The Lord's Day is Sunday.

[Bible Highlighter]

Ok but that is an example where we differ and that difference is going to show up in the posts.

Col 2 is a chapter about two things
1. Not judging others (which is no change from Matt 7:1-5 - "judge not")
2. Making stuff up in man-made tradition (which was condemned in Mark 7:7-13)

Neither of which is a change from the pre-cross situation.

Paul is not deleting/negating scripture in Col 2 - he is refuting man-made-tradition.

I respectfully disagree. Colossians 2:14 says that he nailed to the cross those ordinances that were against us. You cannot nail false traditions of men to the cross. That makes no sense. Colossians 2:16 clearly says we are not to let others judge us according to sabbaths. It does not say… do not let anyone judge you according to sabbaths (except for the weekly sabbath). No clause of exception is mentioned in there. Yet, Sabbath keepers try to invent a work around in Colossians 2:16 to say that this was only referring to yearly sabbaths or for some other reason. It’s clear that the ordinances nailed to the cross in verse 14 are the same things that we are not let others judge us about in verse 16. So they cannot be men’s traditions. That’s even more far out there - IMO.

Then there is the changing of Romans 14:5, and Acts 15, and Acts 13:39, and Galatians 5:3-4, etc.; I am not a weekly Sabbath keeper and so I don’t have any restrictions in hold me back in having to change these verses to defend a Sabbath keeping viewpoint. I just read these verses and believe them at face value. They mean what they say. Thus, this is one reason which leads me to the conclusion that the Lord’s day in Revelation 1:10 is not the Sabbath because I believe Scripture tells me that the Sabbath command is no longer binding under the New Covenant. But if you feel that it is the Sabbath, then that is your choice. I just do not accept that interpretation because it simply seems biased and it does not read naturally. The interpretation seems forced so as to defend a Sabbath keeping viewpoint. But that’s okay. That is your choice to accept that view of the Lord’s day in Revelation 1:10. I just strongly disagree with that viewpoint, just as I disagree with another poster here who claimed that the Lord’s day is referring to more than one day.

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 14:5, Acts of the Apostles 15,
...Galatians 5:3-4, etc.

Rom 14 does not mention the weekly Sabbath at all - it says of the Lev 23 annual holy days "one man observes one day above another while another many observes them all".

Acts 15:1 is specifically about circumcision -- not the ten Commandments.

As noted in my earlier post - this is not even a Sabbatarian response - it is the the "TEN are still valid" position of almost Bible scholars on both sides of the Sabbath/Lord's-day topic.

Galatians 5:3-4 -- also does not mention the weekly Sabbath at all. It says "you who are seeking to be justified by law" but never says "if you choose not to take God's name in vain then you are seeking to be justified by law" nor does it mention any other from among the Ten Commandments.

and in the fact that at the weekly fellowship of the Lord’s supper was done on the first day of the week.

you don't even have one text that actually says that - but you are stating your POV exactly right. The problem is that it is not compelling without a text that actually says it.

For 1 Corinthians 10 and 1 Corinthians 11 mentions Lord’s table, Lord’s supper, and the cup of the Lord (all suggesting the feast that the disciples shared in for the New Covenant).

The argument here is not against the Lord's table, the communion service or the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 where the Law of God known to Jeremiah and his readers is written on heart and mind.

The Scriptures say they broke bread on the first day.

True - but it does not
1. call week-day-1 "the Lord's Day" - even though it calls the 7th day by its name of honor "the Sabbath" in Acts 18:4 and in Acts 13 and in Acts 16 and in Acts 17:1-6.
2. Say that they broke bread every week-day-1 even though it does say they preached the Gospel "every Sabbath" in Acts 18:4.

It’s the day we would expect Christians (Not Sabbath celebrating Jews) to celebrate because it is the celebration of His resurrection.

Acts 15 says that the Sabbath celebrating Christian practice of hearing scripture every Sabbath was the solution for the dispute that arose in Acts 15:1

 

[BobRyan]

I respectfully disagree. Colossians 2:14 says that he nailed to the cross those ordinances that were against us. You cannot nail false traditions of men to the cross.

Col 2:14 says he nailed "our certificate of debt" (our sin debt.. the punishment of the second death) to the cross.

"14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross" NASB

He paid the speeding ticket - He did not delete the speed limit laws. So that even in the NT "Sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4

here again is the very Bible detail where Bible scholars on both sides of the Sabbath topic agree - in almost all denominations.

In other words - this is not me making a distinctly Sabbatarian point yet.

Yet, Sabbath keepers try to invent a work around in Colossians 2:16 to say that this was only referring to yearly sabbaths or for some other reason. It’s clear that the ordinances nailed to the cross in verse 14 are the same things that we are not let others judge us about in verse 16. So they cannot be men’s traditions.

1. you have never seen me argue that the certificate of debt owed by all mankind was keeping Jewish ceremonies like Passover. Gentiles were never told they had to do that in OT or NT.

2. The reason that Paul brings salvation from sin into this gets back to Acts 15:1 "you cannot be saved unless you are circumcised" - which is something that Christian Jews had made up - (making stuff up -- being hammered in Col 2)

 

[BobRyan]

Then there is the changing of Romans 14:5,

Romans 14 needs no change - almost all Bible translations freely admit that the word "alike" was an "insert".

5 One person regards(observes) one day above another, another regards (observes) every day. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord,

Gal 4:9-11 makes it clear that to observe even one annual holy day not approved by the Word of God was to be condemned and indicated the loss of salvation -- so the observed days in Rom 14 could only have been from the Bible approved list in Lev 23.

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 15, and Acts 13:39,
and Galatians 5:3-4,

None of them make any reference to deleting the Sabbath. In fact Acts 15 appeals to the fact that all Christians observing Sabbath solves the Acts 15:1 problem.

Acts 13 is the case where gentiles - not Jews - request "more gospel preaching - for NEXT Sabbath"

Galatians 5:3-4 -- does not mention the weekly Sabbath at all. It says "you who are seeking to be justified by law" but never says "if you choose not to take God's name in vain then you are seeking to be justified by law" nor does it mention any other command from among the Ten Commandments.

 

[BobRyan]

Thus, this is one reason which leads me to the conclusion that the Lord’s day in Revelation 1:10 is not the Sabbath because I believe Scripture tells me that the Sabbath command is no longer binding under the New Covenant.

you have yet to even quote the New Covenant. The only one doing that so far is me in my constant reference to the New Covenant text in Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:6-12 speaking of "the Law written on heart and mind" - where that Law is the one known to Jeremiah and his readers having "honor your father and mother as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2. (And also written on the heart according to Paul.)

 

[BobRyan]

I believe Scripture tells me that the Sabbath command is no longer binding under the New Covenant. But if you feel that it is the Sabbath, then that is your choice. I just do not accept that interpretation because it simply seems biased and it does not read naturally.

If I look at the argument you make so far and ignore every Bible detail in my own posts and also the fact that bible scholars on both sides of the Sabbath discussion in almost all denominations freely admit to the Bible details I keep pointing out ... I can sort of see your point. But it is pretty hard to ignore the Bible fact that I am not even making very much of the Sabbatarian argument yet - I am still primarily arguing on behalf of the sunday-keeping Bible scholars that point out that your suggestions so far are not what the Bible is saying.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Rom 14 does not mention the weekly Sabbath at all - it says of the Lev 23 annual holy days "one man observes one day above another while another many observes them all".

Well, I have heard this excuse used before by Sabbath keepers but I don’t think it jives with a natural reading of Romans 14:5. Paul says that there are those who regards all days alike and Paul does not clarify the point by saying: “With the exception of the weekly Sabbath, there are some who say all days are alike.” There needs to be some kind of clarification in the context that lets us know that Paul is exclusively referring to the annual holy days and not the weekly sabbaths.

Also, reading Leviticus 23 does not really change the reading on Romans 14:5. There is nothing clearly mentioned between these two chapters that is an exclusive tag word to mean only “annual feast days” in both chapters.

Acts 15:1 is specifically about circumcision -- not the ten Commandments.

Not true.

“But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts of the Apostles 15:5).

“Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:” (Acts of the Apostles 15:24).

Also, while circumcision first began with Abraham, it was included and or attached later into the Law of Moses.

For Paul, who was a Jew said:
“For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” (Galatians 5:3).

As noted in my earlier post - this is not even a Sabbatarian response - it is the the "TEN are still valid" position of almost Bible scholars on both sides of the Sabbath/Lord's-day topic.

I don’t have a problem with the discussion we are having now. I just don’t want to get off track or topic in regards to the day of the Lord in Revelation 1:10.

Galatians 5:3-4 -- also does not mention the weekly Sabbath at all. It says "you who are seeking to be justified by law" but never says "if you choose not to take God's name in vain then you are seeking to be justified by law" nor does it mention any other from among the Ten Commandments.

Paul says in Galatians 5:4 that if you seek to be justified by the Law you have fallen from grace. The sabbath was a sign between God and the Israelites involving the Mosaic Law (that is a part of the Old covenant).

16 “Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.” (Exodus 31:16-17).

The Old Law was given to the Israelites and not anyone else.

Jesus came to take away the first covenant and to establish the New Covenant or New Testament.

“He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” (Hebrews 10:9).

The Law and the priesthood have changed (See: Hebrews 7:12).

Also, Paul mentions circumcision and that was a part of the Law of Moses. Paul said if you seek to be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. So this means Paul is condemning a ceremonial Law that was not repeated in the New Covenant. Yet, the keeping of the Moral Law still applies like: Do not murder, do not covet, do not commit adultery, etc. (Galatians 5:19-21). Nothing is mentioned about the sin of breaking the Sabbath in Galatians 5:19-21 or anywhere else in the New Testament (for that matter).

Under the Old Covenant you had to be circumcised otherwise you would be cut off from among your people (the Israelites). But this is not the case under the New Covenant because this command was not repeated in the New Covenant, and circumcision is actually now condemned if one is doing so as a requirement of the faith.

you don't even have one text that actually says that - but you are stating your POV exactly right. The problem is that it is not compelling without a text that actually says it.

Yes, I do. Here it is.

“And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread,” (Acts of the Apostles 20:7).

The argument here is not against the Lord's table, the communion service or the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 where the Law of God known to Jeremiah and his readers is written on heart and mind.

Jeremiah 31 speaks of the time of Millennium of when the nation of Israel will have already accepted the New Covenant (before at Christ’s second coming that is yet future). For they will not have to say “Know the Lord” because everyone living in the Millennium time will already know the Lord.

True - but it does not
1. call week-day-1 "the Lord's Day" - even though it calls the 7th day by its name of honor "the Sabbath" in Acts 18:4 and in Acts 13 and in Acts 16 and in Acts 17:1-6.
2. Say that they broke bread every week-day-1 even though it does say they preached the Gospel "every Sabbath" in Acts 18:4.

Indirectly it does if we connect the dots of the phrases: the Lord’s supper, Lord’s table, and the cup of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 10-11, and connect that with how they broke bread (the Lord’s supper) on the first day of the week (Acts of the Apostles 20:7).

Lords supper, Lord’s table, cup of the Lord…. Lord’s day.
Lord’s supper involves breaking of bread which happens on the 1st day of the week.

Acts 15 says that the Sabbath celebrating Christian practice of hearing scripture every Sabbath was the solution for the dispute that arose in Acts 15:1

No, that’s not what it says. The Gentiles Christians were told that they do not have to keep the Law in Acts of the Apostles 15:24; For the apostles were basically saying that the Gentile Christians were not given any such commandment. The Law would naturally be the Law of Moses (which naturally includes the Saturday Sabbath), and nothing is clarified how the Gentile Christians must keep the weekly Sabbath.

So the Lord’s day is Sunday in Revelation 1:10 and not the Sabbath because Gentile Christians were told that they did not have to keep the Law of Moses.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If I look at the argument you make so far and ignore every Bible detail in my own posts and also the fact that bible scholars on both sides of the Sabbath discussion in almost all denominations freely admit to the Bible details I keep pointing out ... I can sort of see your point. But it is pretty hard to ignore the Bible fact that I am not even making very much of the Sabbatarian argument yet - I am still primarily arguing on behalf of the sunday-keeping Bible scholars that point out that your suggestions so far are not what the Bible is saying.

I don’t think we can look at the positions of popular scholars or common beliefs who debate this kind of topic to determine the truth here. We have to go by what the Bible says plainly.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

you have yet to even quote the New Covenant. The only one doing that so far is me in my constant reference to the New Covenant text in Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:6-12 speaking of "the Law written on heart and mind" - where that Law is the one known to Jeremiah and his readers having "honor your father and mother as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2. (And also written on the heart according to Paul.)

You seriously need to go back and read through my posts in this thread then if you believe I have not quoted the New Testament.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, I have heard this excuse used before by Sabbath keepers but I don’t think it jives with a natural reading of Romans 14:5. Paul says that there are those who regards all days alike

No he doesn't as already pointed out - most Bible translations inform the reader that the word "alike" is not actually in Paul's letter (so they often place it in italics or note it in the margin) but is 'inserted' by the translators.

And Rom 14:5-6 make it very clear that "regard" is to "observe" the day.

5 One person regards(observes) one day above another, another regards (observes) every day. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord,

Which was already pointed out here -- 48 minutes ago #504


So no reference to the weekly Sabbath and if it is to be in harmony with Gal 4:9-11 then it can not reference observance of any of the pagan holy days mentioned and condemned there.

 

[BobRyan]

I don’t think we can look at the positions of popular scholars or common beliefs

Those confessions of faith go back for centuries.. C.H. Spurgeon and D.L. Moody lived in the 1800's. My point is your constant reference to "sabbatarian" is out of place when you oppose the majority of Bible scholars on both sides of the topic.

You are of course free to select out any POV you wish - but casting it as if only Sabbatarian Bible scholarship notes the problems in your solution is not providing the complete picture. In fact almost all Bible scholars notice that bible detail problem in the position you are promoting. I am not the one positioning it as you vs Sabbatarians - you did. I am just pointing out that that is a mischaracterization of the gap here.

 

[BobRyan]

Thus, this is one reason which leads me to the conclusion that the Lord’s day in Revelation 1:10 is not the Sabbath because I believe Scripture tells me that the Sabbath command is no longer binding under the New Covenant.

BobRyan said: ↑
you have yet to even quote the New Covenant. The only one doing that so far is me in my constant reference to the New Covenant text in Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:6-12 speaking of "the Law written on heart and mind" - where that Law is the one known to Jeremiah and his readers having "honor your father and mother as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2. (And also written on the heart according to Paul.)

You seriously need to go back and read through my posts in this thread then if you believe I have not quoted the New Testament.

If you have a quote of the New Covenant in any post you made to me - please provide the link. I "notice" that you switched "New Covenant" and replaced it with "New Testament" in your response just then. My post referenced "New Covenant" since that is the term you used before and is what I was responding to.

Jer 31:31-34 "I will make a NEW COVENANT... THIS IS the COVENANT..."

I think our issue is that you have not actually quoted the New Covenant yet.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No he doesn't as already pointed out - most Bible translations inform the reader that the word "alike" is not actually in the manuscript (so they often place it in italics or note it in the margin) but is 'inserted' by the translators.

Well, I am not into the Bible correcting business. If we don’t believe one word in our Bible, then what makes us trust the rest of it? One either believes all of it is true, or all of it is false. One cannot have a holey bible that has holes of doctrine or half truths in it. One must have a HOLY Bible that is perfect and can be completely trusted. For faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). For any time a person may disagree on a doctrine we don’t like, we can just change it and say… “Oh look that word is really not supposed to be in there or this word actually means something else,” etc.

So if this is how you are going to deal with Scripture, I think it is best we agree to disagree and move on. For if the Word can be altered, it can be altered to fit our interpretations and that’s just not right.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If you have a quote of the New Covenant in any post you made to me - please provide the link. I "notice" that you switched "New Covenant" and replaced it with "New Testament" in your response just then. My post referenced "New Covenant" since that is the term you used before and is what I was responding to.

Jer 31:31-34 "I will make a NEW COVENANT... THIS IS the COVENANT..."

I think our issue is that you have not actually quoted the New Covenant yet.

I see the words “New Covenant” and “New Testament” as being synonymous.
As for my New Testament verses that I posted: Again, you can see them by reading through the thread. For I am not even sure that any of the verses I quoted will convince you.

 

[BobRyan]

You said:
Acts 15:1 is specifically about circumcision -- not the ten Commandments.

Not true.

“But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts of the Apostles 15:5).

If your argument is that the problem was that some people told gentiles that taking God's name in vain is a sin (Ex 20:7) then you completely omitted Acts 15:1 even though I stated repeatedly that Acts 15:1 is the issue and frames the context for Acts 15:5

Acts 15:1 " Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

There is not one word in the NT saying it is ok for gentiles to take God's name in vain.

What is more in Rom 13 when Paul lists the commandments to be fulfilled by Christians - he quotes exclusively from the LAW of Moses.

In Acts 21 we see more full detail in how the ceremonial laws in general were included in the discussion about circumcision.

Acts 21
17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

Notice that in context of "circumcision" and "keeping the Law" - there is nothing at all here about "do not take God's name in vain" or "remember the Sabbath day" - rather it is specifically and singularly about "the ceremonial law" alone. as Acts 21 points out.

Nothing at all about "do not take God's name in vain".

Which explains why - Sabbath observance among Christians was highlighted as the SOLUTION to the Acts 15:1 problem

Acts 15:
21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

 

[BobRyan]

I see the words “New Covenant” and “New Testament” as being synonymous.

Fine - lets "edit" the actual New Covenant text in actual scripture and replace it as you suggest above (since you are "still" not quoting the New Covenant).

31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant (I WILL make the NEW TESTAMENT ) with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “But this is the covenant (THIS IS the NEW TESTAMENT) which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord,
a. “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it;
b. and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
c. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord,
e. “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

That becomes a 2 sentence NEW TESTAMENT with the substitution you suggest.

The New Covenant writes the Law of God on the heart... the Law known to Jeremiah and his readers.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, I am not into the Bible correcting business.

I am in the Bible reading Business - when the translators tell the reader they "inserted" the word "alike" in Rom 14:5-6 - and that it is not actually in the manuscript as copied from Paul ... I believe them.

So if this is how you are going to deal with Scripture, I think it is best we agree to disagree and move on. For if the Word can be altered, it can be altered to fit our interpretations and that’s just not right.

The bible translators tell us they are inserting a word - and you claim it is unkind to scripture to "believe them" when THEY say they are inserting that word into what they are printing for you to read?? seriously?

I agree with you - that having THIS as our difference in Rom 14 is fine with me. I have no problem with that at all.

(This may be "yet another reason" why Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate are not inclined to accept the suggestions you make at this point).

 

[BobRyan]

I see the words “New Covenant” and “New Testament” as being synonymous.
As for my New Testament verses that I posted: Again, you can see them by reading through the thread. For I am not even sure that any of the verses I quoted will convince you.

As you can see from my post I view Jer 31:31-34 having God say "this IS the NEW Covenant" - as the correct view. And I don't think the entire New Testament can be found in Jer 31

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Those confessions of faith go back for centuries.. C.H. Spurgeon

Just because certain men lived in a time before us does not mean they had any better knowledge of the faith than what we can have if we ask God and we compare Scripture with Scripture.

Spurgeon is a Calvinist and I think Calvinism is about as bad as believing in a flat Earth. So yeah. He does not qualify as somebody who knows the Bible all too well - IMHO. I am not saying he may not get certain truths correct, but I would not look to him as trusted source by any means. For Calvinism in my view is really a huge misunderstanding of the Bible in my view.

and D.L. Moody lived in the 1800's.

Moody believed in interdenominational ecumenicism. So again, this kind of disqualifies him in being a bible expert - IMO.

My point is your constant reference to "sabbatarian" is out of place when you oppose the majority of Bible scholars on both sides of the topic.

The Psalmist thought, “I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.” (Psalms 119:99).

This lets us know that spiritual knowledge of God’s Word is not something that everyone has.

You are of course free to select out any POV you wish - but casting it as if only Sabbatarian Bible scholarship notes the problems in your solution is not providing the complete picture. In fact almost all Bible scholars notice that bible detail problem in the position you are promoting. I am not the one positioning it as you vs Sabbatarians - you did. I am just pointing out that that is a mischaracterization of the gap here.

I cannot unlearn what I know. I know that the Bible does not support the Sabbath keepers’ view on the Sabbath because what words they want to be true are simply is not there in the New Testament. There are no Sabbath commands in the New Testament. There are no sins mentioned as breaking the Sabbath in the New Testament. We see that the Gentile Christians are told specifically and clearly that they are not to keep the Law of Moses in Acts of the Apostles 15:24. Colossians 2:16 says we are not let anyone judge us according to sabbaths (Which would naturally include the weekly Sabbath). Oh, and I don’t see anything about how Colossians 2 is referring exclusively to annual sabbaths, either. No words in that chapter suggest that.

So knowing that the Sabbath day command is no longer in effect lets us know that the Lord’s day in Revelation 1:10 cannot be the weekly Sabbath. Therefore, it must be the first day of the week; Especially when we see references to the Lord’s table, Lord’s supper, the cup of the Lord, and the bread being broken on the 1st day.