• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Bible affirmation of God's Creation-Sabbath rest - vs week-day-1 statements

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Note -- if you look for it - you can find a lot of false accusation, vitriol, vilifying this-or-that denomination etc. Christ was falsely accused, Paul was falsely accused, the early protestants were falsely accused... the list is endless.

But the first rule in "debunking propaganda" is to look at the actual source material and not be so heavily influenced by negative-rants some folks are so happy to post.

All of my arguments rely on the source material of the Bible itself (not on a disputed translation) and my arguments about what other denominations/scholars say -- is a quote of their own text.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The N.T. Scriptures were immediately accepted as being the word of God. Paul quotes Luke 10:7 alongside Deut. 25:4 (1 Timothy 5:18), and Peter endorses Paul's letters in 1 Peter 3:15-16. The ECFs quote extensively from the N.T. showing that they regarded them as authoritative. For example, somewhere around AD 95, Clement of Rome wrote: 'Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the Gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos.....' Clement did not wait for any authority to tell him that 1 Corinthians was inspired Scripture. Clement also quoted from Psalm 118:18 and Hebrews 12:6 and described them both as the 'Holy Word.'

Polycarp, in his letter to the church at Philippi, quotes from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 2 Thes., 1 & 2 Tim., and Hebrews. He quotes 1 Peter so often and widely that Bruce Metzger suggests that he must have known it practically by heart. He introduces quotations by saying, "Remember what the Lord said in His teaching....." and "As the Lord said......" He also wrote, " I trust you are well versed in the sacred Scriptures and that nothing is hid from you." He assumed that his readers also has access to the N.T. Polycarp died in AD 155, long before the Roman Catholic Church reared its head.

The Latin Vulgate is a late 4th century document containing all of the OT and NT


The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New Testament. The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in a 7th or 8th century codex from the library of Columban's monastery at Bobbio; it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 A.D.

The "NT unknown until 15th" century fiction -- died a horrible death - a long time ago.
Hello Bob.

You provided the following information to support your acceptance of the letters found in the New Testament.
Polycarp, in his letter to the church at Philippi, quotes from Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 2 Thes., 1 & 2 Tim., and Hebrews. He quotes 1 Peter so often and widely that Bruce Metzger suggests that he must have known it practically by heart.
The only way that you can cite Polycarp is if you are quoting from a letter written by Iraneaus.

The sole surviving work attributed to him is Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, a mosaic of references to the Greek Scriptures, preserved in Irenaeus' account of Polycarp's life. (wikipedia)

With Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp is regarded as one of three chief Apostolic Fathers. (wikipedia)

You must have accepted the writing of Iraneaus already because you quoted from Him.

Now do you accept these three authors, Clement of Rome, Ignatius and Polycarp?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Hello Bob.

You provided the following information to support your acceptance of the letters found in the New Testament.

The only way that you can cite Polycarp is if you are quoting from a letter written by Iraneaus.

My argument has never been "Iraneaus did not exist" or "Polycarp did not exist" nor did I say "They could not possible know scripture if they saw it".

There are certain "basics" we can all agree to "Iraneaus knew the son was up in the sky" or "Iraneus knew that Jesus was the Son of God".

That is not the same as "Iraneaus was infallible" or "all of Ignatius' corrupt document are still perfect and pure".

All scholars admit to the fact that the majority of the letters claimed for Ignatius are total fakes.

That has not changed.

Do you accept the Bible as the Word of God?

Would you like to read what it says on this topic??
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Hello Bob.

You made the following statement.
There are certain "basics" we can all agree to "Iraneaus knew the son was up in the sky" or "Iraneus knew that Jesus was the Son of God".

That is not the same as "Iraneaus was infallible" or "all of Ignatius' corrupt document are still perfect and pure".
I am not talking about the infallibility of any human author, they are all fallible. If you do your homework Bob, all these early authors had erroneous doctrines in their writing.

If you accept Polycarp, then you have accepted Ireneaus.
All scholars admit to the fact that the majority of the letters claimed for Ignatius are total fakes.
Majority does not mean all the letters, as I said before, there are seven letters written by Ignatius that are accepted as authentic.
That has not changed.
You need to cite the letters of Ignatius that you accept.

With Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp is regarded as one of three chief Apostolic Fathers. (wikipedia)

New Testament scholars accept Ignatius because they have to accept him, you seem to want to reject him?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Hello Bob.

You made the following statement.

I am not talking about the infallibility of any human author, they are all fallible. If you do your homework Bob, all these early authors had erroneous doctrines in their writing.

true. but they had to know certain basics like... "Do we just have the OT or do we also have the NT".

This is not rocket science. A great many almost illiterate today - yet can still tell you "The Christian Bible has both OT and NT in it". So when we look to these sources to tell us the basics that almost every child in Sunday school could tell you - we are not reaching very far into the realm of uncertainty.

If you accept Polycarp, then you have accepted Ireneaus.

I accept that they both existed but I don't have a doctrinal basis that is "sola-Polycarp" or "sola Bill Johnson" etc. The test as Acts 17:11 and 2 Tim 3:16-17 reminds us .. is "sola scriptura".

Bible details matter - no matter how much one things he is personally friends with Poly Carp or Bill Johnson or whoever.

Majority does not mean all the letters,

True. "Majority of the food is poisoned at that store - but not all" .. Yet with the Bible - it is all trustworthy.

as I said before, there are seven letters written by Ignatius that are accepted as authentic.

Not accepted as valid by Calvin or Luther and one reason is that the "source" is the great unchallenged forgery-engine that we call the RCC. It gave us the "Donation of Constantine" which was accepted for many centuries as Gospel truth - only to be found to be forged.

You need to cite the letters of Ignatius that you accept.

Why do I "need" to accept any of them? Why not start first by "accepting the Bible"? Why "reach" for sources known to be corrupt? What's the incentive leading to such desperate actions?

The idea that Calvin and Luther knew nothing about the NT - does not go very far.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
true. but they had to know certain basics like... "Do we just have the OT or do we also have the NT".

This is not rocket science. A great many almost illiterate today - yet can still tell you "The Christian Bible has both OT and NT in it". So when we look to these sources to tell us the basics that almost every child in Sunday school could tell you - we are not reaching very far into the realm of uncertainty.



I accept that they both existed but I don't have a doctrinal basis that is "sola-Polycarp" or "sola Bill Johnson" etc. The test as Acts 17:11 and 2 Tim 3:16-17 reminds us .. is "sola scriptura".

Bible details matter - no matter how much one things he is personally friends with Poly Carp or Bill Johnson or whoever.



True. "Majority of the food is poisoned at that store - but not all" .. Yet with the Bible - it is all trustworthy.



Not accepted as valid by Calvin or Luther and one reason is that the "source" is the great unchallenged forgery-engine that we call the RCC. It gave us the "Donation of Constantine" which was accepted for many centuries as Gospel truth - only to be found to be forged.



Why do I "need" to accept any of them? Why not start first by "accepting the Bible"? Why "reach" for sources known to be corrupt? What's the incentive leading to such desperate actions?

The idea that Calvin and Luther knew nothing about the NT - does not go very far.
Hello Bob.

I don't know why you refer to Luther?

Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide)
(wikipedia)
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Hello Bob.

I don't know why you refer to Luther?

Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide)
(wikipedia)

Are you saying that rejecting a source that is known and confirmed by all scholars to be at best totally corrupt in over half of its supposedly-true-letters is "the same" as rejecting the book of James??

Doesn't it make far more sense to argue in favor of James and not even be concerned at all that a confirmed-corrupt source was being rejected when it comes to wild claims made about Ignatius source material???
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
It is hard to believe that with the purity of the Bible right in front of you - you want to circle back to a corrupt source like the supposed letters of Ignatius.

Here is what your own RCC says about them.

From CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Ignatius of Antioch



The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century, but which unfortunately is no longer extant. It was made up of the seven letters written by Ignatius whilst on his way to Rome; These letters were addressed to the Christians

  • of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious);
  • of Magnesia (Magnesieusin);
  • of Tralles (Trallianois);
  • of Rome (Pros Romaious);
  • of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin);
  • of Smyrna (Smyrnaiois); and
  • to Polycarp (Pros Polykarpon).
We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius (Church History III.36) but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius

  • to Mary of Cassobola (Pros Marian Kassoboliten);
  • to the Tarsians (Pros tous en tarso);
  • to the Philippians (Pros Philippesious);
  • to the Antiochenes (Pros Antiocheis);
  • to Hero a deacon of Antioch (Pros Erona diakonon Antiocheias). Associated with the foregoing is
  • a letter from Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius.
It is extremely probable that the interpolation of the genuine, the addition of the spurious letters, and the union of both in the long recension was the work of an Apollinarist of Syria or Egypt, who wrote towards the beginning of the fifth century. Funk identifies him with the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions, which came out of Syria in the early part of the same century. Subsequently there was added to this collection a panegyric on St. Ignatius entitled, "Laus Heronis". Though in the original it was probably written in Greek, it is now extant only in Latin and Coptic texts. There is also a third recension, designated by Funk as the "mixed collection". The time of its origin can be only vaguely determined as being between that of the collection known to Eusebius and the long recension. Besides the seven genuine letters of Ignatius in their original form, it also contains the six spurious ones, with the exception of that to the Philippians.

In this collection is also to be found the "Martyrium Colbertinum". The Greek original of this recension is contained in a single codex, the famous Mediceo-Laurentianus manuscript at Florence. This codex is incomplete, wanting the letter to the Romans, which, however, is to be found associated with the "Martyrium Colbertinum" in the Codex Colbertinus, at Paris. The mixed collection is regarded as the most reliable of all in determining what was the authentic text of the genuine Ignatian letters.

There is also an ancient Latin version which is an unusually exact rendering of the Greek. Critics are generally inclined to look upon this version as a translation of some Greek manuscript of the same type as that of the Medicean Codex. This version owes its discovery to Archbishop Ussher, of Ireland, who found it in two manuscripts in English libraries and published it in 1644. It was the work of Robert Grosseteste, a Franciscan friar and Bishop of Lincoln (c. 1250). The original Syriac version has come down to us in its entirety only in an Armenian translation. It also contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters. This collection in the original Syriac would be invaluable in determining the exact text of Ignatius, were it in existence, for the reason that it could not have been later than the fourth or fifth century. The deficiencies of the Armenian version are in part supplied by the abridged recension in the original Syriac. This abridgment contains the three genuine letters to the Ephesians, the Romans, and to Polycarp. The manuscript was discovered by Cureton in a collection of Syriac manuscripts obtained in 1843 from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Desert of Nitria. Also there are three letters extant only in Latin. Two of the three purport to be from Ignatius to St. John the Apostle, and one to the Blessed Virgin, with her reply to the same. These are probably of Western origin, dating no further back than the twelfth century.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Are you saying that rejecting a source that is known and confirmed by all scholars to be at best totally corrupt in over half of its supposedly-true-letters is "the same" as rejecting the book of James??
Hello Bob.

You were referring to Luther and I am not sure why. Luther was not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination. Luther called the epistle of James an epistle of straw, you know that. Why do you even mention Luther in your posts?

Luther wanted to alter your Bible by removing the letter of James and the book of Revelations. Surely you cannot be a protestant, Luther is your enemy!

Why oh why, Bob, do you quote Luther in your posts?
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
It is hard to believe that with the purity of the Bible right in front of you - you want to circle back to a corrupt source like the supposed letters of Ignatius.

Here is what your own RCC says about them.
Hello Bob.

If you read your extract from the RCC more carefully, you will notice the following paragraph.

There is also a third recension, designated by Funk as the "mixed collection". The time of its origin can be only vaguely determined as being between that of the collection known to Eusebius and the long recension. Besides the seven genuine letters of Ignatius in their original form, it also contains the six spurious ones, with the exception of that to the Philippians.

We have these genuine letters of Ignatius.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Hello Bob.

If you read your extract from the RCC more carefully, you will notice the following paragraph.

There is also a third recension, designated by Funk as the "mixed collection". The time of its origin can be only vaguely determined as being between that of the collection known to Eusebius and the long recension. Besides the seven genuine letters of Ignatius in their original form, it also contains the six spurious ones, with the exception of that to the Philippians.

True - they know of the fakes and yet with hope and optimism -- within the junk pile -- hope for something good while freely admitting that actual copies of whatever had been the 7 good ones "is no longer extant"


But since you are anxious for an anything-but-the Bible contribution that is not itself a fake.. how about this one... most certainly not a fake.

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

Following your tradition of misquoting and applying non intended meanings to a select group of words. Moody didn't keep the 7th day sabbath and can't be supporting it with his sermon.

ad hominem straw man where you are merely quoting "you" again?

How surprising.

here is what Moody actually said "in real life" and also what I actually said about Moody's statement "in real life".

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

None of those scholars teach or practice the sabbath. Genesis 2 says nothing about a day of worship. We both know it.

Even D.L. Moody agrees that the Sabbath was binding on all mankind - starting in Eden.

========================================
D.L. Moody notices that some are opposed to the Sabbath Commandment - but notice how this sermon on the TEN Commandments also fits the summary of 7 points listed here on page 1??

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS text by D. L. Moody

BY THE
DWIGHT L. MOODY
The Ten Commandments:
Exodus 20:2-17
.

The Fourth Commandment


Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the LORD made heaven and Earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.

THERE HAS BEEN an awful letting-down in this country regarding the Sabbath during the last twenty-five years, and many a man has been shorn of spiritual power, like Samson, because he is not straight on this question. Can you say that you observe the Sabbath properly? You may be a professed Christian: are you obeying this commandment? Or do you neglect the house of God on the Sabbath day, and spend your time drinking and carousing in places of vice and crime, showing contempt for God and His law? Are you ready to step into the scales? Where were you last Sabbath? How did you spend it?

I honestly believe that this commandment is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place.
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was
- in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins with the word remember, showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stone at Sinai.
How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?

I believe that the Sabbath question today is a vital one for the whole country. It is the burning question of the present time. If you give up the Sabbath the church goes;

------------------------------------------

This Sabbath Commandment section of Moody's Ten Commandment sermon goes quot]on with more detail. Here is a segment of that same section -- the ending concluding segment - that might help shed even more light on Moody's Intent - #229 post is on this


Even D.L. Moody agrees that the Sabbath was binding on all mankind - starting in Eden.

No DL Moody doesn't agree and practice the 7th day sabbath.


Read the actual post.


Even D.L. Moody agrees that the Sabbath was binding on all mankind - starting in Eden.

This detail is irrefutable
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Hello Bob.
You were referring to Luther and I am not sure why. Luther was not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination.

Luther was one of the early examples of the start of the Protestant Reformation - and wayyy too many Christians today know him for doing that - to ignore it. So when Luther admits to the fake, junk, discredited Ignatius pile of documents -- as does Calvin and also other scholars... it is not to be "ignored".

What is more we HAVE the Bible for testing doctrine.

This "We have the Bible" idea may seem foreign to some -- but this fits right into the "Sola scriptura" model of Acts 17:11. So this thread is devoted to it.
 
Upvote 0