WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

[expos4ever]

I think it is important that readers are warned when other posters carefully curate the material they post - artfully filtering out data points that work against their position.

In this thread, we are being told how many translations of 1 John 3:4 define sin as breaking the law. True enough, there are quite a number of translations that do this.

However, as is often the case, it is what you are not being told that matters. I typed 1 John 3:4 into Bible gateway and found 63 versions. Of these, 60% do not refer to the law in any way whatsoever; they translate as "sin is lawlessness",or "sin is wickedness" or some such thing.

Note also that the NASB, widely recognized as perhaps the most accurate translation, has sin is lawlessness. Same with the Young's literal translation.

Yes, let's talk about this issue, but we need to be straightforward and not cherry pick our data.

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting how you remain silent on how many versions do not make specific reference to the law.

Because the existing ones that point out the detail you find so inconvenient are sufficient to establish the point

 

[BobRyan]

Well, no. What I see is you grossly misrepresenting what other people say.

Well I am glad you are still not finding anything to support your position - because it re-affirms the point that all these texts presented in favor of the TEN - and that includes the Sabbath Commandment - is still a sticking point with your suggestions.

The point is so glaringly obvious in favor of the TEN that almost all Christian denominations accept it rather than getting stuck with these little side notes that you bring up when nothing else seems to be working for your suggestions. So far all you have is "talk to me about other groups - not the ones you list" and variations of that ...

You also have "well yes the Heb 10 text does specifically tell us that the animal sacrifices and offerings are shadows that end at the cross " - then add something of the form "but can't we imagine other things are shadows as well?"

That's IT - that is all you have given us so far.

How is this not incredibly obvious in your POV?

 

[BobRyan]

I think it is important that readers are warned when other posters carefully curate the material they post

I think it is important that readers notice when substance on a given topic is posted as compared to side notes to distract.

In this thread, we are being told how many translations of 1 John 3:4 define sin as breaking the law. True enough, there are quite a number of translations that do this.

And the point of the thread is not "but when 40 translations agree rather than 15 translations -- then suppose there is a difference between lawlessness and transgression of the law" . No such rule exists in all of literature --- and I think we all know it.

I am happy with the dozen or so translations that make it very clear to the reader that "sin IS transgression of the Law" - and "no" I don't think they do that because the Greek scholars that did the translation don't know Greek.

However, as is often the case, it is what you are not being told that matters. I typed 1 John 3:4 into Bible gateway and found 63 versions.

Indeed -- and apparently you posted them. The problem is there is no such thing as 15 Bible translations are not enough AND you also have the problem that in the context of the "Commandments of God" that we see in 1 John 2 and in 1 John 5 - you are stuck with "Sin is translation of the LAW" being a reference to "The Commandments of God" as John reminds the reader in 1 John 5:3.

The bit about context and detail - goes a long way.

The thing about "lawlessness is not transgression of the Law" or "maybe John is not talking about the Commandments of God" does not survive a careful reading of his book of 1 John.

I don't see how this is even a tiny bit confusing.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Not the point. You have been arguing that "lawlessness" must be understood in specific and exclusive relation to the law of Moses. That argument only has legs if, repeat if, the letter is targeted to a specifically Jewish readership. The fact that it's origin is from Judaism is not the point - it is the target reader that is of relevance here. People right for their readers, not for themselves.

And, as far as I can tell, we see no evidence at all that this letter was intended for an exclusively Jewish readership.

Actually, as I said before, no, it does not depend on it. It depends TO YOU because you need it for your argument. Anomia vs nomia...

 

[BobRyan]

Not the point. You have been arguing that "lawlessness" must be understood in specific and exclusive relation to the law of Moses.

Because of details in the text.

Read the book of 1 John and find "the commandments of God" are the context - 1 John 5:3.
Read Eph 6:2 and notice that the "first commandment with a promise is 'Honor your father and mother'"

These details are so blatant and obvious that almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" as included in the moral law of God

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Doesn't it seem like it would be more likely that the original audience was mostly gentile? Jewish people in general not needing to be reminded to stay away from idols at that time?

If former pagans, then likely. Could be likely to both audiences, Jewish Christians and gentile Christians. But as I said, it was still originally from Judaism. Reiterated in ACTS.

 

[BobRyan]

So... Turning my phone horizontally this morning in an effort to get the page to display better, I see that at the bottom of your signature, it says:

"* - 10 as-is or else in edited form"

Which ones are doing it in edited form? Also, is that list the result of original research on your part? Or was it copied from somewhere?

Take a look at the Baptist Confession of faith for an example. The point is - your argument fails either way they do it since they still affirm both the Sabbath commandment AND the entire TEN.

How does this side trail help your point??

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I think it is important that readers are warned when other posters carefully curate the material they post - artfully filtering out data points that work against their position.

In this thread, we are being told how many translations of 1 John 3:4 define sin as breaking the law. True enough, there are quite a number of translations that do this.

However, as is often the case, it is what you are not being told that matters. I typed 1 John 3:4 into Bible gateway and found 63 versions. Of these, 60% do not refer to the law in any way whatsoever; they translate as "sin is lawlessness",or "sin is wickedness" or some such thing.

Note also that the NASB, widely recognized as perhaps the most accurate translation, has sin is lawlessness. Same with the Young's literal translation.

Yes, let's talk about this issue, but we need to be straightforward and not cherry pick our data.

It matters what the context is in GREEK. As I said, anomia vs nomia...

 

[BobRyan]

Not the point. You have been arguing that "lawlessness" must be understood in specific and exclusive relation to the law of Moses. That argument only has legs if, repeat if, the letter is targeted to a specifically Jewish readership.

Nope -- (although the author is a jew no doubt) -- it has legs because of the details IN the book itself . it is John himself pointing us to 'the Commandments of God" in 1 John 5:3.

In 1 john 2 "Keep His commandments" is the lead into 1 John 3:4.

It is the details IN the book that you keep skipping over -- that are the problem with your suggestions so far.

 

[Leaf473]

Well I am glad you are still not finding anything to support your position - because it re-affirms the point that all these texts presented in favor of the TEN - and that includes the Sabbath Commandment - is still a sticking point with your suggestions.

Not true, I just chose to answer parts of your post separately.

The point is so glaringly obvious in favor of the TEN that almost all Christian denominations accept it rather than getting stuck with these little side notes that you bring up when nothing else seems to be working for your suggestions.

They may look like side notes to you, but they are actually key points.

So far all you have is "talk to me about other groups - not the ones you list" and variations of that ...

Not true again, I have said much more than that.

You also have "well yes the Heb 10 text does specifically tell us that the animal sacrifices and offerings are shadows that end at the cross " - then add something of the form "but can't we imagine other things are shadows as well?"

If you want to quote what I say, why not just actually quote what I say?

That's IT - that is all you have given us so far.

How is this not incredibly obvious in your POV?

Because that isn't all that I've given you so far

 

[Leaf473]

If former pagans, then likely. Could be likely to both audiences, Jewish Christians and gentile Christians. But as I said, it was still originally from Judaism. Reiterated in ACTS.

I know commandments against idolatry are from Judaism. But Jewish people hadn't had a problem with idolatry for about 600 years at this point.

But the gentile believers had only recently been idol worshipers.

 

[Leaf473]

Take a look at the Baptist Confession of faith for an example.

An example of what? That they affirm the 10, but in edited form?

The point is - your argument fails either way they do it since they still affirm both the Sabbath commandment AND the entire TEN.

What I'm saying doesn't depend on what humans have written.

How does this side trail help your point??

Because you and I started talking about this subject here:

If you would like me to explain more on why almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN"

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy
[*]many others as well... I am happy to assist.

You offered to explain why these denominations say these things. But you haven't yet explained why they do. You've given some Bible verses to support why you think it.

So the issue is your explanation of the process these denominations went through to arrive at this conclusion.

Did Pope John Paul II use the same Bible verses? He may have, but very likely he also used church fathers and ecumenical councils.

Here's an interesting quote from DIES DOMINI from your list:
63. Christ came to accomplish a new "exodus", to restore freedom to the oppressed. He performed many healings on the Sabbath (cf. Mt 12:9-14 and parallels), certainly not to violate the Lord's Day, but to reveal its full meaning: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mk 2:27). Opposing the excessively legalistic interpretation of some of his contemporaries, and developing the true meaning of the biblical Sabbath, Jesus, as "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mk 2:28), restores to the Sabbath observance its liberating character, carefully safeguarding the rights of God and the rights of man. This is why Christians, called as they are to proclaim the liberation won by the blood of Christ, felt that they had the authority to transfer the meaning of the Sabbath to the day of the Resurrection.

 

[Leaf473]

It matters what the context is in GREEK. As I said, anomia vs nomia...

Where is nomia used in the New Testament? I've looked at a few instances of lawful in the NASB, but it turns out to be a translation of ἔξεστιν, exestin

 

[expos4ever]

Because the existing ones that point out the detail you find so inconvenient are sufficient to establish the point

You have a very serious challenge to face - most translations, including the highly respected NASB, make no specific reference to the law of Moses. How will you deal with that? It seems like, in this post at least, you are suggesting that all these other versions are simply not "detailed" enough, as if the translators of these other versions failed, either through incompetence or ill intention, to document the specificity to the law of Moses that you believe is there in the original.

How extraordinarily convenient for your position.

Any reader with their wits about them would obviously ask you this question: on precisely what basis do you rule out the possibility that when the translators used "sin is lawlessness", they captured the actual intent of the original Greek - a statement that sin is lawlessness but not necessarily with respect to the law of Moses in particular?

First, you cherry pick versions to present to the readers. Now when I challenge you, and you have no choice but to face the fact that most versions, including the highly reputable NASB, do not make specific reference to the law of Moses, you are trying to argue that these versions have somehow overlooked that detail, by appealing to the fact that some other versions do have such specificity.

Do you really not see the problem with that line of reasoning? Are you not aware that the problem could lie in the versions that you like - maybe the translators of those versions introduced specificity that was not justified given the original Greek?

 

[Leaf473]

although the author is a jew no doubt

Why do you say this?

 

[Leaf473]

If you would like me to explain more on why almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN"

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody

[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II

Yes, I would like you to explain why these denominations say that.

While you're researching that, here's another interesting quote from DIES DOMINI, showing the importance of councils in John Paul's reasoning:

"It was only later, faced with the half-heartedness or negligence of some, that the Church had to make explicit the duty to attend Sunday Mass: more often than not, this was done in the form of exhortation, but at times the Church had to resort to specific canonical precepts. This was the case in a number of local Councils from the fourth century onwards (as at the Council of Elvira of 300, which speaks not of an obligation but of penalties after three absences)"

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, I would like you to explain why these denominations say that.

Already did that here -- #806
And here -- #780
And here -- #766

 

[Leaf473]

Already did that here -- #806
And here -- #780
And here -- #766

Thanks for the response, but none of those posts relate to what I asked.

And thank you for the interaction, it motivated me to actually look up Dies Domini, which of course is Latin for Day of the Lord, so right on topic for the thread.

It's a fascinating document, here's how it starts:
1. The Lord's Day — as Sunday was called from Apostolic times(1) — has always been accorded special attention in the history of the Church because of its close connection with the very core of the Christian mystery.

Just a little bit further down:
It is right, therefore, to claim, in the words of a fourth century homily, that "the Lord's Day" is "the lord of days".(2) Those who have received the grace of faith in the Risen Lord cannot fail to grasp the significance of this day of the week with the same deep emotion which led Saint Jerome to say: "Sunday is the day of the Resurrection, it is the day of Christians, it is our day".(3)

 

[expos4ever]

You also have "well yes the Heb 10 text does specifically tell us that the animal sacrifices and offerings are shadows that end at the cross " - then add something of the form "but can't we imagine other things are shadows as well?

You are not addressing the challenge posed by Leaf. You want to be able to use the "shadow" image to claim that animal sacrifices are done with, and with that I agree. But you also defend the position that the 10 commandments remain in force. The problem, as I suspect you know full well, is in this statement, Paul uses the "shadow" image in relation to much more including, of course, the Sabbath:

16 Therefore, no one is to [a]act as your judge in regard to food and drink, or in respect to a festival or a new moon, or a Sabbath [b]day— 17 things which are only a shadow of what is to come; but the [c]substance [d]belongs to Christ.

Leaf is asking you a perfectly legitimate question: if you are going to leverage the "shadow" motif to defend the end of animal sacrifice, you are forced, by consistency, to conclude that Sabbath, too, was only a shadow.