Could you share with us the verses that detail the existence of these ceremonial laws and moral laws

[klutedavid]

that is a man-made way to find the 7th day of the week. It is not the way it was done in the Bible.

I prefer the Bible.

27 And it happened the next day, the second day of the month, that David’s place was empty. And Saul said to Jonathan his son, “Why has the son of Jesse not come to eat, either yesterday or today?”

No text says "the second day of the month is always the second day of the week" as we know

When the day count on the lunisolar calendar reached number seven, would you pick up sticks to light a fire?

 

[BobRyan]

When the day count on the lunisolar calendar reached number seven, would you pick up sticks to light a fire?

depends -- would it be the 7th day of the week on the monthly calendar or merely the 7th day of the month for that monthly calendar -- in the scenario you suggest?

Even the most strict orthodox Jews have enough understanding to admit to the 7th day of the week. Did you miss it??

 

[klutedavid]

depends -- would it be the 7th day of the week on the monthly calendar or merely the 7th day of the month for that monthly calendar -- in the scenario you suggest?

Even the most strict orthodox Jews have enough understanding to admit to the 7th day of the week. Did you miss it??

The seventh day is the seventh day of any lunar month using a lunisolar Hebrew calendar.

If you change calendars to the solar, papal, Gregorian calendar, then the weeks follow a continuous cycle. That is the Gregorian continuous weekly cycle that you follow.

The strict Orthodox Jews changed their calendar a long time ago.

Answer this question.

Was the start of the lunar month i.e., the new moon day, a day of rest in the Old Testament?

 

[Dave-W]

The strict Orthodox Jews changed their calendar a long time ago.

Yes, but not in the way you are suggesting. After being kicked out of the Land in the 2nd century ad, a new way of determining the start of months and years had to be devised. It had nothing to do with weekdays. It was an observation of records of a few centuries of moon phases in order to predict with regularity each new moon.

Answer this question.
Was the start of the lunar month i.e., the new moon day, a day of rest in the Old Testament?

No and yes. There is no call to observe Rosh Chodesh (the New Moon/Month) in Torah, but we have evidence in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles that during the time of King David it was celebrated.

Paul mentions it being celebrated in one of his letters.

Colossians 2:16
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—

​

As to whether it was called a "Sabbath," there is NO evidence of that at all.

 

[klutedavid]

Yes, but not in the way you are suggesting. After being kicked out of the Land in the 2nd century ad, a new way of determining the start of months and years had to be devised. It had nothing to do with weekdays. It was an observation of records of a few centuries of moon phases in order to predict with regularity each new moon.

No and yes. There is no call to observe Rosh Chodesh (the New Moon/Month) in Torah, but we have evidence in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles that during the time of King David it was celebrated.

Paul mentions it being celebrated in one of his letters.

Colossians 2:16
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—

​

As to whether it was called a "Sabbath," there is NO evidence of that at all.

The new moon day was obviously a rest day and that is recorded in the text. So you work six days after a rest day and you arrive at the next rest day. Does that sound logical to you?

If you follow a solar calendar, you will not honor the day of rest on the day of the new moon.

Because a solar calendar does not have a lunar month initiated by the new moon.

Six days of work followed by a day of rest.

 

[Mercy74]

1 Cor 7:19 says that ceremonial laws like circumcision do not matter "but what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God" --

The Baptist Confession of Faith - section 19 references this - as does the Westminster Confession of Faith - section 19.

Ex 20:11 says the Sabbath was given to mankind at creation.
Mark 2:27 says the "Sabbath was made for mankind not mankind made for Sabbath" thus the making of BOTH is referenced just as we see in creation week.

Hebrews 7 tells us that the laws concerning earthly priesthood ended at the cross.
Hebrews 10:4-12 tells us that the laws concerning animal sacrifices ended at the cross. So this means all ceremonies that specify liturgy only in animal sacrifices - also end.

Rev 14:12 "the saints Keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"
Matt 19 Jesus said "if you would have eternal life - Keep the Commandments". He is then asked "which ones" and Jesus gives all the Ten Commandments related to man's-duty-to-man.

D.L. Moody, Andy Stanley, R.C.Sproul, the Catholic document "The Faith Explained" , the Catholic Document 'Dies Domini" by Pope John Paul II. All of them (and many more) admit to these basics in the Bible.

Moses tells his readers in Genesis 7 and 8 - that Noah knew about the clean-vs-unclean animal laws of Leviticus 11. Those laws say not to eat diseased meat or rats etc. Noah takes the unclean animals by "two's" onto the ark - so eating even one of the unclean species = species-extinction. But he takes the clean animals by 7's - so eating one of the clean animals does NOT result in "species extinction"

Circumcision does not matter but keeping the commandments does matter! Circumcision is a commandment of YHWH.

 

[BobRyan]

Circumcision does not matter but keeping the commandments does matter! Circumcision is a commandment of YHWH.

Is it your argument that Paul did not know what he was talking about?

"All scripture" (not just some of it) is given by inspiration from God - 2 Tim 3:16

Paul (not me) is the one that sets up that distinction between commandments of God that are regarding ceremonies - and commandments of God that are in the moral law of God, that define what sin is etc.

In Lev 18 you see examples of lists of sins for which gentile nations would be destroyed... not being circumcise -- was not one of them, in fact in Romans 2 Paul specifically points out that the gentile who obeys the Law of God "by instinct" - having no access to scripture at all - would be counted as circumcised since it is the spiritual aspect of it that God is looking for.

Rom 2
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a violator of the Law, your circumcision has turned into uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

Paul argues that the uncircumcised gentile in that example is a "keeper of the Law".... what law? Not the ceremonial law.

Rom 2
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.

In the Law that Paul speaks - "the first commandment with a promise" is "honor your Father and Mother" Eph 6:1-2. That is not the first command or promise in the writings of Moses.

Gentiles were never under the ceremonial law. Israel was because they were a chosen nation and royal priesthood - they were set apart as the Gospel teachers of mankind. The gospel was to go forth from them , they would be the evangelists.

Rom 3
Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God.

 

[BobRyan]

The new moon day was obviously a rest day and that is recorded in the text. So you work six days after a rest day and you arrive at the next rest day. Does that sound logical to you?

That is not what Ex 20:8-11 says about the weekly Sabbath. And nothing in Lev 23 supports "a rest day + 6 days" as if the command was that non-specific. Rather we see a number of annual Sabbaths and ALSO at the start of the chapter the 7th day Sabbath remains distinct from all of them.

details.

 

[Mercy74]

Is it your argument that Paul did not know what he was talking about?

"All scripture" (not just some of it) is given by inspiration from God - 2 Tim 3:16

Paul (not me) is the one that sets up that distinction between commandments of God that are regarding ceremonies - and commandments of God that are in the moral law of God, that define what sin is etc.

In Lev 18 you see examples of lists of sins for which gentile nations would be destroyed... not being circumcise -- was not one of them, in fact in Romans 2 Paul specifically points out that the gentile who obeys the Law of God "by instinct" - having no access to scripture at all - would be counted as circumcised since it is the spiritual aspect of it that God is looking for.

Rom 2
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a violator of the Law, your circumcision has turned into uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

Paul argues that the uncircumcised gentile in that example is a "keeper of the Law".... what law? Not the ceremonial law.

Rom 2
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.

In the Law that Paul speaks - "the first commandment with a promise" is "honor your Father and Mother" Eph 6:1-2. That is not the first command or promise in the writings of Moses.

Gentiles were never under the ceremonial law. Israel was because they were a chosen nation and royal priesthood - they were set apart as the Gospel teachers of mankind. The gospel was to go forth from them , they would be the evangelists.

Rom 3
Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God.

Do you understand Paul keeps the law? Paul was circumcised on the 8th day.

Acts 21:24

Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

You say that the gentiles were never under the law. Was Abraham made righteous by his faith alone? Yet Abraham still kept the law of circumcision when he circumcised every male in his household.

 

[Mercy74]

Is it your argument that Paul did not know what he was talking about?

"All scripture" (not just some of it) is given by inspiration from God - 2 Tim 3:16

Paul (not me) is the one that sets up that distinction between commandments of God that are regarding ceremonies - and commandments of God that are in the moral law of God, that define what sin is etc.

In Lev 18 you see examples of lists of sins for which gentile nations would be destroyed... not being circumcise -- was not one of them, in fact in Romans 2 Paul specifically points out that the gentile who obeys the Law of God "by instinct" - having no access to scripture at all - would be counted as circumcised since it is the spiritual aspect of it that God is looking for.

Rom 2
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a violator of the Law, your circumcision has turned into uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

Paul argues that the uncircumcised gentile in that example is a "keeper of the Law".... what law? Not the ceremonial law.

Rom 2
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.

In the Law that Paul speaks - "the first commandment with a promise" is "honor your Father and Mother" Eph 6:1-2. That is not the first command or promise in the writings of Moses.

Gentiles were never under the ceremonial law. Israel was because they were a chosen nation and royal priesthood - they were set apart as the Gospel teachers of mankind. The gospel was to go forth from them , they would be the evangelists.

Rom 3
Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First, that they were entrusted with the actual words of God.

Paul says that the gentiles who keep the "requirements of the law" (circumcision); will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? How shall the gentiles be "regarded" as being circumcised without actually becoming circumcised? There is certainly a benefit in being circumcised because they have the ACTUAL WORDS OF GOD! Please do not misunderstand Paul's words, remember his words are hard to understand. Paul is a pharisee, he keeps and preaches the law of circumcision on the 8th day.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul says that the gentiles who keep the "requirements of the law" (circumcision); will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? How shall the gentiles be "regarded" as being circumcised without actually becoming circumcised? There is certainly a benefit in being circumcised because they have the ACTUAL WORDS OF GOD! Please do not misunderstand Paul's words, remember his words are hard to understand. Paul is a pharisee, he keeps and preaches the law of circumcision on the 8th day.

For Jews yes - but not for gentiles

See Acts 20: 20 And when they heard about them, they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 So what is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore, do as we tell you: we have four men who have a vow upon themselves; 24 take them along and purify yourself together with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and then everyone will know that there is nothing to what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also conform, keeping the Law. 25 But regarding the Gentiles who have believed, we sent a letter, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and what is strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

Clearly they were keeping the division between Jews and gentiles regarding circumcision. They don't accuse Paul of telling gentiles not to be circumcised because they themselves did not think there was such a requirement for gentiles.

In Acts 13, and Acts 17 and Acts 18 these gentiles worship with Jews in synagogues but are not required to be circumcised even by the non-Christian Jews... because there was no such OT command for gentiles.

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

Acts 21
27 When the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon seeing him in the temple, began to stir up all the crowd and laid hands on him, 28 crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who instructs everyone everywhere against our people and the Law and this place; and besides, he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place!” 29 For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with him, and they thought that Paul had brought him into the temple

The same Christian gentiles - allowed in the synagogues - not allowed in the temple because they are not circumcised.

 

[Mercy74]

For Jews yes - but not for gentiles

See Acts 20: 20 And when they heard about them, they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 So what is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore, do as we tell you: we have four men who have a vow upon themselves; 24 take them along and purify yourself together with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and then everyone will know that there is nothing to what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also conform, keeping the Law. 25 But regarding the Gentiles who have believed, we sent a letter, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and what is strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

Clearly they were keeping the division between Jews and gentiles regarding circumcision. They don't accuse Paul of telling gentiles not to be circumcised because they themselves did not think there was such a requirement for gentiles.

In Acts 13, and Acts 17 and Acts 18 these gentiles worship with Jews in synagogues but are not required to be circumcised even by the non-Christian Jews... because there was no such OT command for gentiles.

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

Acts 21
27 When the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon seeing him in the temple, began to stir up all the crowd and laid hands on him, 28 crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who instructs everyone everywhere against our people and the Law and this place; and besides, he has even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place!” 29 For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with him, and they thought that Paul had brought him into the temple

The same Christian gentiles - allowed in the synagogues - not allowed in the temple because they are not circumcised.

So now you are saying the circumcision requirement is a law for entrance into the temple? Yet Abraham circumcised every male living in his house. The gentiles were told to keep "requirements of the law"; not just circumcision. You speak about a law that you do not understand. (John 4:22) You worship that which you don't know. We worship that which we know; for salvation is from the Jews. The temple is a place of worship, prior to the temple being built Abraham circumcised Isaac on the 8th day. Paul, this man you keep quoting was also circumcised on the 8th day.

 

[klutedavid]

That is not what Ex 20:8-11 says about the weekly Sabbath. And nothing in Lev 23 supports "a rest day + 6 days" as if the command was that non-specific. Rather we see a number of annual Sabbaths and ALSO at the start of the chapter the 7th day Sabbath remains distinct from all of them.

details.

Do you understand Paul keeps the law? Paul was circumcised on the 8th day.

Was Paul circumcised on the eighth day of the week or the eight day of the month?

When Paul was circumcised on the eighth day, does that mean that the preceding seventh day was a Sabbath?

 

[BobRyan]

Do you understand Paul keeps the law? Paul was circumcised on the 8th day.

That is my claim.

 

[BobRyan]

When Paul was circumcised on the eighth day, does that mean that the preceding seventh day was a Sabbath?

No. It means the preceding 7th day was seven days since his birth.

obviously.

 

[BobRyan]

So now you are saying the circumcision requirement is a law for entrance into the temple?

That is what God said about it... not me.

 

[Aaron_Bethlhm]

That is what God said about it... not me.

Just for example, having just now seen, heard, and looked it up,
note this >>>

Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of ...
www.uscis.gov › the-naturalization-interview-and-test
Jul 5, 2020 — Oath "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, ...

As Jesus Himself told all those who wanted to be His disciple: "No man can be MY disciple, UNLESS he gives up everything"....

pretty serious, and eternal life may well be at stake.

Does anyone object to the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States when someone is becoming a citizen of the United States ?

Does anyone object to the loyalty, total loyalty, required ?

Likewise, what Jesus demands, in the Bible - does anyone object ?

 

[klutedavid]

No. It means the preceding 7th day was seven days since his birth.

obviously.

So your saying, that the day before that eighth day of circumcision. Was not, in fact, the seventh day but some other day and could not be the Sabbath day?

 

[BobRyan]

Likewise, what Jesus demands, in the Bible - does anyone object ?

certainly not me.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
No. It means the preceding 7th day was seven days since his birth.

obviously.

So your saying, that the day before that eighth day of circumcision. Was not, in fact, the seventh day

On the contrary I just said it was the "seventh day since his birth" and on the next day when another baby was circumcised that would be the "8th day" since that other baby was born... and on the day after that when another baby was circumcised - it was "the 8th day since that next baby was born".

Incredibly easy part of this discussion... I think we all get it.