Why the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) is the Lord's Day, in the Bible

[SabbathBlessings]

And quoting the Catholic Record, September 1, 1923:

Hey, SB, don't feel like you need to respond to this if you don't want to

If we deny the authority of the church, then we basically become our own authority on the scriptures, as well.

Which may not be a bad thing after all What do you think, if you want to comment?

I have yet to find scripture that says we are to obey the church and in this case the RCC over God’s commandments. In fact, scripture teaches us to be aware of those teaching away from scripture, that its not coming from God. Isaiah 8:20

We also have a wonderful promise in scripture that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things John 14:26 and the Holy Spirit will never teach away from the Word of God Isaiah 8:20

We have free will to believe what the RCC claims, that they are above the Bible and can change one of God’s eternal commandments, but I choose the Word of God and God said no editing of His commandments Deut 4:2 or His Word. Proverbs 30:5-6

I probably won’t respond further on this topic, but hope you have a nice day.

 

[GDL]

Sorry I am out of time almost and must start my day of work and toil lol. The contents of the Book of the Law was never an issue in respect to what it is to be made in His image and likeness. To live in, through and of God. The issue is the ministry. Being told what to do from an outside source, the Book of the Law avails nothing.

We will continue later... may the Lord our God continue to bless us all His Way, Christ Jesus.

Will look at it again. Some decades ago, it was one of the first real studies I did along with my first venture into Biblical Law. I recall finding an error in a concordance/dictionary & contacting the publisher, who acknowledged it & changed it. The earlier days of [continuing] pursuit of accuracy.

Ministry is understood. Content remains part of the question.

Questions at the end of my lengthy reply still stand for you, though, if & when toil-time allows & choice responds.

 

[Leaf473]

I have yet to find scripture that says we are to obey the church and in this case the RCC over God’s commandments. In fact, scripture teaches us to be aware of those teaching away from scripture, that its not coming from God. Isaiah 8:20

We also have a wonderful promise in scripture that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things John 14:26 and the Holy Spirit will never teach away from the Word of God Isaiah 8:20

We have free will to believe what the RCC claims, that they are above the Bible and can change one of God’s eternal commandments, but I choose the Word of God and God said no editing of His commandments Deut 4:2 or His Word. Proverbs 30:5-6

I probably won’t respond further on this topic, but hope you have a nice day.

There may not be a scripture that says we are to obey the church.

That's why I was saying we become our own authority on the scriptures

Is the Book of Enoch scripture? Most Christians say no, but some say yes. Those who say yes say that it is referenced in the Gospels more often than any other scripture.

But we can each decide, just as we can each decide how to translate "the Lord's Day".

Thank you for the wishes of a nice day,

Bible Gateway passage: Malachi 4:2 - New International Reader's Version

But here is what will happen for you who have respect for me. The sun that brings life will rise. Its rays will bring healing to my people. You will go out and leap for joy like calves that have just been fed.

www.biblegateway.com

May you leap for joy today!

 

[GDL]

Answer: no, we "establish" the Law in the very specific sense that we affirm its fundamental goodness and proper role in the evolving redemption narrative even though the Law has fulfilled its role and can be retired.

This, I suggest, is a plausible way to understand Romans 3:31.

"the law fulfilled its role and can be retired" yet it's now being put in minds & written on hearts (the new ministry @HIM mentions), there remains a lawful use of law (1Tim1:8), and so many other Scriptures that speak in part against your suggestion.

Now then, this is an example of not evading a text! I actually offered a way to interpret what it means to "uphold" or "establish" the law.

This seems also an example of misunderstanding a part of the Text.

It also seems an example of simply suggesting the word "affirm" to replace "establish" which is a possible translation of the original word in the Text. FWIW, I do commend the effort to retranslate and explain.

Then, we should probably look to see how "affirm" compares to the other verb in the sentence.

Then we should probably do some word studies to see how God uses these words in Scripture.

Then we should probably look at the context of Rom3:31 and see how it is being structurally and instructionally correlated to Paul's more comprehensive instruction.

I did not post a lengthy treatise that deals with other texts but artfully evaded the challenge of 3:31 itself.

Maybe you should have done some more analysis and offered more of an explanation. I for one am left with questions (let alone disagreement as best I understand your minimal interpretation) about your conclusion "we affirm its fundamental goodness and proper role in the evolving redemption narrative even though the Law has fulfilled its role and can be retired.

IMO it's good that others are "evading" your process and working more comprehensively to explain the details of our so valuable Text.

You probably know where this is going: I maintain that no one here who believes the Law applies to all has actually engaged my argument about Romans 3:28-29. Sure, we get arguments based on other texts as to why I must be mistaken.

But if we believe all scripture is correct, there needs to be an explanation of how verses 28 and 29 of chapter 3 in particular fit within the view that the Law governs all.

And, of course, no such argument has been provided. And I suggest we all know why.

FWIW, I'm not sure you are able to understand when your argument has been or is being engaged. We're all very capable of error. "Law" is a big topic in the Bible. And many are still working through it to find a comprehensive understanding of it and the One who created and implemented it and changes it to coincide with His "evolving redemption narrative."

 

[expos4ever]

The following keeps needing to be repeated: those of us who believe the 10 commandments are set aside as a prescriptive law, are not, despite continued and almost certainly intentional misrepresentations to the contrary, forced into a position of saying "it is ok to commit murder and steal".

We who believe the 10 commandments are set aside can legitimately claim that God gives us another "moral compass" to guide our actions. Clearly, this is at least plausible - who are we to tell God that He cannot "replace" his 10 commandment with another means of providing us with moral guidance?

Not only is it plausible that God will give us a new means to know what sin is, it is clearly what Paul believes:

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the [h]Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

The Holy Spirit replaces the Law in Paul's thinking.

 

[BobRyan]

If we deny the authority of the church, then we basically become our own authority on the scriptures, as well.

Is that what you see Christ doing in Mark 7:6-13??

No doubt "tradition instead of the Bible" goes back a long way.

Mark 7:7-13
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

 

[BobRyan]

And if a person decides to consider tradition, then it is consistent to take tradition into account when evaluating the Lord's Day.

No doubt "tradition instead of the Bible" goes back a long way.

Mark 7:7-13
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

I'm not saying use tradition instead of the Bible.

Then have you simply given up on finding anything from the Bible that fits your speculation that "Lord's day" in Rev 1:10 is a reference to weekly week-day-1 devoted-to-worship practice??

I'm saying that without tradition, it's up to each person to decide

Well if you notice carefully on this thread - each person responds for themselves. And they are being asked questions like "in your POV".

THE thread is not positioned as "list all the traditions you are aware of" or "what traditions do you use to tell you what to believe".

You may wish to think about this:
The Bible that you use, is it the result of your own personal research, evaluating all the many ancient documents,

No doubt I used my brain to decide things like buying and reading a Bible.

My point remains in this case - that "in the Bible" the Lord's Day is the weekly Sabbath.

You seem to lose focus on what is the actual topic for the thread at times.

 

[BobRyan]

The following keeps needing to be repeated: those of us who believe the 10 commandments are set aside as a prescriptive law,
are not, despite continued and almost certainly intentional misrepresentations to the contrary, forced into a position of saying "it is ok to commit murder and steal".

We who believe the 10 commandments are set aside can legitimately claim that God gives us another "moral compass"

By contrast - I choose the Word of God for that moral compass where "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19 as Paul says.

Hence the title of this thread.

Paul says the Word of God - scripture - is to be used for correction and doctrine 2 Tim 3:16.
The Holy Spirit informs our conscience to listen to scripture.

No wonder almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today

 

[BobRyan]

Your question is nonsensical, I did not say that the ten commandments are not part of the Mosaic law.

I am asking why you ignore the laws you do not like, if you try to make us believe these laws are still valid.

The answer is so obvious that almost all Christian denominations admit to it.

As already noted in the case of the Baptist Confession of Faith section 19 (for example)

 

[BobRyan]

To be fair to the Sabbath supporters, Romans 3:31 poses a substantial challenge to those of us who believe that Paul believes the Law is retired. I have offered this argument in response:

Indeed it is obvious to all of us

Rom 3: 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.
1 Cor 7:10 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"
1 John 5:3 "this IS the LOVE of God that we KEEP His Commandments"
Eph 6:2 "'Honor your father and mother' is the first COMMANDMENT with a promise" in that still valid - unit of TEN

Romans 3: Paul starts with a treatment of how both Jew and Gentile are sinners

And Rom 3:19 says it is the LAW of God that condemns ALL the World, and that "every mouth is closed" before God because of that fact.
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

All the world guilty because of God's Law that defines what sin is - for "ALL have sinned" Rom 3:23
The NT definition for that is "SIN IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4

even though the Jew was entrusted with "the actual words of God".

Indeed the Jews had actual scripture.

Still we see BOTH Jews AND GENTILES in the Synagogues "every Sabbath" in Acts 18:4, and in Acts 17 and in Acts 13 and ...

Rom 3:31 does not say "our faith RETIRES the LAW" -- it is our Christian faith "ESTABLISHES it"

Because the NEW Covenant writes that moral law of God known to Jeremiah "on heart and mind" Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8 says that NEW Covenant is unchanged - verbatim the same -- in the NT.

 

[GDL]

The NT definition for that is "SIN IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4

1John3:4 Sin is lawlessness.

NKJ Matt. 7:23 "And then I will declare to them,`I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
NKJ Matt. 13:41 "The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,
NKJ Matt. 23:28 "Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
NKJ Matt. 24:12 "And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.
NKJ Rom. 4:7 "Blessed are those whose lawlessnesses deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;
NKJ Rom. 6:19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves of uncleanness, and of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves of righteousness for holiness.
NKJ 2 Cor. 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?
NKJ 2 Thess. 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.
NKJ Tit. 2:14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawlessness deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
NKJ Heb. 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."
NKJ Heb. 8:12 "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawlessness deeds I will remember no more."
NKJ Heb. 10:17 then He adds, "Their sins and their lawlessnesses deeds I will remember no more."
NKJ 1 Jn. 3:4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

The antinomianism of some is tragic at minimum.

 

[trophy33]

The answer is so obvious that almost all Christian denominations admit to it.

As already noted in the case of the Baptist Confession of Faith section 19 (for example)

I know of no Christian denomination having the London Baptist Confession as its creed. Maybe there are some in the UK or USA, but certainly not "almost all Christian denominations". My guess would be "very few".

 

[expos4ever]

Indeed it is obvious to all of us

Rom 3: 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Any reader who is open to either of our respective positions will see that you have not actually engaged my argument about Romans 3:31.

I have repeatedly, and righty critiqued this general strategy of which you are not the sole practiioner - ignore the content of an argument about a text "X" and instead respond by telling us things that may or may not be true about other texts.

And Rom 3:19 says it is the LAW of God that condemns ALL the World, and that "every mouth is closed" before God because of that fact.
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

No. Again, please try to put yourself in the position of someone who is actually coming to this debate with an open mind to either your view or mine.

They will know, of course, that all the world could be deemed guilty - which 3:19 does indeed claim - without all the world being under the Law of Moses. The Gentile world could be found guilty due to the action of God triggering their consciences, for example. The point: the structure and logic of the sentence itself does not require us to conclude that all are under the Law of Moses. You will not be able to make such a case, I guarantee it.

This is a fact that you need to face since it will occur to an objective reader who is even half-awake.

And they will also know that is decidedly odd for Paul to refer to a "those" who are under the Law if, as you claim, he believes all the world is under the law, as "those" normally picks out a subset. You have to know this - will you acknowledge it?

Those over 6 feet tall
Those who score more than 80%
Those with red hair

Do we ever say "those human beings with DNA in their cells". Of course we don't, precisely because all human beings have blood in their veins. Again: "those" indicates a subset.

And they will also know, if they read further along, that Paul says this:

For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,

Let's see now: if Paul really believes the Law is for all, why would he imagine that he has to explain that justification is not limited to the Jew? My explanation: he obviously knows that everybody understands that the Law is only for Jews. And if justification was indeed based on the law then only Jews will be justified. So by then telling us that God will justifies Gentiles too, he is implicitly saying the Law has to be for Jews only. Otherwise - that is if he believed the Law was for all - he would have written "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law, full stop, period, end of story"

Prithee, what is your explanation? And please do not dance lightly away and offer an explanation that neatly avoids making sense of the words in Romans 3:28-29.

 

[Leaf473]

Is that what you see Christ doing in Mark 7:6-13??

I think Jesus observed what the scribes and Pharisees taught regarding what was scripture. That is to say, the tradition in place at the time.

So No, he didn't do the equivalent of denying the authority of the church.

 

[Leaf473]

No doubt "tradition instead of the Bible" goes back a long way.

Answered here:

I'm not saying use tradition instead of the Bible.

 

[Leaf473]

Then have you simply given up on finding anything from the Bible that fits your speculation that "Lord's day" in Rev 1:10 is a reference to weekly week-day-1 devoted-to-worship practice??

Since the phrase occurs only once in the traditional Bible, it's speculation as to what it means. We can speculate that it means the seventh day, or that it means the first day.

People who lived close to that time used similar phrases to refer to the first day of the week.

 

[Leaf473]

Well if you notice carefully on this thread - each person responds for themselves. And they are being asked questions like "in your POV".

THE thread is not positioned as "list all the traditions you are aware of" or "what traditions do you use to tell you what to believe".

It looks like you may have accidentally cut off part of my post.

I'm not saying use tradition instead of the Bible.

I'm saying that without tradition, it's up to each person to decide for themselves what is scripture and what is not.

You may wish to think about this:
The Bible that you use, is it the result of your own personal research, evaluating all the many ancient documents, or did someone tell you it was the scriptures?

If you want to hear my point of view, I think the best way to live the Christian life is to pursue the fruit of the Spirit and suppress the works of the flesh.

Peace be with you, my man!

 

[Leaf473]

No doubt I used my brain to decide things like buying and reading a Bible.

What things did you take into account? Did you consider a Coptic Bible that has the Book of Enoch?

 

[Leaf473]

My point remains in this case - that "in the Bible" the Lord's Day is the weekly Sabbath.

That makes sense in English. In the original language, not so much.

People who spoke the original language as native speakers and lived around the same time associate it with the first day of the week. That's what I've found.

 

[Leaf473]

You seem to lose focus on what is the actual topic for the thread at times.

Not at all. If we acknowledge the church's ability to evaluate what is scripture and what isn't, it makes sense to also lend some weight to their decision to use the first day of the week as the primary day of worship.