Saturday or Sunday Church?

[Ceallaigh]

Your only argument so far is most Christians don't agree with you.

Most Christians will agree with Christian orthodoxy. Most Christians will agree with orthodox views, doctrine and theology that has been around for 2000 years.

So you base you beliefs on what most Christians think. Thank God the Apostles did not base their beliefs on what others thought.

My beliefs align with orthodox Christian views, doctrine and theology which was established by the Apostles and their direct disciples. Rather than something contrary to orthodoxy that sprang up around 1900 years later.

You on the other hand seem to have decided to believe in and follow latter day man-made homespun unorthodox beliefs views, doctrine and theology. That should be clear to you.

Since we already established you have no argument against what was shown to you in regards to Romans 14. Let's take a look at the context in Colossians chapter 2 shall we?

Beware lest anyone spoil, steal us away. For we are complete in Him, established in the faith. Circumcised with the circumcision made without hands in the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ in Baptism wherein the body of the sins of the flesh is buried, put off. And we being dead in our sins and the uncircumcision of the flesh are now risen, quicken together with Him through Baptism, the circumcision made without hands; forgiving us of all trespasses through Faith in operation of God. Therefore Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances because we have been forgiven of our trespasses. For our sins have been cut off through the circumcision made without hands and the handwriting ordinances of judgment and condemnation that were against us were taken away and nailed to the cross because they are not needed anymore because we now have our forgiveness in Christ through the faith in the operation of God. Not the statutes and laws that told us what sin is, but the ordinances which were condemning; that dealt with when we sinned. And certainly not the Ten commandments and the Sabbath therein. For they also tell us what sin is.

Having spoiled the principalities, that which was established first, the handwriting of ordinances and it's power. That which was against us and contrary to us. Condemning us in it's judgement due to our sins. But now we are forgiven in Christ so it is not needed. So it's authority and power has been taken away; spoiled.

Let therefore, because of everything that was just said. Let no man judge you either in meat and drink offerings, holy days, new moon celebrations and Sabbaths in which were also written in the handwriting of ordinances that dealt with when we sinned. For it's power has been spoiled, stripped away, for we have been forgiven through Christ and the things they symbolize are but a shadow of things to come but the Body is Christ which we are now complete in. Please take note they are to come. So the stance that Christ is now are Sabbath is also debunked here.

Col 2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

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.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
Col 2:11 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:
Col 2:12 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.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Col 2:14 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;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Col 2:16 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:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

 

[Leaf473]

"Impressions" are funny that way.

In 1 Cor 8 Paul explains the whole thing so as to leave nothing to "impressions".

11 For through your knowledge the one who is weak is ruined, the brother or sister for whose sake Christ died. 12 And so, by sinning against the brothers and sisters and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to sin.

It had everything to do with their fear of eating meat offered to idols as was mentioned in Acts 15 regarding gentiles.

Sounds like exactly what I was thinking, too!

The one who was strong in faith realized that it didn't matter if the meat was sacrificed to idols. The one who was weak in faith was willing to be vegetarian just to avoid the chance of eating idol meat.

This represents a change from what was said in Acts 15 imo. Possibly by the time Paul wrote that to the Corinthians, the reasons the apostles had for saying to avoid meat sacrificed to idols had passed. At least in that area.

The new issue is not causing your brother to stumble.

And then just take that same line of thought and apply it to Holy Days, if you wish.

 

[Leaf473]

Again - there is no Greek word in the text for "alike".

We could always have this same point posted another 10 times but I don't see the point in it.

I already agree that you and I differ. What else is there?

One thing that remains is for you to translate the passage yourself.

Then I would think you will see that there is no real basis for protesting the addition of the word Alike.

 

[Ceallaigh]

One thing that remains is for you to translate the passage yourself.

Then I would think you will see that there is no real basis for protesting the addition of the word Alike.

When one consults a lexicon without an understanding of how Koine Greek is structured, one is going to find a lot of words "missing".

 

[BobRyan]

One thing that remains is for you to translate the passage yourself.

On the contrary the translators themselves informs the reader that "alike" is inserted by the publisher and is not actually in the text in Rom 14... So 'nothing remains' for me -- but you are welcome to keep asking that I point out that they already admitted this.

 

[BobRyan]

Sounds like exactly what I was thinking, too!

The one who was strong in faith realized that it didn't matter if the meat was sacrificed to idols. The one who was weak in faith was willing to be vegetarian just to avoid the chance of eating idol meat.

Yep and that is what is referenced in Rom 14.

The "strong " option is given first and then the "weak one". Both in the case of meat vs vegetables, and also in the case of observing every day in the Bible approved list , vs observing one above the others.

This represents a change from what was said in Acts 15 imo.

Acts 15 is referencing scripture in the OT that also commands us not to eat meat offered to idols.

Paul strongly affirms this practice in case of Christian gentiles - but says that Christian Jews don't have that same restriction since they themselves know that there are no other gods. Acts 15 is a command to gentiles - and Paul never tells gentiles to go ahead and eat meat offered to idols.

 

[BobRyan]

My beliefs align with orthodox Christian views, doctrine and theology which was established by the Apostles and their direct disciples. .

In that case - an actual text of scripture should not be hard for you to find.

 

[BobRyan]

First century Judaizers attempted to put Gentile believers in bondage to a set of Mosaic laws that did not apply to them

Indeed the Christian Judaizers wanted gentiles to be circumcised in order to have salvation according to Acts 15:1-3 . The non-Christian Jews were not doing that and the OT did not do it. Rather the Christian Jews were just making it up because of the special circumstances they found themselves in.

But that is not a case of Paul deleting scripture or any other such thing. Rather he - like Christ - shows scripture in its pure un-bent light.

 

[Leaf473]

On the contrary the translators themselves informs the reader that "alike" is inserted by the publisher and is not actually in the text in Rom 14... So 'nothing remains' for me -- but you are welcome to keep asking that I point out that they already admitted this.

I'm agreeing with your point that the word isn't there. An additional point is that if you translate it yourself, you will see that the first point isn't the main point.

Does that make sense?

 

[BobRyan]

James mentioned that Jewish believers met on the Sabbath - so the Jerusalem Council did consider that piece of information.

Not true.

James is not talking about the fact that Jews attend Sabbath services. He makes no statement at all of the form "Jewish believers are doing xyz".

Rather he points to something we see in Acts 13, Acts 17 and Acts 18 -- which is that they are having BOTH Jews AND Gentiles assembled for Gospel preaching "Every Sabbath" as Acts 18:4 says.

His point is not "Sabbath is being kept" (since that is not even being disputed in Acts 15 ) but that "Moses is being read".

Nevertheless, the substance of their decision is entirely in the letter sent to the Gentiles on which Mosaic laws to observe (Acts 15:23-29) and it has no mention of the Sabbath - which is no accident.

No - the 5 sentences of Acts 15 is not given to gentile Christians as "The new Bible to replace all of scripture known to mankind up to that point in time".

Only one of the "commandments" that Paul affirms for the church in Rom 13 is in that list in Acts 15.
Only one "of the commandments" Jesus lists in Matt 19 for all the saints - is in that Acts 15 list.
None of the commandments James lists for the church in James 2 - is in that Acts 15 list.

 

[Leaf473]

Yep and that is what is referenced in Rom 14.

The "weak" option is given first and then the "strong one". Both in the case of meat vs vegetables, and also in the case of observing every day in the Bible approved list , vs observing one above the others.



Acts 15 is referencing scripture in the OT that also commands us not to eat meat offered to idols.

Paul strongly affirms this practice in case of Christian gentiles - but says that Christian Jews don't have that same restriction since they themselves know that there are no other gods. Acts 15 is a command to gentiles - and Paul never tells gentiles to go ahead and eat meat offered to idols.

Well... The first sentence:
Now accept one who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions.

So when talking about accepting, the weak person is talked about first. Makes sense to me, you tell the strong to accept the weak.

Then the next sentence:
One man has faith to eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.

So the strong person eats everything, the weak eats vegetables. And the strong is mentioned first.

Then I agree, when it comes to days, the weak option is listed first.

Cool thing I just saw, maybe this translation made it stand out:
6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it.

Sounds to me like that could easily apply to keeping the Sabbath day holy. To the Lord, you can not observe it. Kind of an odd grammatical construction, but it's basically the opposite of Observing it to the Lord. Both options are acceptable.

That's what I think the passage is about.

 

[Leaf473]

Yep and that is what is referenced in Rom 14.

The "weak" option is given first and then the "strong one". Both in the case of meat vs vegetables, and also in the case of observing every day in the Bible approved list , vs observing one above the others.



Acts 15 is referencing scripture in the OT that also commands us not to eat meat offered to idols.

Paul strongly affirms this practice in case of Christian gentiles - but says that Christian Jews don't have that same restriction since they themselves know that there are no other gods. Acts 15 is a command to gentiles - and Paul never tells gentiles to go ahead and eat meat offered to idols.

I disagree with the interpretation that the Jews were the ones being told meat sacrificed to idols was okay. And that gentiles were told it wasn't.

Anyone who understood that food is just food could eat it imo.

 

[BobRyan]

in Rom 14.

The "strong " option is given first and then the "weak one". Both in the case of meat vs vegetables, and also in the case of observing every day in the Bible approved list , vs observing one above the others.

.

That is the corrected sequence.

..

Then the next sentence:
One man has faith to eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.

So the strong person eats everything, the weak eats vegetables. And the strong is mentioned first.

Agreed - the one who eats all the food regardless if it includes meat offered to idols is the one in 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10 that was listed as "strong". And they were the Christian Jews. The "weak" were the "Christian gentiles" newly turned from paganism..

 

[BobRyan]

1 Cor 8:
9 But take care that this freedom of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, the one who has knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will his conscience, if he is weak, not be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11 For through your knowledge the one who is weak is ruined, the brother or sister for whose sake Christ died. 12 And so, by sinning against the brothers and sisters and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to sin.

There is nothing in OT or NT about not eating meat vs only eating vegetables. The only "issue" mentioned about that is what we find in 1 Cor 8 and referenced in Rom 14 - in passing.

1. The "weak" in faith are the gentiles - fearful of meat offered to idols
2. The "strong' in faith are the Christian Jews who do not regard the idols as being anything at all.

1 Cor 8:
Now concerning food sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes one conceited, but love edifies people. 2 If anyone thinks that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; 3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.

4 Therefore, concerning the eating of food sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

7 However, not all people have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 Now food will not bring us close to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9 But take care that this freedom of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.

I prefer the Bible "details".... as noted above

I disagree with the interpretation that the Jews were the ones being told meat sacrificed to idols was okay. And that gentiles were told it wasn't.

Then apparently you are having a problem reading 1 Cor 8...

1 Cor 8:
9 But take care that this freedom of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, the one who has knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will his conscience, if he is weak, not be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11 For through your knowledge the one who is weak is ruined, the brother or sister for whose sake Christ died. 12 And so, by sinning against the brothers and sisters and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to sin.

There is nothing in OT or NT about not eating meat vs only eating vegetables. The only "issue" mentioned about that is what we find in 1 Cor 8 and referenced in Rom 14 - in passing.

1. The "weak" in faith are the gentiles - fearful of meat offered to idols
2. The "strong' in faith are the Christian Jews who do not regard the idols as being anything at all.

1 Cor 8:
Now concerning food sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes one conceited, but love edifies people. 2 If anyone thinks that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; 3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.

4 Therefore, concerning the eating of food sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

7 However, not all people have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 Now food will not bring us close to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9 But take care that this freedom of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.

======================

I find it to be too obvious to miss.

 

[John Mullally]

Not true.

James is not talking about the fact that Jews attend Sabbath services. He makes no statement at all of the form "Jewish believers are doing xyz".

Rather he points to something we see in Acts 13, Acts 17 and Acts 18 -- which is that they are having BOTH Jews AND Gentiles assembled for Gospel preaching "Every Sabbath" as Acts 18:4 says.

His point is not "Sabbath is being kept" (since that is not even being disputed in Acts 15 ) but that "Moses is being read".

The details of what was communicated in Acts 15 prior to the letter to the Gentiles (Acts 15:23-29) only serves to identify what the Apostles considered before writing the letter. Only the letter is material (Acts 15:23-29) because that details the instructions to the Gentiles. Analogy: The arguments that U.S. Legislature make over a bill is historic but immaterial - only the content of the passed bill is material.

No - the 5 sentences of Acts 15 is not given to gentile Christians as "The new Bible to replace all of scripture known to mankind up to that point in time".

Only one of the "commandments" that Paul affirms for the church in Rom 13 is in that list in Acts 15.
Only one "of the commandments" Jesus lists in Matt 19 for all the saints - is in that Acts 15 list.
None of the commandments James lists for the church in James 2 - is in that Acts 15 list.

Jesus was preparing his disciples to shift from the Mosaic law. Jesus only spoke about the Mosaic law with outsiders (i.e. not his disciples). Privately, with His disciples He gave new commandments (John 14:15). The letter to Gentile believers in Acts 15:23-29 state that only a few Mosaic laws apply to Gentile believers. The commandments from Jesus continue to apply to all.

Acts and the Epistles were written to New Covenant believers (that's us). The OT was written to Old Covenant Jews. And the Gospels are a mix.

 

[BobRyan]

The details of what was communicated outside of the letter to the Gentiles in Acts 15:23-29 only serves to identify what the Apostles considered before writing the letter. The fact James stated that the "Sabbath is kept" in various congregations only indicates that that was a consideration.

I don't find James saying in Act 15 "Sabbath is kept in various congregations" or "Sabbath is kept".

Rather he says that "Moses is read every Sabbath" where the point is not about Sabbath since that is not even being debated - but rather the teaching of Moses is his point. He is not trying to re-assure them that they are gathering on Sabbath but rather that the obvious fact that they assemble on Sabbath and hear Moses preached - is the "solution" for gentiles and explains why gentiles do not need to be circumcised as if to solve some problem that Christian Jews were supposing to exist for gentiles.

 

[John Mullally]

I don't find James saying in Act 15 "Sabbath is kept in various congregations" or "Sabbath is kept".

Rather he says that "Moses is read every Sabbath" where the point is not about Sabbath since that is not even being debated - but rather the teaching of Moses is his point.

As I stated earlier, the only portion of Acts 15 that is material to the Gentile believers concerning keeping the Mosaic Law (and to todays church) is what is written in Acts 15:23-29. This letter frees Gentile believers from having to keep the 10 commandments! Jesus commanded us to love God supremely and our neighbor as ourselves.

 

[Ceallaigh]

In that case - an actual text of scripture should not be hard for you to find.

The issue is with whatever unorthodox gobbledygook someone is trying to spin from scripture, rather than with scripture itself. One can tack on numerous proof texts to unorthodox gobbledygook, but that's just putting lipstick on a pig.

 

[John Mullally]

The issue is with whatever unorthodox gobbledygook someone is trying to spin from scripture, rather than with scripture itself. One can tack on numerous proof texts to unorthodox gobbledygook, but that's just putting lipstick on a pig.

But you cannot apply the pig lipstick on the Sabbath - as that is a work.

 

[BobRyan]

My beliefs align with orthodox Christian views, doctrine and theology which was established by the Apostles and their direct disciples. .

In that case - an actual text of scripture should not be hard for you to find.

The issue is with whatever unorthodox gobbledygook someone is trying to spin from scripture .

Simply applying "more pejorative language" to a post with no actual text of scripture - does not really help it much.

I am not trying to deny your ability to insert pejorative terms into any given post.