]defines his meaning, and fixes the name upon the day of Christ’s resurrection. Kitto[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]says this is “the earliest authentic instance” in which the name is thus applied, and we have proved this true by actual examination of every writer, unless the reader can discover some reference[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]to Sunday in Clement’s mystical eighth day. Id page 162[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Origen, A.D. 231, is the third of the ancient writers who call “the eighth day” the Lord’s day.[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] He was the disciple of Clement, the first writer who makes this application. It is not strange, therefore, that he should teach Clement’s doctrine of a perpetual Lord’s day, nor that he should state it even more distinctly than did Clement himself. Origen, having represented Paul as teaching that all days are alike, continues thus: — “If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord’s day, the Preparation, the Passover, or the Pentecost, I have to answer, that to the perfect Christian, who is ever in his thoughts, words, and deeds serving his natural Lord, God the Word, all his days are the Lord’s, and he is always keeping the Lord’s day.” Against Celsus, book 8, chap. 29; Testimony of the Fathers, p. 87. Id page 165[/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]The “Lord’s day” of the Catholic church can be traced no nearer to John than A.D. 194, or perhaps, in strict truth, to A.D. 200, and those who then use the name show plainly that they did not believe it to be the Lord’s day by apostolic appointment. [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]To hide these fatal facts by seeming to trace the title back to Ignatius; the disciple of John, and thus to identify Sunday with the Lord’s day of that apostle, a series of remarkable frauds has been committed, which we have had occasion to examine. But even could the Sunday Lord’s day be traced to Ignatius, the disciple of John, it would then come no nearer being an apostolic institution than does the Catholic festival of the Passover, which can be traced to Polycarp, another of John’s disciples, who claimed to have received it from John himself! Id pages 166and 167.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.”[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Neander’s Church History, translated by H. J. Rose, p. 186.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The following is taken from The Great Empires of Prophecy by A. T. Jones. Pages 349-351 and 357-359.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]“[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]The next step in addition to this was the adoption of the day of the sun as a festival day. To such an extent were the forms of sun-worship practised in this apostasy, that before the close of the second century the heathen themselves charged these so-called Christians with worshiping the sun. A presbyter of the church of Carthage, then and now one of the “church fathers,” who wrote about A.D. 200, considered it necessary to make a defense of the practice, which he did to the following effect in an address to the rulers and magistrates of the Roman Empire: — “Others, again, certainly with more information and greater verisimilitude, believe that the sun is our god. We shall be counted Persians perhaps, though we do not worship the orb of day painted on a piece of linen cloth, having himself everywhere in his own disk. The idea no doubt has originated from our being known to turn to the east in prayer. But you, many of you, also under pretense sometimes of worshiping the heavenly bodies, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise. In the same way, if we devote Sunday to rejoicing, from a far different reason than sun-worship, we have some resemblance to those of you who devote the day of Saturn to ease and luxury, though they too go far away from Jewish ways, of which indeed they are ignorant.” — Tertullian [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]“Apology,” chap. 16.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]And again in an address to all the heathen he justifies this practice by the argument, in effect, You do the same thing, you originated it too, therefore you have no right to blame us. In his own words his defense is as follows: —[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“Others, with greater regard to good manners, it must be confessed, suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a well-known fact that [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]we pray toward the east[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt], or[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] because we make Sunday a day of festivity. What then? Do you do[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]less than this? Do not many among you, with an affectation of sometimes worshiping the heavenly bodies, likewise move your lips in the direction of the sunrise? It is you, at all events, who have admitted the sun into the calendar of the week; and you have selected its day, in preference to the preceding day, as the most suitable in the week for either an entire abstinence from the bath, or for its postponement until the evening, or for taking rest and[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]banqueting.” — Tertullian [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]“Ad Nationes,” book 1, chap. 13.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]This accommodation was easily made, and all this practice was easily justified, by the perverse-minded teachers, in the perversion of such scriptures as, “The Lord God is a sun and shield,” and, “Unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings.” [/SIZE][SIZE=7.5pt]F456[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] As this custom spread, and through it such disciples were multiplied, the ambition of the bishop of Rome grew apace. It was in honor of the day of the sun that there was manifested the first attempt of the bishop of Rome to compel the obedience of all other bishops, and the fact that this attempt was made in such a cause, at the very time when these pretended Christians were openly accused by the heathen of worshiping the sun, is strongly suggestive.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]From Rome there came now another addition to the sun-worshiping apostasy. The first Christians being mostly Jews, continued to celebrate the Passover in remembrance of the death of Christ, the true Passover; and this was continued among those who from among the Gentiles had turned to Christ. Accordingly, the celebration was always on the Passover day, —[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]the fourteenth of the first month. Rome, however, and from her all the West, adopted the day of the sun as the day of this celebration. According to the Eastern custom, the celebration, being on the fourteenth day of the month, would of course fall on different days of the week as the years revolved. The rule of Rome was that the celebration must always be on a Sunday — the Sunday nearest to the fourteenth day of the first month of the Jewish year. And if the fourteenth day of that month should itself be a Sunday, then the celebration was not to be held on that day, but upon the next Sunday. One reason of this was not only to be as like the heathen as possible, but to be as un like the Jews as possible; this, in order not only to facilitate the “conversion” of the heathen by conforming to their customs, but also by pandering to their spirit of contempt and hatred of the Jews. It was upon this point that the bishop of Rome made his first open attempt at[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Absolutism………………………………..................[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“Accordingly, after having taken the advice of some foreign bishops, he wrote an imperious letter to the Asiatic prelates commanding them to imitate the example of the Western Christians with respect to the time of celebrating the festival of Easter. The Asiatics answered this lordly requisition by the pen of Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, who declared in their name, with great spirit and resolution, that they would by no means depart in this manner from the custom handed down to them by their ancestors. Upon this the thunder of excommunication began to roar. Victor, exasperated by this resolute answer of the Asiatic bishops, broke communion with them, pronounced them unworthy of the name of his brethren, and excluded them from all fellowship with the church of Rome.”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]— Mosheim [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]“Ecclesiastical History,” century 2, part 2, chap. 4, par. 11. Maclaine’s[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Translation………………………………............................[/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]While this effort was being made on the side of philosophy to unite all religions, there was at the same time a like effort on the side of politics. It was the ambition of Elagabalus (A.D. 218-222) to make the worship of the sun supersede all other worship in Rome. It is further related of him that a more ambitious scheme even than this was in the emperor’s mind; which was nothing less than the blending of all religions into one, of which “the[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]sun was to be the central object of adoration.”[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] — Milman [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]“History of Christianity” book 2, chap. 8, par. 22.[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]But the elements were not yet fully prepared for such a fusion. Also the shortness[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]of the reign of Elagabalus prevented any decided advancement toward success.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Alexander Severus (A.D. 222-225) held to the same idea, and carried it into effect so far as his individual practice was concerned. “The mother of Alexander Severus, the able, perhaps crafty and rapacious, Mammaea, had at least held intercourse with the Christians of Syria. She had conversed with the celebrated Origen, and listened to his exhortations, if without conversion, still not without respect. Alexander, though he had neither the religious education, the pontifical character, nor the dissolute manners of his predecessor, was a Syrian, with no hereditary attachment to the Roman form of paganism. He seems to have affected a kind of universalism: he paid decent respect to the gods of the Capitol; he held in honor the Egyptian worship, and enlarged the temples of His and Serapis. In his own palace, with respectful indifference, he enshrined, as it were, as his household deities, the representatives of the different religions or theophilosophic systems which were prevalent in the Roman Empire, — Orpheus, Abraham, Christ, and Apollonius of Tyana.... The homage of[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Alexander Severus may be a fair test of the general sentiment of the more intelligent heathen of his time.” — Milman [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Id., book 2, chap. 8, par. 24. His reign also was too short to accomplish anything beyond his own individual example. But the same tendency went rapidly forward.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]On the side of philosophy and the apostasy, the progress was continuous and rapid.“Heathenism, as interpreted by philosophy, almost found favor with some of the more moderate Christian apologists.... The Christians endeavored to enlist the earlier philosophers in their cause; they were scarcely content with asserting that the nobler Grecian philosophy might be designed to prepare the human mind for the reception of[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Christianity; they were almost inclined to endow these sages with a kind of prophetic foreknowledge of its more mysterious doctrines. ‘I have explained,’ says the Christian in Minucius Felix, ‘the opinions of almost all the philosophers, whose most illustrious glory it is that they have worshiped one God, though under various names; so that one might suppose either that the Christians of the present day are philosophers, or that the philosophers of old were already Christians.’ “These advances on the part of Christianity were more than met by paganism. The heathen religion, which prevailed at least among the more enlightened pagans during this period,... was almost as different from that[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]of the older Greeks and Romans, or even that which prevailed at the commencement of the empire, as it was from Christianity.... On the great elementary principle of Christianity, the unity of the supreme God, this approximation had long been silently made. Celsus, in his celebrated[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]controversy with Origen, asserts that this philosophical notion of the Deity is perfectly reconcilable with paganism.” — Milman [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Id., par. 28.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The text of Constantine's Sunday Law of 321 A.D. is : [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]"One the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. (Given the 7th day of March, Crispus and Constantinebeing consuls each of them the second time." Codex Justinianus, lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; translated in History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, D.D., (7-vol.ed.) Vol. III, p.380. New York, 1884 [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Here is the first Sunday Law decree of a Christian council. It was given about 16 years after Constantine's first Sunday Law of A.D. 321: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [in the original: "sabbato"--shall not be idle on the Sabbath], but shall work on that day; but the Lord's day they shall especially honour, and as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out ['anathema,'--excommunicated] from Christ."--Council of Laodicea, c. A.D. 337, Canon 29, quoted in C.J. Hefele, "A History of the Councils of the Church," Vol. 2, p. 316. [/SIZE]



[SIZE=12pt]"Modern Christians who talk of keeping Sunday as a 'holy' day, as in the still extant 'Blue Laws,' of colonial America, should know that as a 'holy' day of rest and cessation from labor and amusements Sunday was unknown to Jesus . . . It formed no tenet [teaching] of the primitive Church and became 'sacred' only in the course of time. Outside the Church its observance was legalized for the Roman Empire through a series of decrees starting with the famous one of Constantine in 321, an edict due to his political and social ideas."--W, W. Hyde, "Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire," 1946, p. 257. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"The Church made a sacred day of Sunday . . . largely because it was the weekly festival of the sun;--for it was a definite Christian policy to take over the pagan festivals endeared to the people by tradition, and to give them a Christian significance."-- Arthur Weigall, "The Paganism in Our Christianity," 1928, p. 145. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]"Remains of the struggle [between the religion of Christianity and the religion of Mithraism] are found in two institutions adopted from its rival by Christianity in the fourth century, the two Mithraic sacred days: December 25, 'dies natalis solis' [birthday of the sun], as the birthday of Jesus,--and Sunday, 'the venerable day of the Sun,' as Constantine called it in his edict of 321."--Walter Woodburn Hyde, "Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire," p. 60. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"This [Constantine's Sunday decree of March, 321] is the 'parent' Sunday law making it a day of rest and release from labor. For from that time to the present there have been decrees about the observance of Sunday which have profoundly influenced European and American society. When the Church became a part of State under the Christian emperors, Sunday observance was enforced by civil statutes, and later when the Empire was past, the Church, in the hands of the papacy, enforced it by ecclesiastical and also by civil enactments."--Walter W. Hyde, "Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire," 1946, p. 261. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]"Constantine labored at this time untiringly to unite the worshipers of the old and the new into one religion. All his laws and contrivances are aimed at promoting this amalgamation of religions. He would by all lawful and peaceable means melt together a purified heathenism and a moderated Christianity . . . Of all his blending and melting together of Christianity and heathenism, none is more easy to see through than this making of his Sunday law: The Christians worshiped their Christ, the heathen their Sun-god. . . [so they should now be combined."--H.G. Heggtveit, "illustreret Kirkehistorie," 1895, p. 202. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"If every Sunday is to be observed joyfully by the Christians on account of the resurrection, then every Sabbath on account of the burial is to be regarded in execration [cursing] of the Jews."--Pope Sylvester, quoted by S.R.E. Humbert, "Adversus Graecorum Calumnias," in J.P. Migne, "Patrologie," p. 143. [Sylvester (A.D. 314-337) was the pope at the time Constantine 1 was Emperor.] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]As we have already noted, excepting for the Roman and Alexandrian Christians, the majority of Christians were observing the seventh-day Sabbath at least as late as the middle of the fifth century [A.D. 450]. The Roman and Alexandrian Christians were among those converted from heathenism. They began observing Sunday as a merry religious festival in honor of the Lord's resurrection, about the latter half of the second century A.D. However, they did not try to teach that the Lord or His apostles commanded it. In fact, no ecclesiastical writer before Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century even suggested that either Christ or His apostles instituted the observance of the first day of the week.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]"These Gentile Christians of Rome and Alexandria began calling the first day of the week 'the Lord's day.' This was not difficult for the pagans of the Roman Empire who were steeped in sun worship to accept, because they [the pagans] referred to their sun-god as their 'Lord.' "--EM. Chalmers, "How Sunday Came Into the Christian Church," p. 3. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"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."--Lyman Coleman, "Ancient Christianity Exemplified" chap. 26, sec. 2, p. 527. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]"What began, however, as a pagan ordinance, ended as a Christian regulation; and a long series of imperial decrees, during the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, enjoined with increasing stringency abstinence from labor on Sunday."--Huttan Webster, "Rest Days," pp. 122-123, 210. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]"A history of the problem shows that in some places, it was really only after some centuries that the Sabbath rest really was entirely abolished, and by that time the practice of observing a bodily rest on the Sunday had taken its place . . . It was the seventh day of the week which typified the rest of God after creation, and not the first day. "--Vincent Jo Kelly, Forbidden Sunday and Feast day Occupations, 1943, pp. 15, 22 [This Catholic University Press publication was written by a priest of the Redemptorist order]. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"The early Christians had at first adopted the Jewish seven-day week with its numbered week days, but by the close of the third century A.D. this began to give way to the planetary week; and in the fourth and fifth centuries the pagan designations became generally accepted in the western half of Christendom. The use of the planetary names by Christians attests the growing influence of astrological speculations introduced by converts from paganism . . . During these same centuries the spread of Oriental solar [sun] worships, especially that of Mithra [Persian sun worship], in the Roman world, had already led to the substitution by pagans of dies Solis for dies Saturni, as the first day of the planetary week. Thus gradually a pagan institution was engrafted on Christianity."--Hutton Webster, Rest Days, pp. 220-221. [Webster (1875-?), was an author, historian, and professor at the University of Nebraska]. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]“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[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]church, but with a rigor and solemnity gradually diminishing until it was wholly discontinued.”[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Coleman Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. 26, sec. 2.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“During the early ages of the church, it was never entitled ‘the Sabbath,’ this word being confined to the seventh day of the week, the Jewish Sabbath, which, as we have already said, continued to be observed for several centuries by the converts to Christianity.”[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Anc. Christ. Exem., chap. 26, sec. 2.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“The observance of the Lord’s day was ordered while yet the Sabbath of the Jews was continued; nor was the latter superseded until the former had acquired the same solemnity and importance which belonged, at first, to that great day which God originally ordained and blessed. But in time, after the Lord’s day was fully established, the observance of the Sabbath of the Jews was gradually discontinued, and was finally denounced as heretical.”[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Anc. Christ. Exem., chap. 26, sec. 2.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]“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 Savior’s death; and besides that, no other day for more hundreds of years than I spake of before, was known in the church by the name of Sabbath but that: let the collection thereof and conclusion of all be this: The Sabbath of the seventh day, as touching the alligations of God’s solemn worship to time, was ceremonial; that Sabbath was religiously observed in the East church three hundred years and more after our Savior’s passion. That church, being the great part[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]of Christendom, and having the apostles’ doctrine and example to instruct them, would have restrained it if it had been deadly.”[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Edward Brerewood, professor in Gresham College, London . Learned Treatise of the Sabbath, p. 77, Oxford, 1631.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]And Sir Win. Domville says: —[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]“Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday was observed by the Christian church as a Sabbath. History does not furnish us with a single proof or indication that it was at any time so observed previous to the Sabbatical edict of Constantine in A.D. 321.”[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Examination of the Six Texts, p. 291.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]"Our observance of Sunday as the Lord's day is apparently derived from Mithraism. The argument that has sometimes been used against this claim, namely, that Sunday was[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]chosen because of the resurrection on that day, is not well supported." Gordon J. Laing, "Survivals of Roman Religion," p. 148. [/SIZE]
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Phoneman777 said:
Thanks for joining us. “The man who speaks first seems right until another answers him”, so I'd like to answer Mr. Robertson.

For the first time here we have services mentioned on the first day of the week...”

There are no “services” mentioned here, but one post-Sabbath “get together” (the subjective implication is that this was some official, precedent-setting event) which took place as the Sabbath sun set and the beginning of the first day of the week began – what we would refer to as “Saturday evening”. Mr. R is attempting to use what he knows is an evening meeting as Biblical justification for the practice of Sunday morning church observance.

...though in 1 Corinthians 16:2 KJV it (church observance on the first day of the week) is implied by the collections stored on that day.”

All honest scholars know that 1 Corinthians 16:2 KJV means “in storage at home” and not the ever popular but false teaching of “in storage in a collection plate at church on Sunday morning”.

'Lord's day' seems to be the day of the week on which Jesus rose from the grave.”

“Seems to be” is hardly eminent scholarship, but subjectivity. The Bible is clear which day is the “Lord's Day”: “Therefore, the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath day” (Mark 2:28 KJV). “The Sabbath...My Holy day” (Isaiah 58:13 KJV).

Worship on the first day of the week instead of the seventh naturally arose in Gentile churches”

This is a blatant denial of church history, as this 5th century writer attests: “For although almost all Churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries [the Lord's Supper] on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this.” - Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 22, pp. 389

The Catholic church, not some "guiding natural principle" is what led to the abolishing of Sabbath and what eventually came to be universal observance of Sunday among Christians.

...seems to mean that from the very start the disciples began to meet on the first (or eighth) day.”

Mr. R could only have concluded this from Acts 20:7 KJV, 1 Corinthians 16:2 KJV, and John 20:19 KJV, which are the only verses appealed to by those who are pro-Sunday observance. However, none of these teach Sunday observance:


  • Acts 20:7 KJV was a post Sabbath, evening, non-Communion fellowship meal, not some official “formal” church gathering, and Paul left at sunrise – he didn't put on his “Sunday best” and preach up a storm before sitting down for potluck with the brethren, which is what we would have expected him to do if Sunday was the “new” day.

  • 1 Corinthians 16:2 KJV is a directive to put something on the side on Sunday at your house.

  • John 20:19 KJV is not a church service, but a gathering of scared Christians who didn't even know Jesus had been resurrected.

to gather together, a formal meeting of the disciples.”

Mr. R knows that “gathering” can mean plainly “to gather together”, but he since he wants it to be a “special, formal gathering” for the purpose of establishing a Biblical precedent for Sunday observance, he attempts to make it “formal” by association. It's interesting that one of the verses he lists refers to a Sabbath “gathering” by the church (!!!), so are we to believe that the church was confused as to which day they should be "gathering"?

To break bread”

Does Mr. R actually ignore the fact that “break break” is a common Biblical expression for “have a meal” in order to establish the “Eucharist” in which Catholicism incorporates the heretical doctrine of Transubstantiation? If so, then why did Paul “break bread” twice in verse 7 and verse 11? Perhaps the first “Eucharist” didn't “take” so a second was needed? Or, when the disciples were in one accord, breaking bread daily from house to house in Acts 2:46 KJV, should we derive from this that the “Eucharist” was daily practiced? One thing is for sure: if there was no mention of the “first day” in Acts 20, absolutely no one would be arguing that “break bread” meant anything other than “have a meal”.

If Paul spoke on our Saturday evening, he made the journey on the first day of the week (our Sunday) after sunrise. If he spoke on our Sunday evening, then he left on our Monday morning.”

Why does Mr. R remain aloof as to which day Paul spoke on? Since it is clear that Paul began speaking “on the first day of the week” during the part of that day when candles were needed, then this could only have been what we call Saturday night. Mr. R pathetically and deliberately introduces unwarranted doubt into the mix by suggesting that Paul may have spoken “on Sunday evening” when he knows full well that the only way for that to be possible is if the text said, “On the second day of the week the disciples came together...”

Paul‘s purpose to leave early next morning...”

Paul had no illusions that a pagan day dedicated to Satan was sacred, as evidenced by the fact that he left on foot on a 30 mile journey, which is hardly the example he would set for us if he meant to teach that Christians were to begin observing Sunday in place of Sabbath. The repeated testimony of Sabbath observance in the book of Acts is evidence enough to this.

Mr. R has used his command of Greek as a means to invest credibility into his misleading doctrine and to invest authority in men to change what God has written with His own finger in stone.
Phoneman,

Christian historian, the late Martin Hengel, wrote of 'the transfer of the celebration of divine worship from the sabbath to the Lord’s day, which is already demonstrable in Paul, is a partial analogy' (2000:119). Hengel particularly referred to 1 Cor. 16:2; Acts 20:7ff; Rev. 1:10 to support this claim (Hengel 2000:281, n. 481).

These verses do not state in any way that indicates that these early Christians were meeting and worshipping on the wrong day of the week. Not a word of pro-Saturday Sabbath worship is mentioned:
  • 1 Cor. 16:2: ‘On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come’ (ESV).
  • Acts 20:7: ‘On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight’ (ESV).
  • Rev. 1:10: ‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet’ (ESV).
Christians are not to observe days and even Sabbath days according to the following Scriptures: Romans 14:5ff, Galatians 4:9-11; 5:1-15 and Col. 2:16-17. These Scriptures indicate that the promotion of Sabbath-keeping is contrary to these biblical injunctions.
Therefore, exaltation of Saturday Sabbath worship is not in accord with NT Christianity.
Here is some historical information about Lord’s Day, Sunday, worship:

See the article, ‘Is the Sabbath required for Christians?’


In the early second century vague references to observing the “Lord’s Day”–Sunday–began to appear. Then the voices for Sunday worship grew more strident. Ignatius of Asia Minor and Barnabas of Alexandria both condemned Sabbath-keeping. Although considered Gnostic heresy, Marcion’s anti-Sabbath views were widely promulgated throughout the churches. By 150, Justin Martyr clearly indicated that the day of the sun was the day of rest for Christians. Sunday worship had become a widely accepted practice among these people who professed to follow Christ (“What did the early church Believe and Preach after Jesus’ death?” Available from: http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/early-christianity1.html).

‘There is a series of articles by Bob Deffinbaugh that refutes the promotion of the Sabbath for Christians and supports the view that New Covenant believers meet for worship on the first day of the week, the Lord’s Day. See:
  1. The Great Sabbath Controversy“;
  2. The Lord of the Sabbath“;
  3. The Meaning of the Sabbath“;
  4. The Sabbath Controversy in the Gospels“;
  5. Super-Sabbath: Israel’s Land and its Lord“;
  6. The Sabbath in Apostolic Preaching and Practice“.
In Christ, Oz

Works consulted
Hengel, M 2000. transl J Bowden. The four Gospels and the one Gospel of Jesus Christ: An investigation of the collection and origin of the canonical Gospels,. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International.
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,405
2,596
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Keeth said:
[SIZE=12pt] Origen (c. 185-254) said, "Christ is the Sun of Justice; if the moon is united, which is the Church, it will be filled with His light." [/SIZE]
Amazing how Origen can speak so highly of Jesus here but then spit on Him in his denial of the absolute necessity of His substitutionary death on the Cross. But, the fact that he is praised in the Masonic writings leaves no doubt as to where his true allegiance rested.
OzSpen said:
Phoneman,

Christian historian, the late Martin Hengel, wrote of 'the transfer of the celebration of divine worship from the sabbath to the Lord’s day, which is already demonstrable in Paul, is a partial analogy' (2000:119). Hengel particularly referred to 1 Cor. 16:2; Acts 20:7ff; Rev. 1:10 to support this claim (Hengel 2000:281, n. 481).

These verses do not state in any way that indicates that these early Christians were meeting and worshipping on the wrong day of the week. Not a word of pro-Saturday Sabbath worship is mentioned:
  • 1 Cor. 16:2: ‘On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come’ (ESV).
  • Acts 20:7: ‘On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight’ (ESV).
  • Rev. 1:10: ‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet’ (ESV).
Christians are not to observe days and even Sabbath days according to the following Scriptures: Romans 14:5ff, Galatians 4:9-11; 5:1-15 and Col. 2:16-17. These Scriptures indicate that the promotion of Sabbath-keeping is contrary to these biblical injunctions.
Therefore, exaltation of Saturday Sabbath worship is not in accord with NT Christianity.
Here is some historical information about Lord’s Day, Sunday, worship:

See the article, ‘Is the Sabbath required for Christians?’


In the early second century vague references to observing the “Lord’s Day”–Sunday–began to appear. Then the voices for Sunday worship grew more strident. Ignatius of Asia Minor and Barnabas of Alexandria both condemned Sabbath-keeping. Although considered Gnostic heresy, Marcion’s anti-Sabbath views were widely promulgated throughout the churches. By 150, Justin Martyr clearly indicated that the day of the sun was the day of rest for Christians. Sunday worship had become a widely accepted practice among these people who professed to follow Christ (“What did the early church Believe and Preach after Jesus’ death?” Available from: http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/early-christianity1.html).

‘There is a series of articles by Bob Deffinbaugh that refutes the promotion of the Sabbath for Christians and supports the view that New Covenant believers meet for worship on the first day of the week, the Lord’s Day. See:
  1. The Great Sabbath Controversy“;
  2. The Lord of the Sabbath“;
  3. The Meaning of the Sabbath“;
  4. The Sabbath Controversy in the Gospels“;
  5. Super-Sabbath: Israel’s Land and its Lord“;
  6. The Sabbath in Apostolic Preaching and Practice“.
In Christ, Oz

Works consulted
Hengel, M 2000. transl J Bowden. The four Gospels and the one Gospel of Jesus Christ: An investigation of the collection and origin of the canonical Gospels,. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International.
To the contrary, we are to observe the Ten Commandments which are written on the hearts of New Covenant Christians, and if not, then which of the Ten are we at liberty to freely break?
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Phoneman,
To the contrary, we are to observe the Ten Commandments which are written on the hearts of New Covenant Christians, and if not, then which of the Ten are we at liberty to freely break?
Phoneman,

Where does it say that in the NT? Where are we told to 'remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy' in the NT?

A requirement to keep the Sabbath of Exodus 20:8 for NT believers would conflict with Colossians 2:16-17, 'Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come but the substance belongs to Christ' (ESV).

Oz
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,405
2,596
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
Phoneman,
Phoneman,

Where does it say that in the NT? Where are we told to 'remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy' in the NT?

A requirement to keep the Sabbath of Exodus 20:8 for NT believers would conflict with Colossians 2:16-17, 'Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come but the substance belongs to Christ' (ESV).

Oz
Thus saith the Lord Jesus, "pray that your flight be not in winter, neither on the Sabbath day". He fully expected His people to continue observing the Sabbath when the Romans came in 66 A.D. else He would have never told them to pray such a prayer. Before you answer, "But that was because the gates to Jerusalem would have been locked", do not ignore the previous verses where we find Jesus commanding the whole of Judea, not just those in Jerusalem, to pray about not having to flee on the Sabbath, and there were no gates around Judea.

Along with the Sabbath commandment, every other one of the Ten Commandments is repeated in the N.T. It is a historical fact that the change from Sabbath to Sunday was made my man and happened over a period of centuries, and is not found anywhere in Scripture. If you have a verse which you believe does command such a change, I'd be happy to study it.

BTW, Colossians is speaking in the context of the ceremonial law of offerings and sacrifices (meat offerings, drink offerings, moon observances, Jewish "sabbath" feast days which are called such in Leviticus 23, etc.) Colossians is speaking of the "law that was against us" and Deuteronomy 31:26 KJV says that law was the Law of Moses which contained ceremonies and sacrifices. Paul would never teach that the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments no longer existed any more than he would say that "thou shalt not kill" no longer existed.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Phoneman777 said:
Thus saith the Lord Jesus, "pray that your flight be not in winter, neither on the Sabbath day". He fully expected His people to continue observing the Sabbath when the Romans came in 66 A.D. else He would have never told them to pray such a prayer. Before you answer, "But that was because the gates to Jerusalem would have been locked", do not ignore the previous verses where we find Jesus commanding the whole of Judea, not just those in Jerusalem, to pray about not having to flee on the Sabbath, and there were no gates around Judea.

Along with the Sabbath commandment, every other one of the Ten Commandments is repeated in the N.T. It is a historical fact that the change from Sabbath to Sunday was made my man and happened over a period of centuries, and is not found anywhere in Scripture. If you have a verse which you believe does command such a change, I'd be happy to study it.

BTW, Colossians is speaking in the context of the ceremonial law of offerings and sacrifices (meat offerings, drink offerings, moon observances, Jewish "sabbath" feast days which are called such in Leviticus 23, etc.) Colossians is speaking of the "law that was against us" and Deuteronomy 31:26 KJV says that law was the Law of Moses which contained ceremonies and sacrifices. Paul would never teach that the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments no longer existed any more than he would say that "thou shalt not kill" no longer existed.
That is not an answer to what I asked at #306, 'Where are we told to "remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy" in the NT?'

In Col 2:16, the three terms, festival, new moon, and sabbath often occur together in the OT (see the LXX of Hos 2:13; Ezek 45:17; 1 Chron 23:31; 2 Chron 2:3; 31:3). To keep these 'holy days' was evidence for OT Israelites that they obeyed God's law.. What was happening at Colossae was the keeping of these holy days for 'the elemental spirits of the world' (Col 2:8).

Therefore, Paul's instruction was: 'Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath' (Col 2:16). To require that Christians keep the Sabbath is to do what Paul instructed not to do - to pass judgment on the need to keep the Sabbath for NT believers.

I will not fall for the judgment line that NT Christians should keep the OT Sabbath. That is a passing of judgment that does not meet with the Lord's approval.
 

Keeth

New Member
Apr 11, 2015
94
3
0
OzSpen said:
That is not an answer to what I asked at #306, 'Where are we told to "remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy" in the NT?'

In Col 2:16, the three terms, festival, new moon, and sabbath often occur together in the OT (see the LXX of Hos 2:13; Ezek 45:17; 1 Chron 23:31; 2 Chron 2:3; 31:3). To keep these 'holy days' was evidence for OT Israelites that they obeyed God's law.. What was happening at Colossae was the keeping of these holy days for 'the elemental spirits of the world' (Col 2:8).

Therefore, Paul's instruction was: 'Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath' (Col 2:16). To require that Christians keep the Sabbath is to do what Paul instructed not to do - to pass judgment on the need to keep the Sabbath for NT believers.

I will not fall for the judgment line that NT Christians should keep the OT Sabbath. That is a passing of judgment that does not meet with the Lord's approval.
The ten commandments are mentioned nowhere in Col 2, because they are not the topic of conversation in that chapter. Col 2:20-22 makes this perfectly clear -

Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

Circumcision, meat, drink, holydays, new moons, and sabbath days, are all connected too and part of the ceremonial laws of Israel. To make the sabbath days menitioned the fourth commandment of the ten commandments, when the context of everything else is in relation to the ceremonial laws, is not rightly dividing the word of God. The testimony of the above scriptures though, which is addressing these same items including the sabbath days, makes it impossible to be referring to the seventh day Sabbath. God HImself spoke the Sabbath into existence at creation, audibly called the entire nation of Israel to remember it with His own mouth, and wrote the commandment with His own finger in stone twice for them. He calls the commandments and the Sabbath His all through the scriptures. Only the most obstinant denial would allow for the commandments and Sabbath to be referred to as commandments and doctrines of men. It simply is not so.


Matt 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

If Jesus intended that the Sabbath commandment be changed, or done away with, why didn’t he take this perfect opportunity, and several others, to tell anyone about it. Instead of saying it didn’t matter any more, He tried to teach it’s proper observance. He Himself said that He was Lord of the Sabbath, surely if He was Lord of it, He could change it. Truly, He is the Lord of the Sabbath, for He Himself established it after He finished creating this world. For this world was created by, and through Him (Jn 1:1-3).

Matt 12:10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. 11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? 12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days. 13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.

Again, the perfect opportunity to tell all of the change the Lord intended concerning the fourth commandment. Instead, again, He teaches it’s proper observance.

Luke 4:14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. 15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. 16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

Not only did Jesus teach it’s proper observance, but He observed it Himself, as a living example to us. Jesus was the only human since the fall to live a perfect life before God. He is our example in all things. He observed the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.

Luke 13:10 And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. 11 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself. 12 And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. 13 And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. 14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. 15 The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? 16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day? 17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

Another perfect opportunity blown. Another object lesson teaching people who had forgotten the real meaning of the Sabbath, how to properly observe it. Kind of a silly thing to keep doing, if you fully intend to do away with the Sabbath altogether in the near future.

Luke 14:1 And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him. 2 And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy. 3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? 4 And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go; 5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? 6 And they could not answer him again to these things.

More of the same.

John 7:22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. 23 If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? 24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

More of the same, with the admonition to judge righteous judgment. That is, have a little common sense regarding the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Of course it is always acceptable to do good on any day. Jesus never gave any hint, that He intended that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment would be done away with, or replaced by another day. To the contrary, He conclusively stated just the opposite concerning all the commandments of God.

Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 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.

Jesus could not have stated it, any simpler. The commandments will not change. Anyone who breaks any of them and teaches others to do so, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Those however, who do and teach them, shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. This is not rocket science. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has left us clear, conclusive, and authoritative words regarding this fact. If what you believe makes conclusive statements spoken by Christ Himself , such as the one above, contradict itself, then what you believe is wrong.

Matt 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Why would Jesus make a prediction about the future, as though the Sabbath were still being observed in it, when He knew the Sabbath would no longer have meaning during the time of His prediction? What, did He forget? Was He just guessing? Did He make a mistake?

Isa 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

What, has God done away with the Sabbath during the new covenant era, just to reestablish it in heaven? Nonsense! Christ established the seventh day Sabbath at creation. He also spoke the fourth commandment to Israel with His own mouth, and wrote it with His own finger in tables of stone when He gave the ten commandments to the same. Then when He was here as one of us, to show us how to live, He kept all the commandments including the fourth. Also, He warned all of us not break, or teach anyone not to keep any of the commandments, but admonished us all to keep and teach the same.

There are many who will take some obscure statements spoken by Paul, and try to make them contradict the clear and conclusive statement and testimony of Christ Himself, regarding the commandments of God. Not only are they twisting these scriptures to contradict Christ’s clear testimony, but they make Paul himself, contradict his own testimony in other scriptures regarding the ten commandments. Peter spoke of those who had already begun to twist Paul’s word during his day. These same words apply to those today, who would, and will do the same with the words of the apostle Paul.

2 Pet 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, witch they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I say again, if what you believe causes the scriptures to contradict themselves, then what you believe is wrong. None of the Apostles said anything that nullifies the clear testimony of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If you believe they have, then you are twisting the scriptures in order to believe what you wish to believe, not what the word of God clearly teaches.
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,405
2,596
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
That is not an answer to what I asked at #306, 'Where are we told to "remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy" in the NT?'

In Col 2:16, the three terms, festival, new moon, and sabbath often occur together in the OT (see the LXX of Hos 2:13; Ezek 45:17; 1 Chron 23:31; 2 Chron 2:3; 31:3). To keep these 'holy days' was evidence for OT Israelites that they obeyed God's law.. What was happening at Colossae was the keeping of these holy days for 'the elemental spirits of the world' (Col 2:8).

Therefore, Paul's instruction was: 'Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath' (Col 2:16). To require that Christians keep the Sabbath is to do what Paul instructed not to do - to pass judgment on the need to keep the Sabbath for NT believers.

I will not fall for the judgment line that NT Christians should keep the OT Sabbath. That is a passing of judgment that does not meet with the Lord's approval.
In answer to #306, the Fourth commandment is not explicitly repeated verbatim in the N. T., but I find it curious that you demand of me an explicit text which repeats the Fourth commandment verbatim to support the Sabbath in the N. T. while you exempt yourself from such austerity, seeing that you know full well that there is absolutely no commandment or directive in the N. T. authorizing a change from the seventh day to the first day - this change that you claim has taken place is based not on anything explicit, but solely on what you think is implied by John 20:19, Acts 20:7, and 1 Corinthians 16:2.

OK, you still haven't explained to me why Jesus told His followers who would decades later have to flee from Judea (around which there were no gates) to pray that their flight would not have to take place on the Sabbath day if He did not expect that His followers would still be observing the Sabbath.

Also, why do you force Paul to refer to the weekly Sabbath in Colossians 2:14-17 KJV when the preponderance of evidence suggests he was referring to the yearly sabbath Feast Days of the Law of Moses? According to Paul's own words:
  • Paul says what was blotted out was "against us" which Deuteronomy 31:26 KJV tells us was the ceremonial Law of Moses, not God's Law written by His finger.
  • Paul says this handwriting of Moses was nailed "to His Cross" - you can nail paper books all day long but you can't nail stone to anything.
  • The ceremonial Law of Moses dealt with "meats, drinks, new moons, holy days and "sabbath days" (yearly "Feast Days" according to Leviticus 23), while God's Law written by His finger in stone dealt with no such ceremonial laws.
  • Though the yearly ceremonial Feast Day "sabbaths" of the Law of Moses were indeed a shadow of Christ's mission, the weekly Sabbath of creation was not shadow of anything - it was created as a memorial to Creation when all was light.
By insisting that Paul refers to the weekly Sabbath in Colossians 2:16 KJV, you are forcing an interpretation to support your position that the weekly Sabbath has been done away with, when the preponderance of evidence suggest that Paul is not speaking of the weekly Sabbath at all, but of the yearly ceremonial sabbath Feast Days, which were nailed to the Cross. At best, we should agree that it is unclear if Paul meant to teach that the weekly Sabbath was part of what he said was nailed to the Cross and allow other Scriptures to decide the issue. Such as the fact that Jesus expected His followers everywhere to be keeping the Sabbath decades into the future because He commanded them to pray that they would not have to flee from Judea on that day. What say you?
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Phoneman777,

The apostle Paul made it clear that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New Covenant: ‘For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit’ (Rom 8:3-4 ESV).

Hebrews 8 is clear that God promised for the houses of Israel and Judah that a new covenant was coming (Heb 8:8-12 cited from Jer 31:31-34). What did that mean for the Old Covenant? ‘In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away’ (Heb 8:13).

The obvious conclusion was that the requirements of the OT Law which were now abolished meant that the OT sabbath was also abolished because it was ‘obsolete’ and was to ‘vanish away'). Therefore, there is no need for the NT to say, ‘Thou shalt not worship on the Sabbath’ because that law from Sinai had been made obsolete because of the cross of Christ. Golgotha and Christ’s shed blood made sure a New Covenant without OT legal requirements came into effect. Since the OT law is obsolete, to enforce OT Sabbath-keeping is to legalistically force on people what the New Covenant abolished.

What do we find in the NT? People like the apostle John could say, ‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day’ (Rev 1:10). There are significant reasons why early Christians worshipped on the first day of the week, the Lord's Day, and not the Saturday Sabbath, the most important being that the first day of the week was the one on which Jesus rose from the dead.

The early church confirmed that the Christians met on the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week and not the Saturday Sabbath.
  • The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, early 2nd cent ), ‘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’ (ch 14:1).

  • The Epistle of Barnabas (ca. AD 130), ‘He says to them, Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure [Isaiah 1:13]. You 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’ (ch 15).

  • Tertullian (b. ca. AD 160), ‘It follows, accordingly, that, in so far as the abolition of carnal circumcision and of the old law is demonstrated as having been consummated at its specific times, so also the observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been temporary….. 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’ (An Answer to the Jews, ch 4). Who was Tertullian addressing about the abolition of the old law and its temporary Sabbath? Jews!
In your response to me, you seem to be missing a fundamental: The Old Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant. This means that the OT law has been abolished, made obsolete, vanished away and has been replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. When did these New Covenant Christians meet for worship? The first day of the week, the Lord’s Day, symbolic of Christ's resurrection day.

But there’s a another fundamental that we must not forget: All of life is worship to the glory of God! (John 4:21-23)

Oz
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,405
2,596
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
Phoneman777,

The apostle Paul made it clear that the Old Covenant was superseded by the New Covenant: ‘For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit’ (Rom 8:3-4 ESV).

Hebrews 8 is clear that God promised for the houses of Israel and Judah that a new covenant was coming (Heb 8:8-12 cited from Jer 31:31-34). What did that mean for the Old Covenant? ‘In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away’ (Heb 8:13).

The obvious conclusion was that the requirements of the OT Law which were now abolished meant that the OT sabbath was also abolished because it was ‘obsolete’ and was to ‘vanish away'). Therefore, there is no need for the NT to say, ‘Thou shalt not worship on the Sabbath’ because that law from Sinai had been made obsolete because of the cross of Christ. Golgotha and Christ’s shed blood made sure a New Covenant without OT legal requirements came into effect. Since the OT law is obsolete, to enforce OT Sabbath-keeping is to legalistically force on people what the New Covenant abolished.

What do we find in the NT? People like the apostle John could say, ‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day’ (Rev 1:10). There are significant reasons why early Christians worshipped on the first day of the week, the Lord's Day, and not the Saturday Sabbath, the most important being that the first day of the week was the one on which Jesus rose from the dead.

The early church confirmed that the Christians met on the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week and not the Saturday Sabbath.
  • The Didache (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, early 2nd cent ), ‘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’ (ch 14:1).

  • The Epistle of Barnabas (ca. AD 130), ‘He says to them, Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure [Isaiah 1:13]. You 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’ (ch 15).

  • Tertullian (b. ca. AD 160), ‘It follows, accordingly, that, in so far as the abolition of carnal circumcision and of the old law is demonstrated as having been consummated at its specific times, so also the observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been temporary….. 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’ (An Answer to the Jews, ch 4). Who was Tertullian addressing about the abolition of the old law and its temporary Sabbath? Jews!
In your response to me, you seem to be missing a fundamental: The Old Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant. This means that the OT law has been abolished, made obsolete, vanished away and has been replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. When did these New Covenant Christians meet for worship? The first day of the week, the Lord’s Day, symbolic of Christ's resurrection day.

But there’s a another fundamental that we must not forget: All of life is worship to the glory of God! (John 4:21-23)

Oz
My dear brother, your post is full of inaccuracies. It is a well known, indisputable fact that Christians kept the seventh day Sabbath all over the Christian world for centuries after the close of the canon of Scripture, so to say that early Christian worship was "not on the seventh day of the week" is not correct.

The New Covenant is God's Ten Commandments written on our hearts, according to 2 Corinthians 3:1-3 KJV, not the cessation of them. If you really believe that Christians are no longer obligated to keep the Ten Commandments, then why don't you publicly state that Christians may have other gods before God, engage in idolatry, blaspheme Him, as well as kill, steal, lie, cheat on our spouses, covet, etc.? I challenged Zeke to publicly state that for the record, but he lacked the intestinal fortitude to do so. Would you be willing to do it?
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,405
2,596
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
Phoneman777,

You have now demonstrated to me that I'm wasting my time discussing the New Covenant with you and its superseding the Old Covenant. Your presuppositions are overwhelming the evidence that I provided.

Bye!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Your leaving without publicly stating that Christians may break the rest of the Ten Commandments along with the one you claim we may forget, though it begins with "Remember"? I'm disappointed. :/
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Phoneman777 said:
Your leaving without publicly stating that Christians may break the rest of the Ten Commandments along with the one you claim we may forget, though it begins with "Remember"? I'm disappointed. :/
Phoneman,

False allegations against me lead to my avoidance of your responses to me on this topic. I have demonstrated to you biblically that the Old Covenant requirements have been superseded by the New Covenant and then you have the audacity to say that 'your post is full of inaccuracies'. No, my post simply disagrees with your pro-Sabbath presuppositions. I provided biblical and early church fathers' evidence to counter that.

You can try your accusations on somebody else. I will not tolerate your false allegations against me and I choose to let you try your tactics on somebody else.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 

UppsalaDragby

New Member
Feb 6, 2012
543
40
0
Phoneman777 said:
Your leaving without publicly stating that Christians may break the rest of the Ten Commandments along with the one you claim we may forget, though it begins with "Remember"? I'm disappointed. :/
Do you have any evidence that placing oneself under the 10 commandments prevents anyone from breaking them?

Do you have any evidence that "remembering" a commandment is equivalent to keeping it?

Can you meet the challenge I gave to SDAs earlier on in this thread? If not, then please explain why you can't?



Paul says what was blotted out was "against us" which Deuteronomy 31:26 KJV tells us was the ceremonial Law of Moses, not God's Law written by His finger
This is the kind of loose and weakly-supported theology that is typical of SDAs. Not only were the 10 commandments INCLUDED in the "book of the law" TWICE!, Paul gave absolutely no indication that the problems we were facing were confined to any so-called "ceremonial laws". He never used the term, and neither is it found anywhere in scripture! What Paul DOES say is that the ministry of the 10 commandments brought condemnation and death and was "fading" in contrast to a ministry of grace that was to "last". But I guess that since the word "against" does not appear in 2 Cor 3 then that proves that Deutronomy 31:26 is what he was referring to!

Don't mind the fact that it contradicts everything he taught concerning the law!!!

So once again, if you cannot meet the challenge I made earlier on in this thread (something NO SDA has ever been able to do) then please explain why.
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,405
2,596
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
OzSpen said:
Phoneman,

False allegations against me lead to my avoidance of your responses to me on this topic. I have demonstrated to you biblically that the Old Covenant requirements have been superseded by the New Covenant and then you have the audacity to say that 'your post is full of inaccuracies'. No, my post simply disagrees with your pro-Sabbath presuppositions. I provided biblical and early church fathers' evidence to counter that.

You can try your accusations on somebody else. I will not tolerate your false allegations against me and I choose to let you try your tactics on somebody else.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I did not say your post is full of "lies", for THAT would be accusatory. However, your post is indeed full of inaccuracies, especially that the early church abandoned the seventh day. Please study church history before you make such historically inaccurate statement.

The only difference between the OC and the NC is the LOCATION of the Ten Commandments. In the OC, it was written on stone, and in the NC, on the heart. If the Ten Commandments are done away with, then why don't you go on record and say that we can worship Satan and kill and commit adultery against our neighbor?
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Phoneman777 said:
I did not say your post is full of "lies", for THAT would be accusatory. However, your post is indeed full of inaccuracies, especially that the early church abandoned the seventh day. Please study church history before you make such historically inaccurate statement.

The only difference between the OC and the NC is the LOCATION of the Ten Commandments. In the OC, it was written on stone, and in the NC, on the heart. If the Ten Commandments are done away with, then why don't you go on record and say that we can worship Satan and kill and commit adultery against our neighbor?
‘In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away’ (Heb 8:13).

Don't you understand the meaning of 'obsolete' and 'to vanish away'?
 

Keeth

New Member
Apr 11, 2015
94
3
0
UppsalaDragby said:
Do you have any evidence that placing oneself under the 10 commandments prevents anyone from breaking them?

Do you have any evidence that "remembering" a commandment is equivalent to keeping it?

Can you meet the challenge I gave to SDAs earlier on in this thread? If not, then please explain why you can't?




This is the kind of loose and weakly-supported theology that is typical of SDAs. Not only were the 10 commandments INCLUDED in the "book of the law" TWICE!, Paul gave absolutely no indication that the problems we were facing were confined to any so-called "ceremonial laws". He never used the term, and neither is it found anywhere in scripture! What Paul DOES say is that the ministry of the 10 commandments brought condemnation and death and was "fading" in contrast to a ministry of grace that was to "last". But I guess that since the word "against" does not appear in 2 Cor 3 then that proves that Deutronomy 31:26 is what he was referring to!

Don't mind the fact that it contradicts everything he taught concerning the law!!!

So once again, if you cannot meet the challenge I made earlier on in this thread (something NO SDA has ever been able to do) then please explain why.
We are not the ones ignoring context.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13 ¶ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 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: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. 20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

The ten commandments are not being discussed at all in the above scriptures. They could not possibly be referred to as commandments of men. Why do you insist upon making Paul and the scriptures contradict themselves on this one? Were the writers of the NT schizophrenic concerning the commandments of God? Or will you flat out deny that we are admonished to keep them many times over in the NT? How do you explain this blaring contradiction?
 

UppsalaDragby

New Member
Feb 6, 2012
543
40
0
Keeth said:
The ten commandments are not being discussed at all in the above scriptures.
Did I claim that they did? The only place in the NT where the decalogue is referred to is in 2 Cor 3, where Paul describes their ministry as something that brings death and condemnation and was fading away. Why are SDAs trying to reintroduce them into Christianity?

They could not possibly be referred to as commandments of men.
Again, did I make such a claim???? So before you speak about the "commandments of men", why don't you explain what they are, and why you think I am in favor of them?

Why do you insist upon making Paul and the scriptures contradict themselves on this one? Were the writers of the NT schizophrenic concerning the commandments of God?
I'm not.

Or will you flat out deny that we are admonished to keep them many times over in the NT? How do you explain this blaring contradiction?

What contradiction? The NT teaches us is that we are NOT under the mosaic law, but rather under the law of Christ. Whatever we are "admonisted" to do in the NT is acheivable through obeying the law of Christ. What we are not admonished to do is to follow the Mosaic law concerning the sabbath. You are forced to add to scripture in order to make that assertion.

Laws that were made to restrain evil, were not made for the righteous, but for lawbreakers. Rather than doing what you hope the 10 commandments will do for you, all it does is implicate you as a criminal. Someone who is not a child molester does not need an electronic device around his ankle in order to restrain him from molesting children. Removing such a device from someone who is not a child molester does not turn him into a child molester any more than removing a straitjacket from a sane person makes him go mad. Sure, we still have flesh that is evil, but we do not identify ourselves by our flesh, but by the new nature that God created when we were saved. Anyone who goes back and puts himself under the Mosaic law is denying God's grace - which tells us that we are the righteousness of God! Willingly placing yourself under a restraining law implicates you just as much as willingly putting a device around your ankle that was designed for a sex offender.

The law of Christ was not made for lawbreakers. It is not a "restraining" law in the same degree as the OT laws were. It is a law that gives freedom.

Now if you contention is that the 10 commandments did not belong to the Old Coventant then provide the scriptures that support that claim. I, on my part, am quite willing to meet you with scriptures that show you that the ARE a part of that covenant.

In the meantime, instead of dodging the issues, why don't you answer my question? Can you meet the challenge I made earlier on? If not, then why not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.