Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You've drifted off the definition of SS.Nice dodge. Back to the original request: prove the canon by way of Sola Scriptura. This includes the names of the authors.
If the Truth could be had and proven by Scripture then there wouldn't be division on nearly every single line of doctrine that can exist. Modalism, for example, is a big part of Charismatic denominations, despite its rejection in the Council of Chalcedon.
However, the Canon, which stands in authority over the Scripture, is Tradition, and not a Sola Scriptura fact. It cannot be derived by way of Sola Scriptura, with Scripture being the highest authority.
The Church compiled the Bible, because the Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, and is therefore in charge of its contents.
The Church was created for the sole purpose of spreading the gospel by ALL means. In a land of high illiteracy, Oral Tradition is the only way in which the gospel can be reliably spread.
Also, it isn't the magisterium that is infallible, it is the Christ, Who is the head of the Church, which is infallible. There isn't some esoteric magisterium. There is simply the Church, as a whole. The decisions of a council are not authoritative because some bishops were there. They are authoritative because the Church herself lifts them up, while robber councils are not authoritative because the whole of the Church discards them
No it isn't. Not in the Orthodox Church. You call it a blanket cover out of ignorance. Because you refuse to actually follow the Traditions or even believe that they are neither completely in Scripture nor completely outside of Scripture.
The only Tradition which truly falls outside of Scripture is the Canon of Scripture, because Scripture wasn't delivered to a publisher when John finished writing the Apocalypse.
Also, You pray to someone EVERY TIME YOU MAKE A REQUEST. Any request of another person is a prayer. You pray to the cashier at McDonalds when you order a Big Mac. You pray to the teller when you ask her to deposit a check. You pray to the tech support guy when your computer needs troubleshooting. I have been a recipient of many of those prayers, as I am a tech support guy.
And Scriptures don't forbid it,
and if you use the canon of the Old Testament used by the early Church,
they even show it happening and being responded to.
The problem is that Protestants have traditions they use, and 95% of Protestants trust more in the traditions they have been taught than the Scriptures they supposedly trust
So when I say you are lying, I say it is because you are no longer ignorant against your will, but choosing to remain ignorant and wail upon your pretty little strawman that isn't Orthodox or Roman Catholic Tradition....he problem is, you aren't willing to debate what it is, but rather the propaganda spread by people who haven't spent a single day in an Orthodox or Roman Catholic parish.
That is both a fallacious argument as well as fallacious statement, as if SS can be disallowed due to division over it then so can your church, as people also interpret it differently. And RCs and EOs both differ on what Tradition teaches.
In addition, while your definition of SS churches must be so wide as to fly [FONT=Arial, sans-serif] a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian 747 thru it, not only is a comparison of one church with so many of such invalid, but the reality is that those who hold most strongly to Scripture being the wholly infallible and accurate word of God are far more unified in basic beliefs than the overall fruit of Catholicism! [/FONT]
You seem to like repeating comforting delusions in response to what refutes [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]them [/FONT], which i just did in the post you are sppsd to be interacting with. As explained, a canon can indeed by derived under SS, since even OT Scripture affirms/provides for Godly souls ascertaining men as well as writings as being of God, even in dissent from magisterial authority, and thus it provides for further discernment of writings being of a God and thus for a canon.
Repeating your propaganda will not change that.
Well that is impressive, and RCs invoke the same text, (1Tim. 3:15) , each amazing deriving out of "church living God pillar and ground the truth" that it is their own church is that one true one infallible church, not the living God being that ground, or perhaps the church supporting and grounded in it, but having authority over Scripture!
Yet your logic effectively nukes the NT church, for while you place your church in charge of its contents, as being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and thus dissent from it must mean rebellion against God, the reality is that the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
The purpose of the church is not simply to function as a evangelist, but that the members, "speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ," ' (Ephesians 4:15) to the glory of God.
However, Oral Tradition by its very nature is supremely susceptible undetectable errors over time, and while at the beginning God expressly communicated to only a very few persons in a very limited manner, and which was passed on orally, when He chose to reveal himself to an entire nation (and by them to the world) then He provided quite comprehensive written revelation, which by nature lent itself to preservation.
And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua... (Exodus 17:14) And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18)
And which became the well-evidenced standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, (Is. 8:20) and to which conflative and complementary writings would be added.
And thus Scripture is what was invoked as the authoritative basis for preaching by the Lord, from the beginning of His ministry in defeating the devil (Mt. 4:4) to opening up the understanding of the disciples. (Lk. 23:44)
For what was preached was "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 1:1-2; 16:26)
Even Peter while unknowingly writing in Scripture what He heard, states what prophets wrote as being "the more sure word of prophecy. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)
Yet while the record of the gospels and some of Acts was passed on orally and into print, the rest was written directly.
Moreover, this could included new revelation, such as the nature of the church, though conflative with and complementary to what was written, to which all preaching was subject to examination by, as exampled by the noble Bereans.
Thus we have Oral Tradition in the sense of the oral preaching of the gospel and accompanying Truths, which rested upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the mere veracity of the speakers or as if oral tradition itself was a protected, substantive body of Truth.
And then we have Oral Tradition of the Catholic church which claims to be of the same body that passed on the word of God in Acts etc., but which gives the Catholic a license to preach as the word of God things utterly unseen in Scripture, from pastors distinctively titled "priests" to prayers to created beings in Scripture. The veracity of which rests upon the premise of an infallible church, particularly in its magisterial office.
While it is argued that Oral Tradition is not the same thing as anything that may be passed on orally, it effectively maybe, which is more manifestly the case with Rome. Which can declare as binding the belief in an event the allegedly occured close to 1700 years before, though it is so lacking in early testimony that her own scholars rejected it as being part of apostolic tradition. But which is justified under the premise that the church can "remember" such things despite the critical absence of warrant.
What we are being asked to do its to trust the church as if they were apostles, but its leaders fail of both the requirements and credentials of Biblical apostols. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)
Infallibility by consensus of the faithful is at least that is better than under Rome, but it is still means that due to Scripture not being supreme then mere traditions of men are perpetuated, as the multitudes will have it so.
" here is a paraphrase of "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea," (Ex. 20:11) and "worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters" (Revelation 14:7) parallels other texts which speak of worship of "unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever. O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever. To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever. To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever. To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever. (Psalms 136:2-6)" "Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise ...By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (Psalms 33:3,5,6 ) "In his hand are the deep places of the earth: the strength of the hills is his also. The sea is his, and he made it: and his hands formed the dry land. O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the Lord our maker." (Psalms 95:4-6)
Wrong, none of those examples are of the church meeting for gospel teaching,
It is agreed by all groups pretty much that we have a one time event of crucifixion on Friday and a one time event of resurrection on week-day-1. And that the week-day-1 event was not a case of weekly gathering for worship service.
- Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1-7, Mark 16:2, 9, Luke 24:1, John 20:1).
- Jesus appeared to the disciples on the first day of the week (John 20:19).
- Jesus appeared inside the room to the eleven disciples eight days after the first day of the week. The Jewish way of measuring days meant that it was again Sunday
(John 20:26).
- The Holy Spirit came on Pentecost, the first day of the week (Lev. 23:16, Acts 2:1).
- The first sermon was preached by Peter on the first day of the week (Acts 2:14).
- Three thousand converts joined the church on the first day of the week (Acts 2:41).
- The three thousand were baptized on the first day of the week (Acts 2:41).
- The Christians assembled broke bread on the first day of the week.
- The Christians also heard a message from Paul on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). Note: the reference is until midnight which is not the Jewish method of measuring days but the Roman system.
And yet on the other hand we have texts chastising believers for observing days, months, times and years, (Gal. 4:10)
Also, You pray to someone EVERY TIME YOU MAKE A REQUEST. Any request of another person is a prayer. You pray to the cashier at McDonalds when you order a Big Mac. You pray to the teller when you ask her to deposit a check. You pray to the tech support guy when your computer needs troubleshooting. I have been a recipient of many of those prayers, as I am a tech support guy.
For one, prayer to others is possible because we have a connection to them. Just because they are not on earth does not remove them from the Body of Christ. Any part of the Body of Christ can communicate with any other part of the Body of Christ.
No. I said you couldn't make Scripture the highest authority in creating the Canon. In point of fact, Scripture has no authority in this matter, as it contributes nothing but the raw data of being a text. So by what authority does the canon stand? It isn't Scripture.You've drifted off the definition of SS.
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
We don't know who wrote Hebrews. We don't know where Paul's 3rd? letter is. Doesn't matter to SS. You may find this troublesome in your faith, but again, that has nothing to do with SS.
That is both a fallacious argument as well as fallacious statement, as if SS can be disallowed due to division over it then so can your church, as people also interpret it differently. And RCs and EOs both differ on what Tradition teaches.
In addition, while your definition of SS churches must be so wide as to fly [FONT=Arial, sans-serif] a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian 747 thru it, not only is a comparison of one church with so many of such invalid, but the reality is that those who hold most strongly to Scripture being the wholly infallible and accurate word of God are far more unified in basic beliefs than the overall fruit of Catholicism! [/FONT]
You seem to like repeating comforting delusions in response to what refutes [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]them [/FONT], which i just did in the post you are sppsd to be interacting with. As explained, a canon can indeed by derived under SS, since even OT Scripture affirms/provides for Godly souls ascertaining men as well as writings as being of God, even in dissent from magisterial authority, and thus it provides for further discernment of writings being of a God and thus for a canon.
Repeating your propaganda will not change that.
Well that is impressive, and RCs invoke the same text, (1Tim. 3:15) , each amazing deriving out of "church living God pillar and ground the truth" that it is their own church is that one true one infallible church, not the living God being that ground, or perhaps the church supporting and grounded in it, but having authority over Scripture!
Yet your logic effectively nukes the NT church, for while you place your church in charge of its contents, as being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and thus dissent from it must mean rebellion against God, the reality is that the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
The purpose of the church is not simply to function as a evangelist, but that the members, "speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ," ' (Ephesians 4:15) to the glory of God.
However, Oral Tradition by its very nature is supremely susceptible undetectable errors over time, and while at the beginning God expressly communicated to only a very few persons in a very limited manner, and which was passed on orally, when He chose to reveal himself to an entire nation (and by them to the world) then He provided quite comprehensive written revelation, which by nature lent itself to preservation.
And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua... (Exodus 17:14) And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18)
And which became the well-evidenced standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, (Is. 8:20) and to which conflative and complementary writings would be added.
And thus Scripture is what was invoked as the authoritative basis for preaching by the Lord, from the beginning of His ministry in defeating the devil (Mt. 4:4) to opening up the understanding of the disciples. (Lk. 23:44)
For what was preached was "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 1:1-2; 16:26)
Even Peter while unknowingly writing in Scripture what He heard, states what prophets wrote as being "the more sure word of prophecy. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)
Yet while the record of the gospels and some of Acts was passed on orally and into print, the rest was written directly.
Moreover, this could included new revelation, such as the nature of the church, though conflative with and complementary to what was written, to which all preaching was subject to examination by, as exampled by the noble Bereans.
Thus we have Oral Tradition in the sense of the oral preaching of the gospel and accompanying Truths, which rested upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the mere veracity of the speakers or as if oral tradition itself was a protected, substantive body of Truth.
And then we have Oral Tradition of the Catholic church which claims to be of the same body that passed on the word of God in Acts etc., but which gives the Catholic a license to preach as the word of God things utterly unseen in Scripture, from pastors distinctively titled "priests" to prayers to created beings in Scripture. The veracity of which rests upon the premise of an infallible church, particularly in its magisterial office.
While it is argued that Oral Tradition is not the same thing as anything that may be passed on orally, it effectively maybe, which is more manifestly the case with Rome. Which can declare as binding the belief in an event the allegedly occured close to 1700 years before, though it is so lacking in early testimony that her own scholars rejected it as being part of apostolic tradition. But which is justified under the premise that the church can "remember" such things despite the critical absence of warrant.
What we are being asked to do its to trust the church as if they were apostles, but its leaders fail of both the requirements and credentials of Biblical apostols. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)
Wrong. We are also not CONSULTING with the dead. We are not asking them for advice, or requesting their physical presence. None of what necromancy is can be found in prayers to those living in Christ. Death has been defeated.In the example you give - even the RCC does NOT allow its members to "pray to the living". Should they burn incense, burn candles get on their knees - and actually pray to the living - even the RCC would condemn it.
You are equivocating.
There is a Sola Scriptura Command in Isaiah 8
19 When they say to you, “Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter,” should not a people consult their God? Should they consult the dead on behalf of the living? 20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no light
like I said before, playing the strawman game of redefining Tradition to something you can respond to is deceptive. You are now blocked, however, so I will not need to read rubbish that goes on and on about a manmade fictional tradition. Good riddance. You obviously have no interest in furthering the discussion.When you have an argument rather than a rant, i can respond.
Refuted, or do you not read responses but just vent assertions? Again, even OT Scripture shows and sanctions souls discerning both writings and men as being of God and authoritative, even in dissent from the powers that be, and without an infallible church, and thus the church began with writings of Scripture being heavily invoked as authoritative.
And as this discernment took place on a smaller scale under which many writings were held to be of God, thus the same could continue to take place, and did. And thus Scripture provides for a canon, as well as reason, the guidance of the Spirit, the light of even nature, and the magisterial office of the church (which even Westminster affirmed).
That is a desperate extrapolative absurd attempt compelled by the inexplicable absolute absence of even one prayer among the approx. 200 in Scripture for what is a basic practice. Reducing prayer to Heaven as mere asking as in tech support to contrary to how Scripture describes it, as well as being akin to reasoning that since the tech support man can hear you than you can mentally communicate anyone you address in another galaxy.
Praying is a spiritual (usually mental) exercise across two different realms, and in which only the Lord is ever addressed, and shown to be able to simultaneously hear and respond to all such, with believers having direct access into the holy of holies by the sinless shed blood of the Lord Jesus. (Heb. 10:19) And with the only heavenly intercessor mentioned being the Lord Jesus, who is uniquely qualifies to be that intercessor (Heb. 2:19; 4:15,16) and who ever lives to do so. (Heb. 7:25) And is directly accessible.
Angels and elders offering up prayers as a memorial before the final judgments ion the earth are not that of being heavenly postal workers. Moreover, personal communication btwn heavenly created beings and those on earth required both to somehow being in the same realm.
You simply do not have a valid argument for the utter absence by the Holy Spirit of even one prayer to any created being in Heaven from earth, while instructing believers to address the Lord, and providing approx. 200 prayers of them so doing. But Caths careless essetuially add to the word of God to fulfil their psychological needs.
What kind of argument is that?! With that rational angelic Bingo could be supported. But when you have a common practice being abundantly described, and instructions on prayer only addressing the Lord, and only pagans offering incense and making offerings to someone else in the heavens, and with Christ being the only heavenly intercessor mentioned, and pointed to, then you have no real case for engaging what pagans alone are basically shown to do.
You mean some of the early church, with a canon that saw doubt and disagreement down thru the centuries and right into Trent. Which provided the first indisputable canon for RCs after the death of Luther. Who had scholarly Catholic support for his non-binding judgment, which Protestantism did not following completely.
Wrong, as i only see 2 Maccabees 15:14 and Baruch 3:4 only speaks of saints praying in Heaven, not addressing them in prayer.
You are resorting to your bare rants again. Prots can have traditions if they are Scriptural and non binding. Scripture does not describe a wedding liturgy for example, and the ceremony of the ring is non binding and finds Scriptural support in its intent.
You have yet to show me that what i described was actually a strawman of Orthodox or Roman Catholic Tradition, while it is you who are lying, as for one i was a weekly mass going RC when i became manifestly born again, and realized the profound transformative difference btwn what i had and real regeneration, and yet remained a serving RC for about 6 years after in the heavinly RC area, before the Lord led me out.
Thus i know well the difference, as well as what RCs claim is church teaching, versus what it is in reality.
And I already said we can use your canon. Now can you be SS? Here to help you.No. I said you couldn't make Scripture the highest authority in creating the Canon. In point of fact, Scripture has no authority in this matter, as it contributes nothing but the raw data of being a text. So by what authority does the canon stand? It isn't Scripture.
How many languages do I have to say no in before it sinks into your skull?And I already said we can use your canon. Now can you be SS? Here to help you.
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by Scripture alone") is the Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
We don't know who wrote Hebrews. We don't know where Paul's 1st? letter is. Doesn't matter to SS. You may find this troublesome in your faith, but again, that has nothing to do with SS.
It is of no problem for Traditional churches. It is a problem for churches that depend on the Scripture rather than Christ's indwelling Spirit for the guidance of the Church.
Traditional churches confuse tradition with the Holy Spirit.
They are confused about what it is they depend on.
This wording is unique and signature to the Ten Commandment's -- Sabbath Commandment
Ex 20
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
This Bible fact is admitted to by all Bible scholars regardless of what they may think about that Commandment continuing or not.)
Act 13:14 Paul and Barnabas went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down. (the 7th day of the week. Because week-day-1 is not called the "Sabbath" by NT authors)
Acts 13
26 “Brethren, sons of Abraham’s family, and those among you who fear God, to us the message of this salvation has been sent. 27 For those who live in Jerusalem, and their rulers, recognizing neither Him nor the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him
Acts 13
42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath. 43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.
Paul Turns to the Gentiles
44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the Word of the Lord.
Both Jews AND Gentiles gather "Sabbath after Sabbath" for Gospel preaching in Acts 13.
Not ONE example of this weekly gathering for week-day-1 on a week-day-1 after week-day-1 basis for the purpose of hearing the Word of the Lord. No not even one. Hence that reference to tradition rather than an SS argument.
Act 15:21 simply refers to Moses being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day as part of thea solution to the problem about gentile Christians being raised in the early Christian NT church. As Chapter 13 shows - BOTH gentiles and Jews were hearing scripture weekly.
Act 17:2 another example of Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath with BOTH gentiles and Jews coming back again and again to hear gospel preaching.
Acts 17:Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.” 4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women. 5 But the Jews, becoming jealous and taking along some wicked men
The Jews were not very happy with this - but the result was that gentiles are being converted in Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath Gospel preaching.
Nothing here about "week-day-1 after week-day-1 gospel preaching to gentiles in a worship service" -- not one word of it.
Not ONE example of this weekly gathering for week-day-1 on a week-day-1 after week-day-1 basis for the purpose of hearing the Word of the Lord. No not even one. Hence that reference to tradition rather than an SS argument.
4 And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
Nothing here about "every week day 1 meeting with Greeks to preach the Gospel as part of worship services" -- not even one such cycle in all of the NT - no not one. Hence that reference to tradition rather than an SS argument.
On the contrary - even James points out in the discussion about gentiles in the Christian church that this pattern of scripture being heard every Sabbath in the synagogues is part of the solution.
But which is another argument against you
, as this refers to a future rest, which the 7th day is typolgical of, and this text is not a reiteration of the 4th commandment
Which further evidences you lack of a valid argument, for again, a direct quote, full or part, is not necessary to qualify as an expressing confirmatory of a command,
Have you no shame? As shown before, absolutely none of those texts are about the NT church meeting on the sabbath
And while Gentiles could go to synagogues, the council makes the distinction btwn them by writing to the churches, and (once again) utterly fails to include your all-important 7th day sabbath keeping as one of the basic requirrement.
But which is another argument against you, as this refers to a future rest, which the 7th day is typolgical of, and this text is not a reiteration of the 4th commandment for the church to keep, nor a commendation of them for so doing, nor a censure of them for not doing, of which things we have for the other 9 commandments.
Which further evidences you lack of a valid argument, for again, a direct quote, full or part, is not necessary to qualify as an expressing confirmatory of a command, as even a condemnation or commendation regarding the keeping of it would do. And as shown, there are many NT texts condemning profaning/blaspheming the name of the Lord, but none for the NT church not keeping the Sabbath, nor commending them for so doing, despite numerous examples of sins being rebukes and faults being found and obedience being commended.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?