About Sabbath

[LoveGodsWord]

Back again? Welcome back.

Well, I thought I was done discussing usage, but then you introduced a new criteria in your closing argument. This is the second time you changed the criteria when you realized there was usage that did not agree with you.

Well that one is not true. I did not change any criteria only clarified misunderstandings you may have had in our discussions.

In the above usage you put forward Origen's comments as supporting your view. Apparently you had not actually looked at his usage, and didn't realize he did not use it of a traditional sabbath rest. Now that you do realize, you try to remove him because:

Perhaps I looked at more then you think? While I do not disagree that Origen uses Sabbatismos in a figurative sense he was the only writer to ever do this and it is consistent with most of his other words from the old testament seeking to apply a figurative interpretation of scripture over a literal interpretation. Perhaps this is why many view his writings and teachings as heresy.

That said I did read an interesting view on some of His writings in another paper Katapausis and Sabbatismos in Hebrews 4. The paper looks at some of Origen quotes from a parallel translation where Heine translates: ―to bring to completion of the old covenant which is the end of the Sabbath observance.‖ The term korwni ,j means ―anything curved‖ or ―bent.‖ Liddell, Scott, and Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 983. The old covenant to which the relative pronoun h [ refers is curved or bent. For example from pg 224

"Origen also uses sabbatismou in Comm. Jo. 2.27. Here he discusses the significance of the names of John the Baptist and his parents Zacharias and Elisabeth. Zacharias means ―memory‖ and Elizabeth ―oath of God‖ or a ―seventh (e[bdomon) of God.‖
Then the text reads: Plh.n avfigme,noi dia. th/j pi,stewj eivj to.n evn Cristw/| noou,menon sabbatismo.n, tout‘ ev,stin eivj avrgi,an kai. kata,lhxin th.n evx a`marti,aj, ouvc w`j av,crhston paraitou,meqa th.n proswreuqei,an tou/ no,mou tai,deusin, ceiragwgou/san h`ma/j eivj Cristo.n

(Thus John was born as a gift from God, from the memory of God according to the oath of our God concerning the fathers, to prepare a people being prepared to the Lord at the end of the covenant grown old, which is the bent/end of Sabbath observance).333 One has to admit that the meaning of Origen‘s words is not perfectly clear. What is clear, however, is the fact that he mentions a Sabbath observance connected to the old covenant and furthermore he mentions the Sabbath (sa,bbaton) of God‘s rest. He obviously knew of a Sabbath observance and a Sabbath rest."(note: Sorry for some reason now my PC will not let me copy and paste Greek from this PDF. I added the download in the link above)

So while I do not agree with this mans teachings. I can see that he understands Sabbatismos as "Sabbath rest" which is the meaning "Sabbath keeping" or Sabbath observance"

This again was changing the criteria. We were looking at usage, and now you want to ignore some of the usage because you say he has 'questionable teachings".But you earlier said you were not looking at teachings, but at usage:"LGW wrote: Note I am not saying I believe or support anything in these extra biblical references. I have only provided them to show application and known meaning of Sabbatismos to "Sabbath keeping" or Sabbath observance" outside of the bible.

Once again, no criteria has been changed. I have only looked at all uses of Sabbatismos applied to context of Hebrews 4:9 that has application to "Sabbath keeping", Sabbath observance" through resting (Sabbath rest). Stating that some of the teachings of Origen as heresy is a view widely accepted by many scholars and only a side note. As shown already (repetition now), All references to Sabbatismos from the Greek and Aramaic and Latin as well as the old testament use of the verb form Sabbatizo as well as all literature around that time (exception of Origen) is to the literal meaning of Sabbatismos being to "Sabbath keeping" or Sabbath observance".

Sorry I disagree with you because your now only seeking to make the argument only about outside sources from the bible when every reference in the bible is to Sabbath observance, or Sabbath keeping as are most of the sources outside of the bible with the exception of Origen in your view. This means that the overwhelming evidence inside and outside of the bible here does not support your view. Of course what you choose to believe is up to you. I am only sharing with you why I disagree with your view. Anyhow I see this as a lot of repetition and time to talk about other things. At the end of the day only Gods Word is true and we should believe and follow them according to the scriptures *Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[tall73]

Every day would have also been "every Sabbath" - but that is not what Acts 18 says. No text said that since they met every day to debate they were meeting every Sabbath.

Acts 13, 17 and 18 point specifically to "Sabbath after Sabbath" services. Nothing prevented them from daily meeting with whoever happened to be there in the market place.

Acts 17:17
So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be present.

The NT authors are specifically pointing the reader to "Sabbath after Sabbath" services.

They pointed out they met sabbath after sabbath in synagogues because they had to go to to the Jews first. They also met others seeking God there. So as long as they were welcome, they stayed there:

Act 13:46 And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, “‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
in the venue where that happened until they couldn't.

Then they were run out of town, so they left.

But in the case of Ephesus, they did not leave but met daily once put out of the synagogue.

 

[BobRyan]

Either you're pretending that you don't understand, you're trying hard not to understand - or you really don't.

When you say that nothing is secular and all work is sacred - all of it appropriate for a holy convocation a sanctified set-apart worship context - you are opening a scenario that few people have ever suggested. You are taking an extreme position in your "no such thing as secular work if you are a committed Christian" statement - and it cannot be blamed on me.

 

[BobRyan]

They pointed out they met sabbath after sabbath in synagogues because they had to go to to the Jews first.

I point to Acts 17:17 where they do both. Still in Acts 18 it is "every Sabbath" services for Gospel preaching.

One could just as easily argue "every Sunday services" if "every day" was the real reason for it - but no NT author does that. They are making the point repeatedly and that is because Sabbath observance is more than just hearing an argument in the market place.

 

[tall73]

I point to Acts 17:17 where they do both.

Sure, and he went to the synagogue for what reason?

Act 17:17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there.

It says why he went there.

One could just as easily argue "every Sunday services" if "every day" was the real reason for it - but no NT author does that. They are making the point repeatedly and that is because Sabbath observance is more than just hearing an argument in the market place.

Because the Jews are there every week.

And you continue to speak of Sunday sacredness, though I have alleged no statement to that effect, and you know that is not my position.

 

[tall73]

Because all readers can see John show exactly what the "New heaven and new Earth" phrase is - no guessing. Rev 21:1

We were not guessing about John to start with Bob. We are waiting for you to explain the "mix" you claim in Isaiah.

And you have not explained it. Just the fact that you say it is a mix means you have elements of two different things being referenced.

You explained the mix in regards to the king of Babylon. So why not here?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
I have repeatedly given examples of work I do every week including

• shopping,
  
• buying groceries,
  
• fixing something around the house
  
• or with the car,
  
• cleaning up,
  
• leaf blowing etc

That is not me "keeping Sabbath" that is me - engaged in secular activity that is not done on Sabbath

Yes you have - but my initial question was how do I keep the Sabbath; not how do you keep it.

So then I gave a few examples of people doing all that sort of thing inside a church service to help he reader see how that just does not work.

Nobody ever said they were appropriate during a service of worship. I am talking about worship, giving God his worth, in a much wider sense;

I have repeatedly said that all Christians whether attending church on Saturday or Sunday are doing those secular activities as committed Christians. "Secular" in that they are not something appropriate for set-apart sanctified times of worship.

"As adjectives the difference between secular and holy is that secular is not specifically religious while holy is dedicated to a religious purpose or directly to God."

it's you who are narrowing it down by restricting it to what is done in a formal service on either a Saturday or Sunday.

I narrow it down to show that some kinds of work are not appropriate for dedicated/sanctified times of worship while other activity is just fine for a committed Christian to do while not in a worship context - no matter if they keep Saturday or Sunday. There is such a thing as two different categories of activity.

If a Christian who bears Christ's name and is filled with his Spirit, is working as a doctor/judge/plumber/artist/teacher/shop assistant or in fact whatever God has called them to do; they are working for him. They may be in a secular, and ungodly, environment; but they are his children in that place.

You are conflating "you are a child of God" with "banging on the plumbing pipes while Christian" in your "no secular work" idea - which is how you get back to "what am I not supposed to do since there is no such thing as secular work for me".

Christians are God's children EVEN while doing secular activity like working on their taxes. But working on taxes is not appropriate for church AND when I want to have a restful recharging experience in worship I NEVER substitute "working on my taxes" in - in place of actually having dedicated time for worship.

Some of the things that we all do may seem not particularly to be Christian.
But you can buy groceries with a smile,

We keep repeatedly agreeing that Christians do all of their secular activity as spirit filled Christians reflecting Christ to those they meet.

But you are conflating that with this more specific topic that God introduced in Ex 20:8-11 and Is 58:13 of no secular activity allowed in the time of holy convocation and rest.

 

[tall73]

Back again? Welcome back.

Well that one is not true. I did not change any criteria only clarified misunderstandings you may have had in our discussions.

Perhaps I looked at more then you think? While I do not disagree that Origen uses Sabbatismos in a figurative sense he was the only writer to ever do this and it is consistent with most of his other words from the old testament seeking to apply a figurative interpretation of scripture over a literal interpretation. Perhaps this is why many view his writings and teachings as heresy.

And that is why you posted his usage as support for your view, but did not spell out what he said?

You referenced his comments. You cannot get rid of them now that you do not like it.

That said I did read an interesting view on some of His writings in another paper Katapausis and Sabbatismos in Hebrews 4. The paper looks at some of Origen quotes from a parallel translation where Heine translates: ―to bring to completion of the old covenant which is the end of the Sabbath observance.‖ The term korwni ,j means ―anything curved‖ or ―bent.‖ Liddell, Scott, and Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, 983. The old covenant to which the relative pronoun h [ refers is curved or bent. For example from pg 224

"Origen also uses sabbatismou in Comm. Jo. 2.27. Here he discusses the significance of the names of John the Baptist and his parents Zacharias and Elisabeth. Zacharias means ―memory‖ and Elizabeth ―oath of God‖ or a ―seventh (e[bdomon) of God.‖ Then Origen says: ―avpo. Qeou/ de. ca,rij evk th/j peri. Qeou/ mnh,mhj kata. to.n tou/ Qeou/ h`mw/n o[rkon to.n peri. tou.j pate,raj evgennh,qh o` Iwa,nnhj, e`toima,zwn kuri,w| lao.n kateskeuasme,non evpi. te,lei th/j palaia/j genome,nhj diaqh,khj, h[ evsti sabbatismou/ korwni,j‖ (Thus John was born as a gift from God, from the memory of God according to the oath of our God concerning the fathers, to prepare a people being prepared to the Lord at the end of the covenant grown old, which is the bent/end of Sabbath observance).333 One has to admit that the meaning of Origen‘s words is not perfectly clear. What is clear, however, is the fact that he mentions a Sabbath observance connected to the old covenant and furthermore he mentions the Sabbath (sa,bbaton) of God‘s rest. He obviously knew of a Sabbath observance and a Sabbath rest."

So while I do not agree with this mans teachings. I can see that he understands Sabbatismos as "Sabbath rest" which is the meaning "Sabbath keeping" or Sabbath observance"
Once again, no criteria has been changed.

And the two noted where it certainly doesn't mean that. I looked at more than just two earlier in the thread.

Now you have changed the criteria. First you wanted to reference him. Then when I posted the two usage instances that did not support your view you objected to his teachings. But you already said you were not posting them for teachings but usage. That is changing the criteria.

And you didn't even address your trying to rule out Chrysostom now based on date, but other usage you posted also has a late date.

The usage makes it clear that you cannot argue from the basis of a technical term. I already responded to the context earlier.

 

[BobRyan]

We were not guessing about John to start with Bob.

Which helps explain why we are also not guessing in Is 66:23 when it comes to "new Heaven and new Earth"

John has explained the phrase in Rev 21 showing us when it is, where it is and how it is that ALL MANKIND are on the same page at that point when it comes to worshiping God.

Just the fact that you say it is a mix means you have elements of two different things being referenced.

You explained the mix in regards to the king of Babylon. So why not here?

I proved that the mix of Jewis-nation specific elements along with larger history of salvation topics is seen in Is 14 and Ezek 28 where there is a mix between certain pagan kings and the fate of Lucifer/Satan. It shows what all Bible scholars know - that such a mix exists.

We also know that the nation of Israel had two different roads ahead of them and Dan 9 gave them 490 years to take that fork in the road one way or the other. I am not going into this much on this thread because it is merely a distraction from the irrefutable point that John clearly explains "new heaven and New Earth" in Rev 21:1 and the terms "Sabbath" and "all mankind" as used by Isaiah are beyond dispute -- which is very much on point for the thread topic.

 

[tall73]

Which helps explain why we are also not guessing in Is 66:23 when it comes to "new Heaven and new Earth"

John has explained the phrase in Rev 21 showing us when it is, where it is and how it is that ALL MANKIND are on the same page at that point when it comes to worshiping God.

I proved that the mix of Jewis-nation specific elements along with larger history of salvation topics is seen in Is 14 and Ezek 28 where there is a mix between certain pagan kings and the fate of Lucifer/Satan. It shows what all Bible scholars know - that such a mix exists.

We also know that the nation of Israel had two different roads ahead of them and Dan 9 gave them 490 years to take that fork in the road one way or the other. I am not going into this much on this thread because it is merely a distraction from the irrefutable point that John clearly explains "new heaven and New Earth" in Rev 21:1 and the terms "Sabbath" and "all mankind" as used by Isaiah are beyond dispute -- which is very much on point for the thread topic.

So you are not going into it on this thread because it is a distraction to mention that Isaiah's new heaven and new earth has sinners (John's does not), death (John's does not), some being levites (there is no need of a temple in John's), Jews being brought by the nations back to Jerusalem (John's has the redeemed coming down with the new Jerusalmen per Adventists).

Would you explain it in a thread just on that topic so it is not a distraction?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

And that is why you posted his usage as support for your view, but did not spell out what he said?

You referenced his comments. You cannot get rid of them now that you do not like it.

And the two noted where it certainly doesn't mean that. I looked at more than just two earlier in the thread.

Now you have changed the criteria. First you wanted to reference him. Then when I posted the two usage instances that did not support your view you objected to his teachings. But you already said you were not posting them for teachings but usage. That is changing the criteria.

And you didn't even address your trying to rule out Chrysostom now based on date, but other usage you posted also has a late date.

The usage makes it clear that you cannot argue from the basis of a technical term. I already responded to the context earlier.

Sorry dear friend I respectfully disagree. Your trying to make the argument now about one author that many consider a heretic from outside of the bible when all the bible in Greek, Aramaic and Latin shows that Sabbatismos is in reference to Sabbath keeping and Sabbath observance. Your trying now to change the meaning to something that is not biblical because of one author outside of the bible. As shown earlier and in many posts already the overwhelming evidence inside and outside of the bible here does not support your view. Of course what you choose to believe is up to you. I am only sharing with you why I disagree with your view. Anyhow I see this as a lot of repetition and time to talk about other things. At the end of the day only Gods Word is true and we should believe and follow them according to the scriptures *Romans 3:4; Acts of the Apostles 5:29.

 

[tall73]

Sorry dear friend I respectfully disagree. Your trying to make the argument from one author outside of the bible now when all the bible shows that the use of the Greek word Sabbatismos is in reference to Sabbath keeping and Sabbath observance.

All of the Bible has one use of the word, which is why it is being disputed.

And I am going by your criteria, before you changed it twice.

And before you changed it you put forward Origen's usage. Then you decided you didn't want Origen because he used it in a way you do not care for.

And prior to changing it you put forward multiple late sources. But because you didn't like Chrysostom's late statement, then you changed the criteria to exclude late statements.

So if you want to let it rest, people can read and decide.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

All of the Bible has one use of the word, which is why it is being disputed.

And I am going by your criteria, before you changed it twice.

And before you changed it you put forward Origen's usage. Then you decided you didn't want Origen because he used it in a way you do not care for.

And prior to changing it you put forward multiple late sources. But because you didn't like Chrysostom's late statement, then you changed the criteria to exclude late statements.

So if you want to let it rest, people can read and decide.

Believe what ever you like but nothing you have posted in this post has any truth in it and has already been addressed through the scriptures and outside scripture in many posts shared with you already. Your only seeking to change the argument from inside the bible to outside of the bible when nearly every reference in all languages on the Greek, Aramaic and Latin's use of Sabbatismos is to "Sabbath keeping and Sabbath observance and when the contexts of Hebrews 4:9 is to the "seventh day" weekly Sabbath and this is where the overwhelming evidence is.

 

[tall73]

Your only seeking to change the argument from inside the bible to outside of the bible

You proposed the usage yourself! Anyone reading the thread will notice that.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You proposed the usage yourself! Anyone reading the thread will notice that.

The thread will also notice that nearly every of use of Sabbatismos and the verb form Sabbatizo inside the bible and outside of the bible in the Greek, Aramaic and Latin's is to "Sabbath keeping and Sabbath observance and when the contexts of Hebrews 4:9 in Hebrews 4:3-4 is to the "seventh day" weekly Sabbath that supports Sabbath keeping.

Ok I am off to do other things and busy with work so time is limited. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[tall73]

The thread will also notice that nearly every of Sabbatismos inside the bible

There is only one.

and outside of the bible in the Greek, Aramaic and Latin's is to "Sabbath keeping and Sabbath observance and when the contexts of Hebrews 4:9 is to the "seventh day" weekly Sabbath.

Not everyone one. Two of Origen's were not. And not Chrysostom who was a native Greek speaker, and came to the same conclusion as me--it is speaking of our resting from our labors in God's promised land--the very thing that is parallel to what those in the wilderness missed out on due to unbelief.

 

[tall73]

The thread will also notice that nearly every of use of Sabbatismos and the verb form Sabbatizo

You edited.

As noted earlier, the verb form informs things. But it is still a new word when you form a noun. That verb form is indefinite. And he used that for a reason, when there was already a noun that could be definite for the Sabbath. And he used it because this is a different sabbath rest--resting from our labors in the hereafter, just as God has been resting from His creative works since the foundation of the world.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You edited.

As noted earlier, the verb form informs things. But it is still a new word when you form a noun. That verb form is indefinite. And he used that for a reason, when there was already a noun that could be definite for the Sabbath. And he used it because this is a different sabbath rest--resting from our labors in the hereafter, just as God has been resting from His creative works since the foundation of the world.

I will just make one post for your last two posts then best get back to work. Firstly, I make my edits after posting sometimes when I see corrections are needed to my posts to avoid misunderstandings, to fix typos and spelling mistakes and to add something that I believe should be added into the post that I may have left out. This is normally done right after I have posted and re-read what I have posted. I completed my edits before you wrote this and what I wrote did not change the content of what was already written or that has been written in other posts to you already. My edits did not effect anything in this discussion so to imply I am changing a view by saying "you edited" is not being very truthful.

If you understand the principles of bible hermeneutics and exegetical methods employed in scripture interpretation you should know that we cannot disassociate scripture from it's context. Hebrews 4:9 says "Therefore a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God" The Sabbath rest that remains is that rest that those who believe and follow Gods' Word enter into by believing and following Gods' Word *Hebrews 4:1-3 which is a reference to Gods' weekly "seventh day" Sabbath rest as shown in Hebrews 4:3-4. "A" Sabbath rest that remains is therefore that of believing and following Gods' Word that is connected to Sabbath keeping or true Sabbath observance that we which remain must enter into which is given by God to those who believe and follow Gods' Word in the "seventh day" weekly Sabbath. Now we can go through this all over again if you wish to but as shown already the evidence here is against you from every view point.

1. Context to Hebrew 4:9 is the two rests of (1). Our rest through believing and following Gods' Word (Hebrews 4:1-3) and (2) God's rest defined in Hebrews 4:3-4 as the seventh day Sabbath rest that those who believe and follow Gods' Word enter into by faith.

2. Hebrews 4:9 agrees with context of Hebrews 4:1-5 "therefore a Sabbath rest remains for the people of God. I personally believe Sabbatismos is indefinite article in the Greek because the Sabbath rest was unknown to those who do not believe and follow Gods' Word. As posted earlier we can externally keep the Sabbath without entering into Gods' Sabbath rest like the children of Israel did in the wilderness. As well as this however we have seen that the use of Sabbatismos in the Aramaic as well as Greek is only every used and applied to "Sabbath keeping" or Sabbath observance" and in Latin nearly every reference is to literal Sabbath keeping or Sabbath observance.

3. All uses of Sabbatismos applied to context of Hebrews 4:9 has application to "Sabbath keeping", Sabbath observance" through resting (Sabbath rest). As shown already (repetition now), All references to Sabbatismos from the Greek and Aramaic and Latin as well as the old testament use of the verb form Sabbatizo as well as all literature around that time (exception of Origen) is to the literal meaning of Sabbatismos being to "Sabbath keeping" or Sabbath observance".

4. Even in the single author Origin you posted it can be seen in his writings as shown in another paper that although his views were figurative as most of his teachings of the old testament scriptures. He also understood the meaning of Sabbatismos to "Sabbath observance".

5. The majority of all writings of the use of Sabbatismos and the use of it's verb form in the old testament scriptures (scripture references already posted elsewhere) is to "Sabbath keeping" or "Sabbath observance"

So as posted earlier believe what ever you like but the majority of evidence does not support your view of Hebrews 4:9 and nothing you have posted has not already been addressed through the scriptures and outside scripture in many posts shared with you in this thread already. The fact is the overwhelming evidence from all languages on the Greek, Aramaic and Latin's use of Sabbatismos is to "Sabbath keeping and Sabbath observance and this is the historical understanding of this word's use. and when the contexts of Hebrews 4:9 is to the "seventh day" weekly Sabbath as shown in Hebrews 4:3-4 this only further supports application to seventh day weekly Sabbath. Your view seeks to separate rest from Sabbath which is not biblical.

So we will of course agree to disagree as the majority of evidence is against you on this one I believe..

 

[BobRyan]

So you are not going into it on this thread because it is a distraction to mention that Isaiah's new heaven and new earth has sinners

It does not have sinners any more than Ezekiel's King of Tyre "was created perfect" and was "the covering cherub" in Ezek 28. Or Isaiah's "Lucifer" was king of Babylon in Isaiah 14. By ignoring this pattern and then suddenly claiming to "discover it" in Isaiah 66 you are holding back information that all Bible scholars already admit about the way they mix local application details in with salvation history level information. It's a fun game I guess but I prefer to play it on another thread... not this one.

(John's does not), death (John's does not), some being levites (there is no need of a temple in John's), Jews being brought by the nations back to Jerusalem (John's has the redeemed coming down with the new Jerusalmen per Adventists).

And of course Exekiel's temple (Ezek 40-48) was never built - as I said a fun game for a different thread.

 

[BobRyan]

So you are not going into it on this thread because it is a distraction to mention that Isaiah's new heaven and new earth has sinners (John's does not), death (John's does not), some being levites (there is no need of a temple in John's), Jews being brought by the nations back to Jerusalem (John's has the redeemed coming down with the new Jerusalmen per Adventists).

Would you explain it in a thread just on that topic so it is not a distraction?

Sure - another thread that discusses Ezekiel's temple Ez 40-48 never built, the two paths of Israel where they had 490 years to make a choice according to Dan 9, and how one of those paths would have Ezekiel's temple and Isaiah's 100 year olds who when they die it is thought that a youngster had passed away before their time.

meanwhile - John's explanation of that "New heaven and New Earth" Rev 21:1 is all we really need in this thread for Is 66:23 and the New Heaven and New Earth.