If you Love Me - KEEP My Commandments

[BobRyan]

I think it was more "wishful thinking" than an actual text in the actual Bible that was the basis in that case.

Certainly Jan has every reason to "hope" that the endless twists and turns of man-made-tradition coming along after scripture might by fact or be forged document - in some way shape or form - (donation of constantine fashion if all else fails) provide the missing evidence.

Is there some "substance" for that "hope"??

There are some forgeries for example attributed to Ignatius
http://www.bible.ca/history-ignatius-forgeries-250AD.htm

Surely some of them might be useful as a replacement for much-needed but-still-missing scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Still - not "every forged/interpolated/edited" document is so useful.

For example - -

The Didache
"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).

=========================================== regarding the fraudulent/forged letter
Neander
"The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers are, alas! come down to us, for the most part, in a very uncertain condition; partly, because in early times writings were counterfeited, under the name of these venerable men of the church, in order to propagate certain opinions or principles; partly, because those writings which they had really published were adulterated, and especially so to serve a Judao-hierarchical party, which would fain crush the free evangelical spirit. We should here, in the first place, have to name Bamabas, the well known fellow traveler of St. Paul, if a letter, which was first known in the second century, in the Alexandrian church, under his name, and which bore the inscription of a Catholic epistle, was really his composition.

But it is impossible that we should acknowledge this epistle to belong to that Barnabas who was worthy to be the companion of the apostolic labors of St. Paul, and had received his name from the power of his animated discourses in the churches. We find, also, nothing to induce us to believe the author of the Epistle was desirous of being considered Barnabas. But since its spirit and its mode of conception corresponded to the Alexandrian taste, it may have happened, that as the author's name was unknown, and persons were desirous of giving it authority, a report was spread abroad in Alexandria, that Barnabas was the author." (History of the Christian Church of the First Three Centuries, pp. 407, 408, Rose's Trans.)


Mosheim says:
"The Epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew, who most probably lived in this [the second] century, and whose mean abilities and superstitious attachment to Jewish fables, show, notwithstanding the uprightness of his intentions, that he must have been a very different person from the true Barnabas who was St. Paul's companion." (Church History, Vol. 1, p. 113, Maclaine's Trans.)

Also from the same author:

"For what is suggested by some of its having been written by that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul, the futility of such a notion is easily to be made apparent from the letter itself. Several of the opinions and interpretations of Scripture which it contains, having in them so little, either of truth, or dignity, or force, as to render it impossible that they ever could have proceeded from the pen of a man divinely inspired." (Historical Commentaries, Century 2, See. 53.)

Eusebius says:
"Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles." (Church History, Book III., chap. 25, Sec. 4. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I., p. 156.



Prof. Hackett says:
"The letter still extant, which was known as that of Bamabas, even in the second century, cannot be defended as genuine. (Commentary on Acts, p. 251.)



Millner says:
"Of the Apostle Barnabas, nothing is known, except what is recorded in the Acts. There we have an honorable enconium of his character, and a particular description of his joint labors with St. Paul. It is a great injury to him, to apprehend the Epistle which goes by his name to be his." (Vol. I., p. 126, Church History. Boston, 1809.)

Kitto says:
"The so-called Epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the second century." (Cyclopedia Biblical Literature, article Lord's-day.)

Sir William Domville, after an exhaustive examination of the whole question, concludes as follows:
"But the Epistle was not written by Bamabas; it is not merely "unworthy of him," it would be a disgrace to him, and, what is of much more consequence, it would be a disgrace to the Christian religion, as being the production of one of the authorized teachers of that religion in the time of the apostles, which circumstance would seriously damage the evidence of its divine origin." (An Examination of the Six Texts, p. 233.)


Prof. W.D. Killen, a prominent representative of the Presbyterian church in Ireland, bears testimony as follows:
"The tract known as the "Epistle of Barnabas" was probably composed in A.D. 135. It is the production, apparently, of a convert from Judaism, who took special pleasure in allegorical interpretation of Scripture." (History of the Ancient Church, p. 367. New York, 1859. See also The Old Catholic Church, pp. 8, 13. T. & T. Clark, 1871.)



Rev. Lyman Coleman says:
"The Epistle of Barnabas, bearing the honored name of the companion of Paul in his missionary labors, is evidently spurious. It abounds in fabulous narratives, mystic allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, and fanciful conceits; and is generally agreed by the learned to be of no authority. Neander supposes it to have originated in the Alexandrian school; but at what particular time he does not define. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified. chap. 2, sec. 2, p. 47. Philadelphia, 1852.)



Dr. Schaff rejects the theory that the Epistle is genuine, and says:
"The author was probably a converted Jew from Alexandria (perhaps by the name Barnabas, which would easily explain the confusion), to judge from his familiarity with Jewish literature, and, apparently, with Philo, and his allegorical method in handling the Old Testament. In Egypt his Epistle was first known and most esteemed, and the Sinaitic Bible which contains it was probably written in Alexandria or Caesarea in Palestine. The readers were chiefly Jewish Christians in Egypt, and the East, who overestimated the Mosaic traditions and ceremonies." (History Christian Church, Vol. II., p. 677. New York, 1883.)

 

[BobRyan]

Didache -- another "non-Bible" document to use as a basis for man-made-tradition when possible.

from: Jun 29, 2015 #261

The Didache

The Didache has been cited as the earliest non-scriptural "proof" of Sunday worship by those who profess Christ [3], although it does not ever use the word Sunday or the expression first day of the week.

However, verse 14.1 is often cited as proof of Sunday observance by promoters of Sunday observance.

The Greek expression in verse 14.1 in the Didache, is:

Κατα κυριακὴν δε κυριου [4].

(Note: Some Greek accent marks are missing throughout this paper as the html program being used here does not recognize certain of them. e.g. Kata should have a certain accent mark over its last letter.)

it is translated properly below (with two possible options):

According to the Lord's way, even the Lord's.

or

According to the Lordly {way}, even the Lord's.

However, it has normally been incorrectly translated by many Protestant scholars. Here are two examples:

"On the Lord's day of the Lord" by Kirsopp Lake [5].
"But every Lord's day", by Hall and Napier [6].

There are at least two reasons that the above by Lake as well as Hall & Napier can be shown to be mistranslated.

The first is that the translators should have realized that the Greek term for "day" (ἡμέρᾳ) is missing in verse 14.1 [7] and is not required by the context. (Thus an interpolation is in use in their work - just at the moment that a reliable and precise translation would have been hoped for)

The second is how each of them began the translation of this particular verse. The beginning in both translations is in error and is inconsistent with the translators other translations in this letter.

The Greek word translated in verse 14.1 as "On the" by Kirsopp Lake and "But every" by Hall and Napier (Κατα) truly does mean "According to" as I have translated it. Κατα should not be translated as "On the" or "But every".

The Greek word Κατα is translated as "according to" by Kirsopp Lake five times (1.5, 11.3, 12.4, 13.5, and 13.7 [8]) and "with respect" one time (4.10). The other times Lake used the term "on" (verses 1.4, 7.3, 8.1a, 8.1b, 11.12, 16.8 [9]), it was NOT a translation from the Greek term Κατα.

Also the one time the Didache uses "on" with a day (which is in the translations of both Lake and Hall/Napier), it does not use Κατα, but it does include the Greek term for day (verse 8.1b) [10].

It may be of interest to note that in the KJV New Testament, Κατα is translated as "according to" approximately 110 times, and the only time (Acts 8:36) it is inaccurately translated as "on" it is not translated as "on" in the NKJV or NIV.

Hall and Napier translated Κατα as "according to" the six other times it is translated that SAME letter (see verses 1.5, 4.10, 11.3, 12.4, 13.5, and 13.7 [11]) and never translated it as "But every". The one other time Hall and Napier used the term "But every" (verse 13.1) while translating the Didache it is not translated from the term Κατα [12] . Also, it may be of interest to note that the KJV never translated Κατα as "but every".

Hence it appears that several translators intentionally exercised bias when translating verse 14.1.

 

[BobRyan]

you may choose the twisty windy road of interpolations and forged documents - or stick with "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine and tradition.

To each his own.

 

[Jan001]

Thank you Jan for finding all the writings that should convince Sabbath thumpers to recognize that their prophet was wrong again when she proclaimed that Constantine changed the day of worship. Her statements on the subject were false like much of what she wrote.

I wish the teachings of Jesus on the Sabbath subject had been recorded in the Canon, but as you pointed out there is plenty of evidence that Christians knew they were not under the law therefore not under any command to "keep" ritual old covenant days.

You are welcome. I did not find these all by myself.

Everyone in the early church heard by word of mouth where to meet and which day to meet (Sunday/first day of week). The NT was not compiled until much later and Sunday worship was the common practice for all Christians from the very beginning so there was no need to remind them in letters/epistles.

 

[Jan001]

Just not according to the actual Bible.

For those of us who accept rather than "reject" sola scriptura testing of all tradition and doctrine -- that "detail matters".

Matt 4 is quoting Deuteronomy affirming the Word of God.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” rsv​

​

Jesus is the living Word of God. He spoke and we should listen regardless if His words were spoken and passed down by word of mouth and/or if later His words were written down and called Scripture. Both are the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Acts 15:7
And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. rsv

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. rsv


Yes - people were able to talk - but as we see in Acts 17:11 what they said was "TESTED" against SCRIPTURE "to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were SO"

Even as Christ used that same sola scriptura method to condemn the traditions and doctrines of his day.

Jesus did not use Scripture alone. You are using Acts 17:11 out of context. Acts 17:11 is simply stating that these people were testing what Paul said to see if what he said about the prophesied Messiah was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Again, you are taking (Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition) out of context and using it as "proof" that all man-made traditions are evil. Hanukkah is a man-made tradition and Jesus and His disciples participated in its celebration every year. The Jews still do today.

John 10:22-23
It was the feast of the Dedication [Hanukkah] at Jerusalem; 23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of Solomon. rsv
​

How do you explain the following?

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. rsv
​

Sola Scriptura is not supported by the Scriptures. Why do you keep insisting on Sola Scriptura when this Scripture proves that Sola Scriptura is not true?

 

[Jan001]

Still - not "every forged/interpolated/edited" document is so useful.

For example - -

The Didache
"But every Lord’s day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas
"We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead" (Letter of Barnabas 15:6–8 [A.D. 74]).

=========================================== regarding the fraudulent/forged letter
Neander
"The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers are, alas! come down to us, for the most part, in a very uncertain condition; partly, because in early times writings were counterfeited, under the name of these venerable men of the church, in order to propagate certain opinions or principles; partly, because those writings which they had really published were adulterated, and especially so to serve a Judao-hierarchical party, which would fain crush the free evangelical spirit. We should here, in the first place, have to name Bamabas, the well known fellow traveler of St. Paul, if a letter, which was first known in the second century, in the Alexandrian church, under his name, and which bore the inscription of a Catholic epistle, was really his composition.

But it is impossible that we should acknowledge this epistle to belong to that Barnabas who was worthy to be the companion of the apostolic labors of St. Paul, and had received his name from the power of his animated discourses in the churches. We find, also, nothing to induce us to believe the author of the Epistle was desirous of being considered Barnabas. But since its spirit and its mode of conception corresponded to the Alexandrian taste, it may have happened, that as the author's name was unknown, and persons were desirous of giving it authority, a report was spread abroad in Alexandria, that Barnabas was the author." (History of the Christian Church of the First Three Centuries, pp. 407, 408, Rose's Trans.)


Mosheim says:
"The Epistle of Barnabas was the production of some Jew, who most probably lived in this [the second] century, and whose mean abilities and superstitious attachment to Jewish fables, show, notwithstanding the uprightness of his intentions, that he must have been a very different person from the true Barnabas who was St. Paul's companion." (Church History, Vol. 1, p. 113, Maclaine's Trans.)

Also from the same author:

"For what is suggested by some of its having been written by that Barnabas who was the friend and companion of St. Paul, the futility of such a notion is easily to be made apparent from the letter itself. Several of the opinions and interpretations of Scripture which it contains, having in them so little, either of truth, or dignity, or force, as to render it impossible that they ever could have proceeded from the pen of a man divinely inspired." (Historical Commentaries, Century 2, See. 53.)

Eusebius says:
"Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles." (Church History, Book III., chap. 25, Sec. 4. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I., p. 156.



Prof. Hackett says:
"The letter still extant, which was known as that of Bamabas, even in the second century, cannot be defended as genuine. (Commentary on Acts, p. 251.)



Millner says:
"Of the Apostle Barnabas, nothing is known, except what is recorded in the Acts. There we have an honorable enconium of his character, and a particular description of his joint labors with St. Paul. It is a great injury to him, to apprehend the Epistle which goes by his name to be his." (Vol. I., p. 126, Church History. Boston, 1809.)

Kitto says:
"The so-called Epistle of Barnabas, probably a forgery of the second century." (Cyclopedia Biblical Literature, article Lord's-day.)

Sir William Domville, after an exhaustive examination of the whole question, concludes as follows:
"But the Epistle was not written by Bamabas; it is not merely "unworthy of him," it would be a disgrace to him, and, what is of much more consequence, it would be a disgrace to the Christian religion, as being the production of one of the authorized teachers of that religion in the time of the apostles, which circumstance would seriously damage the evidence of its divine origin." (An Examination of the Six Texts, p. 233.)


Prof. W.D. Killen, a prominent representative of the Presbyterian church in Ireland, bears testimony as follows:
"The tract known as the "Epistle of Barnabas" was probably composed in A.D. 135. It is the production, apparently, of a convert from Judaism, who took special pleasure in allegorical interpretation of Scripture." (History of the Ancient Church, p. 367. New York, 1859. See also The Old Catholic Church, pp. 8, 13. T. & T. Clark, 1871.)



Rev. Lyman Coleman says:
"The Epistle of Barnabas, bearing the honored name of the companion of Paul in his missionary labors, is evidently spurious. It abounds in fabulous narratives, mystic allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, and fanciful conceits; and is generally agreed by the learned to be of no authority. Neander supposes it to have originated in the Alexandrian school; but at what particular time he does not define. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified. chap. 2, sec. 2, p. 47. Philadelphia, 1852.)



Dr. Schaff rejects the theory that the Epistle is genuine, and says:
"The author was probably a converted Jew from Alexandria (perhaps by the name Barnabas, which would easily explain the confusion), to judge from his familiarity with Jewish literature, and, apparently, with Philo, and his allegorical method in handling the Old Testament. In Egypt his Epistle was first known and most esteemed, and the Sinaitic Bible which contains it was probably written in Alexandria or Caesarea in Palestine. The readers were chiefly Jewish Christians in Egypt, and the East, who overestimated the Mosaic traditions and ceremonies." (History Christian Church, Vol. II., p. 677. New York, 1883.)

Doesn't really matter what these men say about a few of these early writings. It is a historical fact that the early Christians worshiped God on the first day of the week. Go ahead and throw out a few writings because you do not believe them genuine, but you cannot get around the fact that many genuine ones still remain which prove that the early Christians worshiped God on the first day of the week and not on the Sabbath.

Please explain to me why you insist Christians keep the Sabbath when the apostles did not command the Christians to observe the Sabbath and all the other OT laws except for the following four:

Acts 15:22-28
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab′bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 with the following letter: “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili′cia, greeting. 24 Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, 25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that [1] you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and [2] from blood and [3] from what is strangled and [4] from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.” rsv
​

Why are you troubling us Christians, telling us that we must keep the Sabbath laws and hundreds of other laws that were commanded by Moses when the apostles did not command that we keep the Sabbath laws? Why are you trying to burden us with Sabbath laws that are not valid for NT Christians?

Please note also that the apostles did not command that the Christians keep the Ten Commandments in this letter. Surely the apostles would have commanded the Ten Commandments if the Christians were expected to keep the LETTER of the OT and the Law of Moses.

But, instead, the apostles wrote that if the Christians just kept themselves from doing those four OT and Law of Moses things, they will do well. We Christians are not required to keep the LETTER of the Law of Moses. Christians are required to keep the SPIRIT of the Law of Moses which is the following:

Luke 10:25-28
And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”

27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.” nkjv​

Are you keeping all of the laws pertaining to all the OT Sabbaths or are you just choosing a few of them to obey?

 

[BobRyan]

Doesn't really matter what these men say about a few of these early writings. It is a historical fact that the early Christians worshiped God on the first day of the week.

"These men" are scholars much closer to the events than we are - showing us that something is rotten when we start latching on to interpolated documents and forged/fraudulent documents as our basis for "what actually happened in history".



So we must go ahead and throw out a few writings because they are found to be fraudulent (as in the Barnabas example) or they show interpolation in the case of Didache -- but we do not ignore the fact that man-made tradition over the centuries was able to sidestep the Bible 7th day Sabbath. No one is questioning that as a change that took place in fact.

Just "when" is the question.

the New Testament is our example for what early Christians were doing -- and it show no example of
weekly week-day-1 worship instead of on the Bible Sabbath.

Please explain to me why you insist Christians keep the Sabbath when the apostles did not command the Christians to observe the Sabbath

1. The apostles did not command Christians to "not take God's name in vain" - Ex 20:6 - never quoted in the entire NT.
That sort of "proof" means nothing at all to Bible doctrine. As we all know.

2. The Apostles did tell us that to "break one is to break them all" because the obligatory element is based on the "HE WHO SAID" aspect of the commandments James 2
AND that the 5th commandment is the FIRST commandment in the still valid UNIT OF TEN -- with a promise
AND "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
AND that "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
AND that there REMAINS a SABBATH rest for the people of God - JUST as in David's time Heb 4

 

[Jan001]

"These men" are scholars much closer to the events than we are - showing us that something is rotten when we start latching on to interpolated documents and forged/fraudulent documents as our basis for "what actually happened in history".

So we must go ahead and throw out a few writings because they are found to be fraudulent (as in the Barnabas example) or they show interpolation in the case of Didache -- but we do not ignore the fact that man-made tradition over the centuries was able to sidestep the Bible 7th day Sabbath. No one is questioning that as a change that took place in fact.

Just "when" is the question.

These scholars who live now 2000 years after Jesus' first coming are not in the same league as the early church fathers. As for me, I will believe the early church fathers' legitimate writings. It is amazing isn't it that even the so-called fraudulent writings to which you keep referring to about Sunday worship also agree with all the legitimate early church fathers' writings about Sunday worship.

The oral tradition of the Church has always taught that the early Christians worshiped weekly on the first day of the week/Sunday.The oral traditions of the Church are the gospel of Jesus Christ and these oral traditions were taught a long time before the written traditions of the Church were canonized as Scripture.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. nkjv​

the New Testament is our example for what early Christians were doing -- and it show no example of
weekly week-day-1 worship instead of on the Bible Sabbath.

The New Testament did not have to show what the early Christians were doing -- the oral tradition has always taught us that the early Christians worshiped weekly on the first day of the week/Sunday.

1. The apostles did not command Christians to "not take God's name in vain" - Ex 20:6 - never quoted in the entire NT.
That sort of "proof" means nothing at all to Bible doctrine. As we all know.

Taking God's name in vain is an example of a sin against the greatest NT commandment which is the following:

Matthew 22:36-38
Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. nkjv
​

2. The Apostles did tell us that to "break one is to break them all" because the obligatory element is based on the "HE WHO SAID" aspect of the commandments James 2
AND that the 5th commandment is the FIRST commandment in the still valid UNIT OF TEN -- with a promise
AND "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
AND that "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

Here is the second commandment which is valid for NT Christians:

Matthew 22:39-40
39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” nkjv
​

All things that harm one's neighbor are examples of sins against this second commandment. A person does not actually love his neighbor if he gives his neighbor food to eat but also tells lies about his neighbor. It is all or nothing.

James 2:10-12
For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment. nkjv
​

There is no law against doing righteous works for one's neighbor. There are laws against harming one's neighbor.

​

AND that there REMAINS a SABBATH rest for the people of God - JUST as in David's time Heb 4

This is a Jewish idiom and it pertains to the saints in Paradise after the resurrection and final judgment. A Sabbath rest means that once in Paradise the saints will not be doing physical labor and they will be forever free from sin, sickness, and death.[/quote]

The apostles gave commands to NT Christians about only four OT/Law of Moses commandments and said that if the NT Christians abstained from these four things, they will do well. The apostles did not ever command that NT Christians keep the Jewish Sabbath so why do you?

I've asked you several questions in my other posts, why don't you answer them?

 

[BobRyan]

These scholars who live now 2000 years after Jesus' first coming are not in the same league as the early church fathers.

The fraudulent documents that follow the first century saints not in the same league as scripture.

I have to go with the actual Bible. As for me I will believe the actual Bible.

Acts 20
25 “And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.

Gal 1:6-9 "Though WE (apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should come along and preach to you a different Gospel - let him be accursed!"

And of course many fraudulent letters to be avoided.

2Thess 2
2 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.

As for me, I will believe the early church fathers' legitimate writings.

While there may be documents that are not fraud, not filled with interpolation -- and certainly we can be thankful that some exist. But even in those documents - shall we test them Acts 17:11 sola scriptura or abandon that protestant "test" of all doctrine and tradition?

I say we continue to follow what the NT saints were doing in Acts 17:11

 

[BobRyan]

The apostles gave commands to NT Christians about only four OT/Law of Moses commandments and said that if the NT Christians abstained from these four things, they will do well. The apostles did not ever command that NT Christians keep the Jewish Sabbath so why do you?

I've asked you several questions in my other posts, why don't you answer them?

1. The apostles did not command Christians to "not take God's name in vain" - Ex 20:6 - never quoted in the entire NT.
That sort of "proof" means nothing at all to Bible doctrine. As we all know.

2. The Apostles did tell us that to "break one is to break them all" because the obligatory element is based on the "HE WHO SAID" aspect of the commandments James 2
AND that the 5th commandment is the FIRST commandment in the still valid UNIT OF TEN -- with a promise
AND "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19
AND that "the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12
AND that there REMAINS a SABBATH rest for the people of God - JUST as in David's time Heb 4
Acts 13 - SABBATH after SABBATH Christian gospel services.
Acts 17:1-5 SABBATH after SABBATH after SABBATH Christian gospel services.
Acts 18:1-9 SABBATh after SABBATH ... Christian gospel services

Acts 15 - EVERY Sabbath - scripture is being heard by Christians.

 

[BobRyan]

Taking God's name in vain is an example of a sin against the greatest NT commandment which is the following:

Matthew 22:36-38
Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. nkjv
​

1. By inference - not by direct NT quote. Fine - then disregarding God's Sabbath memorial of HIS creative work in Gen 1:2-2:4 also violates that FIRST command - the one in Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart".
"WORSHIP Him who MADE the heavens and the earth and the springs of water" Rev 14:7
"From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23​

So then all 4 of the first four of the TEN Commandments --

Matt 22 is before the cross - a time when ALL TEN of the TEN Commandments were also in full force - nothing at all nailed to the cross. (Not even animal sacrifices were ended then)

Same goes for Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself"

Matthew 22:39-40
39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” nkjv
​

All things that harm one's neighbor are examples of sins against this second commandment. so then ALL 6 of the last 6 of the TEN Commandments included.

 

[Jan001]

The fraudulent documents that follow the first century saints not in the same league as scripture.

I have to go with the actual Bible. As for me I will believe the actual Bible.

There wasn't any actual NT Bible to go with in the first century.

The apostles taught by word of mouth. Later, a few of them supplemented their oral preaching with letters to specific congregations and there also were a few historical accounts of actual events written to document the life of Jesus Christ and their own actions as Jesus' first spokespersons for His Church.

Jesus built a Church with a hierarchy of men to preach His gospel of salvation. Jesus did not ever command them to write a Bible and tell people to interpret the contents for themselves.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. nkjv

​

 

[Jan001]

Duplicate post.

 

[Jan001]

Acts 15 - EVERY Sabbath - scripture is being heard by Christians.

21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” nkjv​

On every Sabbath throughout many generations from the time of Moses (and even still today), the Jews listen to the OT Scriptures in their synagogues.

Acts 15:21 concerns only the many generations of Jews in OT times. The Christians who were written about in the Book of Acts were part of the very first generation of Christians.

 

[Jan001]

Matt 22 is before the cross - a time when ALL TEN of the TEN Commandments were also in full force - nothing at all nailed to the cross. (Not even animal sacrifices were ended then)

True, but the cross abolished the Sabbath and its requirements along with the burnt offerings. The requirements for the Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts of the Old Covenant were nailed to the cross along with Jesus Christ's body.

Old Covenant requirements:

2 Chronicles 2:4
Behold, I am building a temple for the name of the Lord my God, to dedicate it to Him, to burn before Him sweet incense, for the continual showbread, for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the Sabbaths, on the New Moons, and on the set feasts of the Lord our God. This is an ordinance forever to Israel. nkjv
​

Forever for the burnt offerings morning and evening lasted for as long as the Old Covenant lasted. By His death on the cross, Jesus instituted a New Covenant and it will last as long as He lasts.

​

New Covenant requirements:

Romans 2:27
And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? nkjv
​

The Law which every Christian must fulfill in order to inherit eternal life:

Galatians 5:14
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” nkjv

1John 20
If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? 21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also. nkjv
​

_____________________________________________________________________

Sabbaths, new moons, and feasts are not listed among the requirements for NT Gentile Christians.

Acts 15:18-20
Known to God from eternity are all His works. 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
​

New Covenant Gentile Christians are commanded to not let any other person judge them for not following the Old Testament food and drink laws, the feast/festival laws, and new moon and Sabbaths laws.

Colossians 2:11-17
Not Legalism but Christ
11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. nkjv
​

Paul commands Christians that they are to let no one judge them as inferior because they do not follow the OT laws regarding its dietary requirements, feast/festival requirements, new moon requirements, or Sabbath requirements.

______________________________________________________________________

Now, back to the Law of the New Covenant:

Galatians 5:14
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” nkjv
​

Why does Scripture state that all the law is fulfilled when you love your neighbor as yourself?

Is it not true that it is God who must be foremost in every person's life and esteemed above every person or thing? It is true that God must be foremost, but Scripture shows us that unless a person loves his neighbor as himself, he cannot possibly love God above himself.

1 John 20
If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? 21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also. nkjv​

Idolatry is not simply limited to the worship of statues. When a person intentionally chooses to sin in order to please himself, he commits idolatry against God. This person has chosen his own selfish desires above God.

Colossians 3:5
Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. nkjv​

Excessive love for a spouse or child; love of riches; love of honors and privileges; and love of material things such as houses or cars, etc., are all examples of types of idolatry.

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. nkjv

Romans 13:9-10
For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. nkjv

1 John 3:16
By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. nkjv​

Under the New Covenant, it is forbidden to do anything that harms another person. For the Christian, the number of commanded things to do and the number of forbidden things commanded to not do cannot possibly be restricted to only Ten.

 

[BobRyan]

True, but the cross abolished the Sabbath and its requirements

Not according to the Bible.

Is 66 speaks of the New Earth - long AFTER the cross and says "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" -- instead of 'forever ended' - it is to be "forever continued" and instead of 'Just jews' it is "all mankind".

​

New Covenant requirements: "This is the New Covenant I will make... I will write My LAWs on their mind and on their heart" Jer 31:31-33 - Heb 8:6-10.

Romans 2:27
And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? nkjv
​

The Law is to be fulfilled not trashed - by the saints.

"Do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 3:31

The Law toward our neighbor which every Christian must fulfill in order to inherit eternal life:

Galatians 5:14
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” nkjv

That means all of the TEN Commandments dealing with man's relationship to man "Honor your Parents, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not lie, do not covet" - all that deal with loving your neighbor - must be kept.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18

What that does NOT mean is that we may ignore those commandments dealing with Love for God.


1John 20
If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? 21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also. nkjv

And of course Love To God can only be expressed by keeping God's Commandments according to 1 John 5
(As we saw on page 1 of this thread)

1 John 5:1-4 (NKJV)
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.​

_____________________________________________________________________

Sabbaths , Not taking God's name in vain and feasts are not listed among the requirements in some NT text.

Can we then "ignore" those commandments of God?

James 2 -- says NO! They cannot be ignored.

(as we saw on page one of this thread)


James 2
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well;
9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by THE Law as transgressors.
10 For whoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of THE Law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty

"the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

 

[BobRyan]

There wasn't any actual NT Bible to go with in the first century.

Almost every reference in the NT to "Scripture" is -- to the OT. And that is a lot of quotes of the OT found in the NT - most of them quoted by Paul.

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm


As we probably all know by now.

 

[BobRyan]

21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” nkjv​

On every Sabbath throughout many generations from the time of Moses (and even still today), the OT Scriptures in their synagogues.

And so also the God-fearing among the gentiles - as we see in Acts 13, Acts 17:1-5, Acts 18:1-8.

The reason that James is pointing this out in Acts 15 is that he is confident Christians are going to be hearing scripture - even if they are gentiles. Notice that Acts 15:21 does not say "being read to just Jews in the synagogues".

the fledging "sect" of judaism that they called 'the way' - was not concerned that "non Christian Jews might not exist any more if gentiles do not get circumcised" that was never a debate with them at all - not ever.

 

[BobRyan]

New Covenant Gentile Christians are commanded to not let any other person judge them for not following man made doctrines and commands -- Paul reminds us that our "certificate of debt" (NOT the WORD of GOD) was "nailed to the cross). (Paul does not condemn eating or drinking or keeping the weekly Sabbath.)

Colossians 2:8-22
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

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— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ

18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, 19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God. 20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
​

Paul commands Christians that they are to let no one judge them regarding the commandments and teachings of men - (just as we should not think that men can make stuff up about week-day-1 keeping and then make it obligatory for others.)


in Christ,

Bob