Historicity of the change of the Sabbath Commandment

BobRyan · Feb 1, 2016

Open Heart said:
If the "days" it is referring to are only the approved holy days of the Bible, who are the people who keep only ONE of those days, which one is it, and why is that ok? I have some guesses what you might say, but I'll wait till you actually reply.

Among the Jews only 3 of those Lev 23 annual festivals were mandatory - and I don't know that any of them were mandatory for women and children. Thus Christ's first Passover visit to the temple is not until the age of 12. Among Christian gentiles - it was probably the case that even fewer of them observed those festivals - since those animal sacrifice based festivals were never binding on Gentiles.

And with the Heb 10 doctrine on all animal sacrifice forms of worship having ended --- well even the Jewish Christians were less likely to "observe them all" choosing rather to "observe one above the others"

bugkiller · Feb 1, 2016

BobRyan said:
In Rom 14 Paul says that "one many observes one day above another - another man observes them all -" -- the word "alike" is not in the text.

In Gal 4 Paul flatly condemns any Christians that would dare to observe even one of the pagan holy days.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 - "if a man will not work neither let him eat" - Paul would not "allow" a gentile to rest and keep holy every day - Paul would have that man starve.

The "all" of Romans 14 - is ALL of the days listed in the actual Bible - in Lev 23.

Not in the actual Bible. In the actual Bible the observance of a day as Holy unto the Lord - as we see in Lev 23 involves not working.

Rom 14 "He who observes the day - observes it unto the LORD"

And in Gal 4 that is "condemned" if you are observing one of the pagan days.

Gal 4
8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

Rom 14

Rom 14 NASB
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day (alike[/i] inserted here by some translators). Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

John Wesley admits that this is a reference to the Lev 23 list of annual feast days –

More literal translation would be something like -

one truly judges day above, one judges every day.

bugkiller

BobRyan · Feb 1, 2016

"observes" --- "He who OBSERVES the day OBSERVES it for the LORD" - Romans 14.

bugkiller · Feb 1, 2016

BobRyan said:
In Rom 14 Paul says that "one many observes one day above another - another man observes them all -" -- the word "alike" is not in the text.

In Gal 4 Paul flatly condemns any Christians that would dare to observe even one of the pagan holy days.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 - "if a man will not work neither let him eat" - Paul would not "allow" a gentile to rest and keep holy every day - Paul would have that man starve.

The "all" of Romans 14 - is ALL of the days listed in the actual Bible - in Lev 23.

Not in the actual Bible. In the actual Bible the observance of a day as Holy unto the Lord - as we see in Lev 23 involves not working.

Rom 14 "He who observes the day - observes it unto the LORD"

And in Gal 4 that is "condemned" if you are observing one of the pagan days.

Gal 4
8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

Rom 14

Rom 14 NASB
5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day (alike[/i] inserted here by some translators). Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

John Wesley admits that this is a reference to the Lev 23 list of annual feast days –

I have a great many that place the word in italics indicating it was an 'insert" by the translators and is not actually "in the text". Perhaps you consider this to be an "inconvenient detail" -- I find it "instructive".

A word is inserted to show the meaning of what is being said. If we had a literal like word for every word in every language German would have as many distinct colors as English. In English we have mauve and purple which would only be purple in German.

You're argung like the word is hēmera when it is hēmeran. Yes I understand that gives you a headache. But then context comes into play lending meaning. Go to a lexicon and I think you can see what I'm trying to say. You wouldn't understand a direct word for word translation. Often it takes two words in one language to convey a thought done with a single word in another.

Not in the real world. In the real world a great many pro-sunday Bible commentaries point to the days in Romans 14 as the approved list of days in Lev 23.

To which I would say Amen. The chapter says some regard them and others don't think the same. It also says who are you to judge another man's servant? The pro-grace side of the fence doesn't condemn you for your version of the Sabbath. Romans 14 says clearly its permissible to treat Saturday just like Thursday. It doesn't say nor imply one treats every day like the Sabbath.

Jamieson Fausset, Brown
Matthew Henry – Rom 14:5

http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mhn/view.cgi?bk=44&ch=14
The case as to the observance of days was much the same. Those who knew that all these things were done away by Christ's coming, took no notice of the festivals of the Jews.

What? Then why are you trying to say with Galatians Paul is talking about pagan days?

Adam Clarke
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/view.cgi?bk=44&ch=14
Rom 14:5
One man esteemeth one day above another - Perhaps the word ἡμεραν, day, is here taken for time, festival, and such like, in which sense it is frequently used. Reference is made here to the Jewish institutions, and especially their festivals; such as the passover,

I would agree except the Sabbath is a Jewish institution and their festival day. There's no indication in Romans 14 about the special festivals such as Passover.

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

And hence Paul forceful condemnation of any Christian that dares to "observe the days" of the pagans.

Gal 4
8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.{quote]What are these months and years of the pagans you seem to be referring to? Please name them for us.

Another "inconvenient detail"???

Click to expand...

I don't think Paul is saying anyone keeps all days like the Sabbath as you imply by the no work statement.

bugkiller

bugkiller · Feb 1, 2016

BobRyan said:
Among the Jews only 3 of those Lev 23 annual festivals were mandatory - and I don't know that any of them were mandatory for women and children. Thus Christ's first Passover visit to the temple is not until the age of 12. Among Christian gentiles - it was probably the case that even fewer of them observed those festivals - since those animal sacrifice based festivals were never binding on Gentiles.

And with the Heb 10 doctrine on all animal sacrifice forms of worship having ended --- well even the Jewish Christians were less likely to "observe them all" choosing rather to "observe one above the others"

Where do you get the idea the first time Jesus attended Passover in Jerusalem is the age of 12? From the same place his mother's first time was when Jesus was 12? Really?

bugkiller

bugkiller · Feb 1, 2016

BobRyan said:
"observes" --- "He who OBSERVES the day OBSERVES it for the LORD" - Romans 14.

Like usual just a partial of a sentence. Where's the rest of it? Can you prove none of is original text?

bugkiller

bugkiller · Feb 1, 2016

Open Heart said:
What does 1 Cor 7:19 have to do with the way the SDA pick and choose which of the 613 they follow? Gentiles are not bound by the 613. They are bound by Natural law, as was Adam and Noah, as was described by the Apostles in the New Testament. Noah was given everything to eat. He was not kosher and certainly not a vegetarian after the flood.

Not that you can't have other ethical reasons of compassion to be a vegatarian. You can go farther than the literal demands of scripture based on the principles of scripture, as we have done with slavery.

And you can have extremely delicious food as a vegetarian. I was hospitalized in an SDA hospital and I have to say that the food was the best thing about my stay.

Yet Jesus ate meat and even provided a non veggie meal to thousands. Did Jesus sin and make provision for other to sin?

bugkiller

bugkiller · Feb 1, 2016

BobRyan said:
Step 1.. Read 1 Cor 7:19

Step 2... Refuse to accept God's free gift. Rom 6:23

bugkiller

bugkiller · Feb 1, 2016

BobRyan said:
New
BobRyan said: ↑
The Moral Law of God is not the same as the civil law applicable only to a theocracy - as even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" AND the "Westminster Confession of Faith" freely admit.

So also laws of ceremony, priests and sacrifice that are stated to be at an end in Heb 7 and 10.

Which brings us back to the much-to-be-feared-and-avoided two super easy questions.

Today at 11:08 AM #165

1. Because I don't regard you as the only person on this board or the only person reading this thread.
2. Because it demonstrates "objectivity" when I show that even well known pro-sunday sources on the other side of the fence - will admit to certain Bible details in agreement with the statements I have made here - on some of the very points were some folks stumble as if 'only SDAs know that part of the Bible". I simply point out that this is not the case.

3. Because those evangelical sources AND the RCC documents I quote - AGREE on certain key basics regarding the "MORAL LAW" of God including the TEN Commandments and applying to all mankind in both OT and NT.

Hint - respond to the much-to-be-avoided two incredibly easy questions post details -- rather than avoiding it. It provides the answer.

Sunday at 11:08 AM #165

I have made this step - very very easy.

in Christ,

Bob

So much for you Mat 5 argument.

bugkiller

bugkiller · Feb 1, 2016

BobRyan said:
In real life none of them say that. What they do say is that the SAME moral law of God - applies in all ages.. it is the one that Paul also confirms in Romans 7 as that which defines what sin is-- so also does James 2 confirm that fact.

Details.

Moses tells the Jews at Sinai that "Abraham kept God's statutes laws and commandments" Gen 26:5

Woops! Darn it I missed that part. Can you show us where Moses said that at Sinai? And what's with Moses' self contradiction found in Deut 5:3?

Well not according to Gal 3 - where we are told that the LAW of God is not in conflict with the promises of God - they are not competing Gospels. Because under the Gospel - the Jer 31:31-33 LAW is "written on the mind and heart"

a nope will do here since you been shown so many times its not the covenant given to Israel that's written on the heart. There's not a single shred of evidence Abraham keep the Sabbath, not one.

here is what the commandment oposers skip.

Gal 3
17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

What you wish to ignore is in bold blue. It invalidates your whole argument about Gen 26:5. Maybe only part of the sentence is inspired, huh? Verse 18 explains your red highlight very well. You invalidate the promise with the law. The law provided nothing about or from the promise.

The Abrahamic covenant was still valid all during the time of Israel - and Sinai - it was not deleted/invalidated by Sinai because the LAW of Sinai is not "another gospel" - a competing Gospel. The moral law of God - defines what sin is - according to Romans 7 - and always did. That never changed.

The way you present the law is another gospel (salvation by works). You even gloat about it with Rev 22:14.

bugkiller

bugkiller · Feb 1, 2016

BobRyan said:
There are 1050 commands in the NT - are you opposed to them?

https://www.cai.org/bible-studies/1050-new-testament-commands

Do you oppose the OT as being "scripture"?? Does your bible have 66 books, 27?? 5?

How does that answer the question?

bugkiller

Meowzltov · Feb 2, 2016

BobRyan said:
So then - you mix them?? I would miss seeing all those people walking around in linen shirts with wool "woven in" with the linen.

Or is this your way of saying that the commandment against taking God's name in vain - needs to be reconsidered because "deleted if not repeated" is a great new doctrine to "make up" -- among the doctrines "not in the Bible"???

I'm merely wondering if you're willing to be consistant in your logic, apply the same reasoning to both issues.

Meowzltov · Feb 2, 2016

bugkiller said:
Yet Jesus ate meat and even provided a non veggie meal to thousands. Did Jesus sin and make provision for other to sin?

bugkiller

I never said it was a sin to eat meat.

BobRyan · Feb 2, 2016

Open Heart said:
What does 1 Cor 7:19 have to do with the way the SDA pick and choose which of the 613 they follow?

I think you meant "what does Hebrews 10:4-10 have to do with not continuing to observe ceremonies based on animal sacrifices and accepting Christ's once for all completed sacrifice instead of the mass" - correct?

BobRyan · Feb 2, 2016

Open Heart said:
All the other of the ten are repeated in the NT .

TRue - except that one about not taking God's name in vain - not quoted at all in the NT for anyone.

"There REMAINS therefore a SABBATH rest for the people of God" Heb 4.
"Worship HIM who MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and the springs of water" Rev 14:7
"EVERY Sabbath" they were in the synagogue preaching the Gospel to BOTH gentiles and Jews - Acts 18:1-5.
"EVERY Sabbath" scripture is read in the synagogues and this solves the problem of Acts 15 for gentiles.
"The Sabbath was made for MANKIND" Mark 2:27 -- turns out --- that includes gentiles.

EVEN Dies Domini insists that the Sabbath commandment as with ALL the TEN commandments are for ALL MANKIND and "not just jews"

Your position opposed to both the Bible and your own Pope John Paul II - is a bit 'extreme' for a Catholic don't you think??

Dies Domini pt 11
"the rest of the Sabbath..discloses something of the nuptial shape of the relationship which God wants to establish with the creature made in his image, by calling that creature to enter a pact of love".

Dies Domini pt 13 -
"the Sabbath ...is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why unlike many other laws - it is not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart!! In setting this commandment within the context of the basic structure of ethics, Israel and then the church declare that they consider it not just a matter of community religious discipline but a defining and indelible expression of our relationship to God, announced and expounded by biblical revelations.

Dies Domini pt 11 "if the first page of the book of Genesis presents God's work as an example for man, the same is true of God's rest - on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done therefore God blessed the seventh day and made it holy...it is a gaze which God casts upon all things, but in a special way upon man, the crown
of creation. It is a gaze which already discloses something of the nuptial shape of the relationship God wants to establish with the creature made in his own image, by calling that creature to enter a pact of love."

BobRyan · Feb 2, 2016

bugkiller said:
Yet Jesus ate meat and even provided a non veggie meal to thousands. Did Jesus sin and make provision for other to sin?
bugkiller

Are you talking about the comparison to vegetarians in Romans 14?

BobRyan · Feb 2, 2016

BABerean2 said: ↑
He does it because those groups have also committed the same error by claiming that the New Covenant of Jer. 31 and Heb. 8, is a "New Administration" of the Sinai covenant. In other words, it is not really "New".

They ignore the text that says is would not be like the Sinai covenant, which they broke.

These groups also apply the Sinai covenant to Adam before the fall, even though Adam could not have committed adultery, nor honored his mother.

In real life none of them say that. What they do say is that the SAME moral law of God - applies in all ages.. it is the one that Paul also confirms in Romans 7 as that which defines what sin is-- so also does James 2 confirm that fact.

Details.

BABerean2 said: ↑

The Sabbath is the Sign of the Sinai covenant, just as circumcision is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant.

Moses tells the Jews at Sinai that "Abraham kept God's statutes laws and commandments" Gen 26:5

BABerean2 said: ↑
In order to keep their Sabbath doctrine they must commit the theological error of substituting the Sinai covenant in place of the Promise to Abraham

Well not according to Gal 3 - where we are told that the LAW of God is not in conflict with the promises of God - they are not competing Gospels. Because under the Gospel - the Jer 31:31-33 LAW is "written on the mind and heart"

here is what the commandment oposers skip.

Gal 3
17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

BobRyan said:
The Abrahamic covenant was still valid all during the time of Israel - and Sinai - it was not deleted/invalidated by Sinai because the LAW of Sinai is not "another gospel" - a competing Gospel. The moral law of God - defines what sin is - according to Romans 7 - and always did. That never changed.

If you are in-Christ, then the Sabbath-rest is inside of you every day of the week, every moment of the day.
We have only "you" as our source for that quote. No bible text says it.

bugkiller said:
Woops! Darn it I missed that part. C
bugkiller

Stick around you may find more things in that category of details you missed.

BobRyan · Feb 2, 2016

bugkiller said:
Can you show us where Moses said that at Sinai? And what's with Moses' self contradiction found in Deut 5:3?

There are a number of things in Isaiah that are not also said by Moses -- as it turns out.

(As we all knew)

Meowzltov · Feb 2, 2016

BobRyan said:
I think you meant "what does Hebrews 10:4-10 have to do with not continuing to observe ceremonies based on animal sacrifices and accepting Christ's once for all completed sacrifice instead of the mass" - correct?

Noooo, You brought up 1 Cor 7:19 and the general laws (we were actually discussing the dietary laws). I repeat the following two questions:

1. What does 1 Cor 7:19 have to do with the way the SDA pick and choose which of the 613 they follow? Gentiles are not bound by the 613. They are bound by Natural law, as was Adam and Noah, as was described by the Apostles in the New Testament.
2. Noah was given everything to eat. He was not kosher and certainly not a vegetarian after the flood. How do you figure it is COMMANDED to be vegetarian? And how does that relate to 1 Cor 7:19?

Meowzltov · Feb 2, 2016

BobRyan said:
"There REMAINS therefore a SABBATH rest for the people of God" Heb 4.

I can't respect you when you alter biblical text. It doesn't say SABBATH rest. It simply says rest. Heb 4:9 What were you thinking?

"Worship HIM who MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and the springs of water" Rev 14:7

Nothing to do with the Sabbath.

"EVERY Sabbath" they were in the synagogue preaching the Gospel to BOTH gentiles and Jews - Acts 18:1-5.
"EVERY Sabbath" scripture is read in the synagogues and this solves the problem of Acts 15 for gentiles.

This doesn't mean Gentiles were observing the sabbaath. Observing means resting. I know plenty of Reform Jews who go to synagogue on Shabbat. But they don't rest.

"The Sabbath was made for MANKIND" Mark 2:27 -- turns out --- that includes gentiles.[/QUOTE]
We've gone over this a zillion times. It was the colloquial use of man referring to Jewish men, not the universal mankind.

Historicity of the change of the Sabbath Commandment

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Freylekher Yid

Freylekher Yid

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Freylekher Yid

Freylekher Yid

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency