Are professed Christians that worship our Lord on Sunday instead of Saturday sinning?

HARK! said:

That's reason enough for me not to read any ambiguity into what Socrates Scholasticus said, to prop up some dogma.

Click to expand...

Ironically that's exactly what you're doing.

HARK! said:

Yahshua said different. I'll go with what my Messiah says.

Click to expand...

Alright, just don't claim ancient Christian historians said things they didn't say.

HARK! said:

He's your source, not mine.

Click to expand...

You introduced him as a source in #29, which I quoted in my response to you. If you want to abandon the use of him as a testimony to "Christian sabbath-keeping," now that we see he and his contemporary Sozomen both contradict the point you were trying to make, all the better.

HARK! said:

Evidence?

Click to expand...

Your reading a "clear distinction" into the phrase "as well as" and interpreting the distinction to favor Saturday as being more important.

HARK! said:

Another bare assertion?

Click to expand...

We've established that Socrates Scholasticus didn't say what you claimed he did, and you abandoned defending your claim and tried to say that he was my source, not yours. You can't just cry "bare assertion" whenever you're backed into a corner.

HARK! said:

What contradiction?

Click to expand...

The one that made you abandon defending your claim and start going off on a non sequitur about what "Yahshua" and the RCC say.

Hentenza said:

You still need to find the verse. Find a post crucifixion verse that requires the Christian to keep the 4th commandment.

Click to expand...

I have you just doen’t seem to allow the Bible to define itself. I would be more concerned when the God of the Bible gives a spoken and written commandment that He claims as His Exo20:6 something thats under His mercy seat, and all throughout the Bible says to keep My commandments that we take it upon ourselves to remove the one commandment He said Remember and points to Him as our Creator Exo20:11 Sacntifer Eze20:12 and the only God we are to worship Rev14:7

Guess all will get sorted out soon enough.

Be well.

Hentenza said:

Nah. You can’t just isolate the definition you like.


σάββατον sábbaton, sab'-bat-on; of Hebrew origin (H7676); the Sabbath (i.e. Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension, a se'nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications:—sabbath (day), week.

Click to expand...

Definitions? No my friend, context, grammar and syntax. A Sabbath is a day of repose by definition. It looks like you cited Strongs. That is nice. But in respect to studying the Greek it is so much more involved than a definition.

Be that what it is, There was the weekly Sabbath of the Decalogue and the sabbaths to which were mandated for the festivals and Holy days. The context to which the word sabbath is used shows us which sabbath is being spoken of.

Passover, the Day of Atonement and what not all had sabbaths that were separate from the Sabbath of the Decalogue. They were instituted because of our sin. The Sabbath as you know was made for man on the Seventh Day of creation as the commandment states and Scripture affirms

.

Hentenza said:

you know that the certificate of debt consisting of decrees being canceled is the law, right?

“having canceled 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.”

Click to expand...

Of decrees is a bad translation. As is, the translation "of ordinances" as seen in the KJV which I use. The Greek word translated decrees in the translation you are using is in the Dative case not the Genitive. In English, this relation is expressed by the words like. by or to not of. The Genitive case is that of possession. If the case was in the Genitive, then we would use the word of or something similar..

Hentenza said:

Also, how does verse 14 help your argument,

Click to expand...

The Body of sin has been separated from us, and we have been forgiven all trespasses.

Therefore the handwriting to the decrees or as your translation states, certificate of indebt to the decrees has been blotted out.

These are they which dealt with our sin. The judgements, ceremonies in the Temple and holy days, like Passover and the Day of atonement and what not. These are they which have been blotted out. They are not needed anymore because we have been forgiven and the Temple and it's services have been eliminated.

These are they which were of the handwriting to the decrees. Mind you not the decrees themselves, but those which were by or to the decrees. Those which were because of our sin, not those which tell us what our sin is. Fofrby the Law is the knowledge of sin. And if the Law is used righteously, it is for the sinner as God says in Romans and Timothy

The context of verse 14 is connected to verse 16 by the word, and in verse 15 and the word therefor in verse 16. As you know these words connect what is about to be said to what was previously stated. So with that understood, these meat and drink, holydays, new moon and sabbath days are they which were of the handwritings to the ordinances, The Book of the Law. Not the Ten Commandment and the Laws and statutes that showed us our sin.



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.

jas3 said:

And if you read earlier in the same chapter of Socrates' history, he makes it clear that the Christian view is that there is no obligation to keep the Mosaic law:

Click to expand...

NT authors state that Paul met for gospel preaching and worship "every Sabbath" Act 18:4.
NT authors state that when gentiles heard the gospel they asked for "more Gospel" to be given to them "The next Sabbath" Acts 13
NT Authors report that Jesus' teaching was that "The Sabbath was made for mankind" Mark 2:27
Even OT authors state that for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" IS 66:23

It was never the case that keeping the Ten commandments meant that Gentiles were under the ceremonial law of Moses, even though it was true that they were not to take God's name in vain just as the Ten Commandments stated.

When asked about salvation in Matt 19 Jesus said "keep the Commandments". When asked "Which ones?" in that same text Jesus quoted exclusively from the writings of Moses.

Almost every major Christian denomination to this very day includes all TEN of the Ten Commandments in the moral law of God still applicable to all mankind

jas3 said:

"It appears to me that neither the ancients nor moderns who have affected to follow the Jews, have had any rational foundation for contending so obstinately about it. For they have not taken into consideration the fact that when Judaism was changed into Christianity, the obligation to observe the Mosaic law and the ceremonial types ceased." - Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, Book V, Ch. 22

Click to expand...

It was never the case that keeping the Ten commandments meant that Gentiles were under the ceremonial law of Moses, even though it was true that they were not to take God's name in vain just as the Ten Commandments stated.It was never the case that keeping the Ten commandments meant that Gentiles were under the ceremonial law of Moses, even though it was true that they were not to take God's name in vain just as the Ten Commandments stated.

Constantine passed Sunday closing laws regarding business. This was enforced in Law.

It was only later that Catholic Authorities passed laws against worshiping on Sabbath as commanded in the actual Bible

2PhiloVoid said:

The Sabbath doesn't need to be mentioned by name in Romans 14:5,6 (or in Colossians 2:16,

Click to expand...

it does if one is not willing to eisegete it into the text.

2PhiloVoid said:

for that matter) because it's implied by Paul in his allusion to general debates that took place between Jews and Gentiles over the issue of observing certain days and holy days or eating certain foods.

Click to expand...

Only if you can show that they never debated anything but the Sabbath.

As it is, we see both Jews AND Gentiles in the Synagogues for worship "Every Sabbath" including Paul, in Acts 18:4
And in Acts 13 gentiles who hear Paul's gospel ask for "MORE Gospel" preaching to be scheduled for them "The NEXT Sabbath" rather than "Tomorrow, Sunday", week day 1"

Hentenza said:

“Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22‬:‭40‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Matthew 22:40 Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.” | New American Standard Bible - NASB (NASB2020) | Download The Bible App Now

Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”

bible.com

It’s crystal clear.

Click to expand...

Matt 22 quotes directly from the law of Moses as containing the two commandments on which all of scripture is based

"All the Law and the prophets", is all of scripture.

Neither Jews nor gentiles imagined that all scripture was being deleted by Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5

Lev 19:18 Love your neighbor as yourself
Deut 6:5 Love God with all your heart

Hentenza said:

My point was also clear. Christians are not under the law.

Click to expand...

Christians are not supposed to take God's name in vain.. still to this very day.

Rom 3:31 "Do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! in fact we ESTABLISH the Law"
1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God"
where "the first commandment with a promise is Honor your father and mother" Eph 6:1-2
Rev 14:12 "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"
James 2 says all are convicted by the Law as sinners if they transgress the commandments, quoting the OT

the term "under the Law" in Rom 6 refers to "under the condemnation of the Law' it does not mean "under obligation to obey God's Word".
1 Cor 6 explains this explicitly, so also Rom 7 and James 2 etc.

Hentenza said:

Yep. Jesus first love commandment.

Wretched out of context. Paul calls the law ineffective and weak just 5 books later. Is Paul arguing against himself?

Click to expand...

He called the law. . .

Romans 7:12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. (when did holiness, justice and goodness become weak?)

The weakness is the flesh, not the law. The law of sin and death being weak in the flesh is the issue, not the law of God.

Romans 8 is a continuation of Romans 7 the battle of the flesh against with serving the law of God. The law was not the issue, it is holy, just a good, sin is and serving sin which is breaking God's holy law. Rom3:31 means exactly what it says, its not out of context. Paul is not teaching anyone to dishonor God Rom2:21-23 and be a sinner Rom7:7

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

The issue is not God's laws, Paul plainly says that those who refuse to subject themselves to God's law lost the battle of the flesh and are an enmity against God.

Rom8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Hentenza said:

“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8‬:‭2‬-‭3‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Romans 8:2-3 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in th | New American Standard Bible - NASB

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in th

bible.com

“For what the law could not do weak as it was” The law us weak and the flesh us weak but the law was ineffective because it could not do what it was supposed to do so Jesus had to die as an offering of sin.

Paul calls the law a curse in Gal. 3 do you honestly think that Paul is defending the law as being required of the Christian? Your interpretation adds a tremendous amount of tension to scriptures that should not be there, therefore your interpretation is wrong.

The issue is that sinful flesh could not keep the law even close to perfect. This is Paul’s conclusion in chapter 8 as he starts the chapter with “therefore”. Jesus had to die for our sins because of the weakness of the law.

No one pleased God by attempting to keep the law. The intention of the law in God’s plan was to show the need for a savior. If the law would have been effective then Jesus would not have had to die on the cross.

Click to expand...

Sorry you missed such plain Scriptures changing the law of God to the law of sin. Not much one can do, so I'll agree to disagree.