The first heresy

[Saber Truth Tiger]

I gave you three, you gave none.


I gave you three reasons, you gave none.

Your three "reasons" cannot prove that Isaiah 66 is figurative. Try again. I at least gave you a reason when I cited the rule to interpret ancient literature literally as opposed to figuratively. You have never addressed that and it is obvious you are not reading my posts very thoroughly because if you had done so, you wouldn't have made the comments you just made above. Try again. Prove to me Isaiah 66 is meant to be interpreted figuratively.

 

[trophy33]

Remember, one of the first view of interpreting ancient literature (hermeneutics) is if the passage makes sense in context, then translate it literally, and if doesn't, try to find some other translation that does not contradict scripture elsewhere.

Where does New Testament teache anything that is confirming your literal reading of Isaiah? Nowhere.

 

[trophy33]

Your three "reasons" cannot prove that Isaiah 66 is figurative. Try again. I at least gave you a reason when I cited the rule to interpret ancient literature literally as opposed to figuratively. You have never addressed that and it is obvious you are not reading my posts very thoroughly because if you had done so, you wouldn't have made the comments you just made above. Try again. Prove to me Isaiah 66 is meant to be interpreted figuratively.

There is no such rule, you simply made it up. I gave you three arguments, you gave none.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

Where does New Testament teache anything that is confirming your literal reading of Isaiah? Nowhere.

Isaiah 66 is not referred to in the New Testament. It doesn't have to be. You need to prove to me Isaiah 66 is figurative. Where does the New Testament teach anything that confirms your figurative reading of Isaiah 66? Nowhere.

 

[trophy33]

Isaiah 66 is not referred to in the New Testament. It doesn't have to be.

It does have to be, if its important as you present it.

You need to prove to me Isaiah 66 is figurative.

No, you need to prove its literal, because it would not be compatible with the New Testament teachings.

Where does the New Testament teach anything that confirms your figurative reading of Isaiah 66? Nowhere.

Everywhere, the New Testament interprets the whole Old Testament to be till Christ and about Christ. And being finished and completed. Thats why its called "The Old Testament".

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

There is no such rule, you simply made it up. I gave you three arguments, you gave none.

There is such a rule.

Literal interpretation | Definition, Christianity, Hermeneutics, Key Figures, & Facts | Britannica

Literal interpretation, in hermeneutics, the assertion that a biblical text is to be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context. The literal meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors. St. Jerome, an influential

www.britannica.com

I did not make it up. It exists in books on Biblical Hermeneutics. You didn't give me three arguments. Do you even know what an argument is in forensic debates? You gave me three assertions, all of which did not have an argument to back them up.

https://resources.chicagodebates.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/7.-Coaching-Guide-for-Beginning-Debaters.pdf

Please deal with the subject at hand. I need your proof that Isaiah 66 is figurative. I am the one who takes the text literally and you are the one, without evidence, taking the text to be figurative. The burden of proof is on you because you are claiming the text is not literal. If the literal meaning of the text makes sense, then the literal meaning is the one to use.

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

It does have to be, if its important as you present it.

That's not true. You assert is it "does have to be". Please provide some evidence for this claim.

No, you need to prove its literal, because it would not be compatible with the New Testament teachings.

No, that's not how it works. You are claiming Isaiah 66 is figurative and not literal. You need to prove that assertion.

Everywhere, the New Testament interprets the whole Old Testament to be till Christ and about Christ. And being finished and completed. Thats why its called "The Old Testament".

And nothing you just said indicates that Isaiah 66 is figurative. It hasn't happened yet, that's all.

 

[trophy33]

There is such a rule.

Literal interpretation | Definition, Christianity, Hermeneutics, Key Figures, & Facts | Britannica

Literal interpretation, in hermeneutics, the assertion that a biblical text is to be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context. The literal meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors. St. Jerome, an influential

www.britannica.com

No, it says its an assertion, in the first sentence. There is no such rule. BTW, Jerome, whom they mention, was the one interpreting Isaiah 66 to be about Christ.

I did not make it up. It exists in books on Biblical Hermeneutics. You didn't give me three arguments. Do you even know what an argument is in forensic debates? You gave me three assertions, all of which did not have an argument to back them up.

Nope, I gave you three arguments, not assertions.

Please deal with the subject at hand. I need your proof that Isaiah 66 is figurative. I am the one who takes the text literally and you are the one, without evidence, taking the text to be figurative. The burden of proof is on you because you are claiming the text is not literal. If the literal meaning of the text makes sense, then the literal meaning is the one to use.

No, you need to prove Isaiah is literal. New Testament uses OT prophecies to be spiritual, about Christ and Christianity, so if you say its about something else, the burden of proof is on you.

New Testament says that New moons and Sabbaths were just shadows of what came in Christ. If you say they will return, the burden of proof is on you.

The chapter of Isaiah has obvious figurative meanings. If you, then, claim that the rest is literal, the burden of proof is on you.

Isaiah 66 says nothing about millennium and New Testament says nothing about returning to Jewish shadows. If you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

Here I found Calvin's commentary on Isaiah 66, which may be seen as a classic protestant view. Obviously, you are the one coming with something new and strange. As I said, your view is from dispensationalism, from the 19th century.

John Calvin: Commentary on Isaiah - Volume 4 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

 

[Saber Truth Tiger]

No, it says its an assertion, in the first sentence. There is no such rule. BTW, Jerome, whom they mention, was the one interpreting Isaiah 66 to be about Christ.

The rule of literal interpretation is indeed an assertion but it asserts that the literal interpretation is often best inn biblical matters.

literal interpretation, in hermeneutics, the assertion that a biblical text is to be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context.

This assertion is held to be the correct way to interpret scriptures in the Bible. They teach you that in Bible Hermeneutics in college. BTW, I don't agree with Jerome's interpretation just like I don't agree with yours. You are committing a logical fallacy when you use the argument to authority. The argument to authority is when a debater refers to a well known authority to prove his point. The person he refers to may well indeed be an authority on the Biible but it doesn't logically follow that he is correct on the certain point of contnetion.

Nope, I gave you three arguments, not assertions.

Nope.

No, you need to prove Isaiah is literal. New Testament uses OT prophecies to be spiritual, about Christ and Christianity, so if you say its about something else, the burden of proof is on you.

The one who holds to the literal interpretation does not have the burden of proof. The New Testament doesn't address Isaiah 66 so your claim that the New Testament uses OT prophecies (ALL OF THEM?) to be spiritual? Are ALL OT prophecies in the New Testament? If not, are they invalid? Why do you believe if an OT prophecy is not mentioned in the NT then it is not a literal propehcy? Isaiah 66 is not part of the New Testament and it is not even addressed by the New Testament. Isaiah 66 is in literal interpretation, in hermeneutics, the assertion that a biblical text is to be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context. the Hebrew Scriptures and not in the Greek scriptures, so the burden of proof that Isaiah 66 is figurative is on you.

New Testament says that New moons and Sabbaths were just shadows of what came in Christ. If you say they will return, the burden of proof is on you.

No, the New Testament does not say new moons and sabbaths were just shadows of what came in Christ. The New Testament says they ARE a shadow (present tense). If the new moons and sabbaths ARE a shadow then they still exist. There was the Old Testament Laws in the books written by Moses and these Laws were still in existence at the the time of Christ for Jews. A person in first century Palestine had four options. One, they could choose to keep the Laws of Moses, and therefore be judged by the Law, Two, they could accept Christ as their personal Savior and they would be freed from any obligation to obey the Law of Moses. The third option is to be a worshipper of any of the many pagan Gods in existence during that time period. The fourth was to declare yourself an atheist and have nothing to do with any god.

Colossians 2:16
Therefore no one is to [a]act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath [b]day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the [c]substance [d]belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one keep [e]defrauding you of your prize by delighting in [f]self-abasement and the worship of the angels, [g]taking his stand on visions he has seen, [h]inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,

The chapter of Isaiah has obvious figurative meanings. If you, then, claim that the rest is literal, the burden of proof is on you.

It is not obvious at all that it has figurative. So, if you claim it is figurative meanings. If it were, I would hold to the figurative meaning, Here, here is the meaning of "obvious"

What is the full meaning of obvious?

easy to see or understand; evident

obvious. / (ˈɒbvɪəs) / adjective. easy to see or understand; evident. exhibiting motives, feelings, intentions, etc, clearly or without subtlety.

Read those definitions very carefully and take them to heart. You are arguing for a figurative meaning and that means it is not obvious. The plain literal meaning of the text is what the definition of "obvious" means. You are claiming it is easy to see and evident that the text is figurative. If it is figurative and not literal then you saying that the text it is not evident, but figurative.

Definition of evident:
easily seen or understood; obvious: It quickly became evident that someone had broken in.

It is not obvious that Isaiah 66 is figurative.

Obvious Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

And this on a figurative interpretation:

What is a figurative interpretation in literature?

Figurative language is a literary device that uses words or phrases for effect, humorous, or exaggeration purposes, instead of their literal translation. It is commonly used to create an emotional reaction, especially in fiction, and to make reading more enjoyable.

Literal vs. Figurative Language | Definition & Examples - Lesson | Study.com

Compare literal vs. figurative language and understand the differences. Explore both literal and figurative language examples and see how they are...

study.com

In this lesson, we have learned that literal language is language that means exactly and only what it says. Figurative language, on the other hand, is language that uses metaphor, simile, personification, or hyperbole in order to mean more than the mere dictionary definition of the words.

What is the difference between literal and non-literal translation?

Literal language is the actual meaning of a word or phrase, based on the dictionary meaning of the word. Non-literal language is also called figurative language because it is often silly or unrealistic. It goes beyond the dictionary meaning of the words or phrase and often has a different meaning altogether.

 

[grafted branch]

If you mean that I am not willing to reject, ignore or otherwise "OMIT" all the Scriptures I posted, most of which you refused to even acknowledge much less discuss, just to prop up a religious philosophy that can't stand if they are believed?

Then yes, Acts 15 was not meant to be separated from the entire rest of the Bible, and used to demean God and accuse Him of placing a Yoke on the necks of Abraham's Children that they couldn't bear, in my view.

Here’s what I tend to do, if someone uses the shotgun approach and hits me with a long post of multiple verses, I do read the entire post but I just don’t respond to all of it. Personally when I’m just reading a thread I skip over the longer posts in favor of the shorter more concise ones.

Which verses supply the strongest argument for your position? Our discussion on the Gentiles and the stipulations put on them in Acts ultimately lead to our differences in the understanding of the covenants, where I think the root of our differences lies. If you have another area that would be better to look at, l’m willing to go with it and examine our differences.

Looking through our previous posts, what question, point or verse that I passed over would you like me to respond to? Please keep it concise and to just a few.

 

[Yekcidmij]

In church history there really is a first heresy. It involved circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses.

And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That, except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved. And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of the other side should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem, about this question. They therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through Phenice and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles. And they caused great joy to all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them. But there arose of the sect of the Pharisees some that believed, saying: They must be circumcised and be commanded to observe the law of Moses. And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us: And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. And all the multitude held their peace: and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. Simon hath related how God first visited to take to the Gentiles, a people to his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written: After these things I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down: and the ruins thereof I will rebuild. And I will set it up: That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, saith the Lord, who doth these things. To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world. For which cause, judge that they who from among the Gentiles are converted to God are not to be disquieted: But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols and from fornication and from things strangled and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath.​

Acts 15:1-21 DRB

It troubled the Church in Syrian Antioch, it came from the Church in Jerusalem, it involved people from the "Pharisee party" (think Conservative party).

It led to a Church council, a letter containing instructions from the Apostles and Elders who attended the council. It changed the way the gospel was to be preached.

Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company and to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren. Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Forasmuch as we have heard that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment: It hath seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul: Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things. For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication: from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well. They therefore, being dismissed, went down to Antioch and, gathering together the multitude, delivered the epistle. Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. But Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, with many words comforted the brethren and confirmed them. And after they had spent some time there, they were let go with peace by the brethren unto them that had sent them. But it seemed good unto Silas to remain there: and Judas alone departed to Jerusalem. And Paul and Barnabas continued at Antioch, teaching and preaching, with many others, the word of the Lord. ​

Acts 15:22-35 DRB

And what you you think we deal with today, as if the council never happened, for some. We deal with some people who want believers to get circumcised and obey the Law of Moses, observe Sabbaths, New Moons, feasts, and keep Kosher.

I think it's pretty interesting that there were Pharisees at all in Christianity. We usually think of those guys as opposed to Jesus, but there are some there in Acts, counted among the believers. What was their deal? I also note that Luke, author of Acts, presents the Pharisees a little favorably in his gospel compared to Matthew. Pharisees help Jesus escape danger, Jesus eats with Pharisees, etc..

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

1. Taking God's name in vain is just one of many forms of blasphemy as I already pointed out in the case of Christ's own accusers who never argue that Christ "Took God's name in vain" but did argue that He blasphemed. Jesus also accused his enemies of blasphemy in Matt 12 but did not say that they "took God's name in vain" as the way they did it.

that has not changed.

2. In addition we can see that "Do not take God's name in vain" is never quoted at all in the NT -- by contrast we see quotes from the Sabbath commandment Ex 20:8-11 in a number of different places in the NT and it can be proven in Rev 14:7 and also the book of Acts and the book of Hebrews..

No doubt but the point remains that it is a commandment never quoted in the NT. In fact it is the only one of the TEN from which nothing is quoted in the NT.

My argument is not FOR taking God's name in vain.. rather my argument is AGAINST making up ad hoc rules for deleting one of the Commandments of God because "it is not quoted in the NT". (for example).

You may have seen that done a time or two

Your rebuttal to the fact that Christians keeping the seven day sabbath is never covered in the NT, is that not taking God's name in vain isn't covered either.

Actually I am only pointing out that of the TEN commandments of God in Ex 20 written on stone - there is only one that is never quoted from at all in the NT and that is "do not take God's name in vain". My point is that we all know it is STILL sin to take God's name in vain and the fact that it is not quoted from the NT - means absolutely nothing which is why so many Christian denominations today affirm ALL TEN of the Ten commandments.

We can't simply "make up rules" like "whatever is not constantly repeated should be deleted" as if that is "even a thing" in scripture at all. Our doctrine is to be based on much more substantive ground than such ad hoc rules.

But as for your idea that keeping the Sabbath is never mentioned in the NT - that is not true. When you see Christians in Acts 13, Acts 17 and Acts 18 hearing the Gospel and keeping the Sabbath "sabbath after Sabbath" and in fact "Every Sabbath" in the case of both gentiles and Jews in Acts 18:4 - you have no ground for "never kept Sabbath once they heard the gospel".

But it is a fact that both Baptists and Methodists along with practically all of Christianity rejects the doctrine of sabbatarianism

You do not appear to know the meaning of the term.

Sabbatarianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists, as well as many Episcopalians, have historically espoused the view of first-day Sabbatarianism,Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists, as well as many Episcopalians, have historically espoused the view of first-day Sabbatarianism,"

If you had a Bible argument in favor of editing one of the Commandments of God no matter what Christ said to the contrary in Mark 7:7-13 Now would be a good time to post it.

ie Christians are commanded by God to keep the seventh day sabbath.

For all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23
"The Sabbath was made for MANKIND" Mark 2:27

EVERY single "Sabbath after Sabbath" worship service with gospel preaching that is mentioned in the NT is a case of Gospel-accepting Christians doing it as noted many times in this thread in the case of the book of Acts.

It makes no sense whatsoever to use first day sabbath keeping to back up SDA et al claims that Christians are commanded by God to keep the seventh day sabbath.

If you ignore enough details in this discussion .. you could get there.

But the reason this comes up is that some folks like to post arguments that opposing ALL the Christian denominations that affirm ALL TEN of the Ten commandments (like you posted) -- instead of directing their objections to "just the unedited Sabbath commandment" as if "failure to edit the Sabbath commandment would be wrong.".

IF you were actually posting such a "failure to edit is what I object to" position then you are right - I would not be posting those affirmations by all those non-SDA non-seventh-day sabbatarian groups. They all affirm ALL TEN.

But I can't be blamed for what you posted - it is you that decided not to post carefully isolating the case of "failure to edit the Sabbath commandment" if indeed that is now the position that you want to adopt.

 

[BobRyan]

BTW, Jerome, whom they mention, was the one interpreting Isaiah 66 to be about Christ.

Jerome promoted the literal interpretation of the Bible in case where the natural and most normal reading of the text is used rather than eisegeting in any swap-out for a symbol that comes to mind. But that does not mean that Jerome rejected all use of symbols in the Bible and it does not mean that every time he argued that something was a symbol - that in fact it was a symbol.

One can make statement "A" and be correct while also making statement "B" that is not correct.

 

[BobRyan]

I think it's pretty interesting that there were Pharisees at all in Christianity. We usually think of those guys as opposed to Jesus, but there are some there in Acts, counted among the believers. What was their deal?

Paul was one of them.

Paul said "I AM a Pharisee - the son of a Pharisee" when put on trial.

Acts 23:6 But Paul, perceiving that one group were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, began crying out in the Council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!”

And what is the response of the Pharisees? -- vs 9 "“We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?”

I also note that Luke, author of Acts, presents the Pharisees a little favorably in his gospel compared to Matthew. Pharisees help Jesus escape danger, Jesus eats with Pharisees, etc..

True.

 

[BobRyan]

There is indeed figurative speech in prophecies throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. It doesn't logically follow that Isaiah 66:22-23 is therefore figurative.

There were indeed many Christ-centered prophecies in the New Testament, especially in Matthew. But it doesn't logically follow that Isaiah 66:22-23 is therefore figurative.

Amen.

But if someone comes to Is 66:22-23 and "needs it" to be symbolic and not literal -- you might expect them to try to view it that way.

Yes, new moons and Sabbaths were shadows but Bible prophecy reveals they will be used during the Millennium

IT says it is the New Earth where the New moon in Is 66:23 -- And while Col 2 mentions Lev 23 annual Sabbaths as shadows it does not delete them ... it just says not to judge people that keep or don't keep those annual events.

But in Is 66 we have the fact that the New Moon is to be kept in the New Earth without using any symbol or idea that Isaiah's readers would be expected to respond with "well that can't be right as it reads... it must be a symbol for something.

When you get to the "New Earth" in Rev 21- you have TWO creation events to remember. The first one in Gen 1-2 and Ex 20:11 notes and the second one being in Rev 21:1-3. So having two memorial event cycles might be perfectly in line with the way mankind got the first 7 day memorial cycle.

 

[trophy33]

Jerome promoted the literal interpretation of the Bible in case where the natural and most normal reading of the text is used rather than eisegeting in any swap-out for a symbol that comes to mind. But that does not mean that Jerome rejected all use of symbols in the Bible and it does not mean that every time he argued that something was a symbol - that in fact it was a symbol.

One can make statement "A" and be correct while also making statement "B" that is not correct.

I agree. If the context is obviously a prophecy, there is no literal reading as a default. Prophecies are not "natural". He recognized they are about Christ and Christianity, as the New Testament also teaches.

 

[trophy33]

The rule of literal interpretation is indeed an assertion but it asserts that the literal interpretation is often best inn biblical matters.

literal interpretation, in hermeneutics, the assertion that a biblical text is to be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context.

This assertion is held to be the correct way to interpret scriptures in the Bible. They teach you that in Bible Hermeneutics in college. BTW, I don't agree with Jerome's interpretation just like I don't agree with yours. You are committing a logical fallacy when you use the argument to authority. The argument to authority is when a debater refers to a well known authority to prove his point. The person he refers to may well indeed be an authority on the Biible but it doesn't logically follow that he is correct on the certain point of contnetion.

Nope.

The one who holds to the literal interpretation does not have the burden of proof. The New Testament doesn't address Isaiah 66 so your claim that the New Testament uses OT prophecies (ALL OF THEM?) to be spiritual? Are ALL OT prophecies in the New Testament? If not, are they invalid? Why do you believe if an OT prophecy is not mentioned in the NT then it is not a literal propehcy? Isaiah 66 is not part of the New Testament and it is not even addressed by the New Testament. Isaiah 66 is in literal interpretation, in hermeneutics, the assertion that a biblical text is to be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context. the Hebrew Scriptures and not in the Greek scriptures, so the burden of proof that Isaiah 66 is figurative is on you.

No, the New Testament does not say new moons and sabbaths were just shadows of what came in Christ. The New Testament says they ARE a shadow (present tense). If the new moons and sabbaths ARE a shadow then they still exist. There was the Old Testament Laws in the books written by Moses and these Laws were still in existence at the the time of Christ for Jews. A person in first century Palestine had four options. One, they could choose to keep the Laws of Moses, and therefore be judged by the Law, Two, they could accept Christ as their personal Savior and they would be freed from any obligation to obey the Law of Moses. The third option is to be a worshipper of any of the many pagan Gods in existence during that time period. The fourth was to declare yourself an atheist and have nothing to do with any god.

Colossians 2:16
Therefore no one is to [a]act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath [b]day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the [c]substance [d]belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one keep [e]defrauding you of your prize by delighting in [f]self-abasement and the worship of the angels, [g]taking his stand on visions he has seen, [h]inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,

It is not obvious at all that it has figurative. So, if you claim it is figurative meanings. If it were, I would hold to the figurative meaning, Here, here is the meaning of "obvious"

What is the full meaning of obvious?

easy to see or understand; evident

obvious. / (ˈɒbvɪəs) / adjective. easy to see or understand; evident. exhibiting motives, feelings, intentions, etc, clearly or without subtlety.

Read those definitions very carefully and take them to heart. You are arguing for a figurative meaning and that means it is not obvious. The plain literal meaning of the text is what the definition of "obvious" means. You are claiming it is easy to see and evident that the text is figurative. If it is figurative and not literal then you saying that the text it is not evident, but figurative.

Definition of evident:
easily seen or understood; obvious: It quickly became evident that someone had broken in.

It is not obvious that Isaiah 66 is figurative.

Obvious Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

And this on a figurative interpretation:

What is a figurative interpretation in literature?

Figurative language is a literary device that uses words or phrases for effect, humorous, or exaggeration purposes, instead of their literal translation. It is commonly used to create an emotional reaction, especially in fiction, and to make reading more enjoyable.

Literal vs. Figurative Language | Definition & Examples - Lesson | Study.com

Compare literal vs. figurative language and understand the differences. Explore both literal and figurative language examples and see how they are...

study.com

In this lesson, we have learned that literal language is language that means exactly and only what it says. Figurative language, on the other hand, is language that uses metaphor, simile, personification, or hyperbole in order to mean more than the mere dictionary definition of the words.

What is the difference between literal and non-literal translation?

Literal language is the actual meaning of a word or phrase, based on the dictionary meaning of the word. Non-literal language is also called figurative language because it is often silly or unrealistic. It goes beyond the dictionary meaning of the words or phrase and often has a different meaning altogether.

Ok, I got a bit weary with these long posts. Let us conclude and accept the facts that you wish for a literal reading which is not how Christians read this till 19th century. You think that the surface Judaistic reading is better, fine, your opinion.

 

[ozso]

Ok, I got a bit weary with these long posts. Let us conclude and accept the facts that you wish for a literal reading which is not how Christians read this till 19th century. You think that the surface Judaistic reading is better, fine, your opinion.

In all fainess a few came up with it way back in 17th century.

 

[ozso]

Actually I am only pointing out that of the TEN commandments of God in Ex 20 written on stone - there is only one that is never quoted from at all in the NT and that is "do not take God's name in vain". My point is that we all know it is STILL sin to take God's name in vain and the fact that it is not quoted from the NT - means absolutely nothing which is why so many Christian denominations today affirm ALL TEN of the Ten commandments.

We can't simply "make up rules" like "whatever is not constantly repeated should be deleted" as if that is "even a thing" in scripture at all. Our doctrine is to be based on much more substantive ground than such ad hoc rules.

But as for your idea that keeping the Sabbath is never mentioned in the NT - that is not true. When you see Christians in Acts 13, Acts 17 and Acts 18 hearing the Gospel and keeping the Sabbath "sabbath after Sabbath" and in fact "Every Sabbath" in the case of both gentiles and Jews in Acts 18:4 - you have no ground for "never kept Sabbath once they heard the gospel".

You do not appear to know the meaning of the term.

Sabbatarianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists, as well as many Episcopalians, have historically espoused the view of first-day Sabbatarianism,Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists, as well as many Episcopalians, have historically espoused the view of first-day Sabbatarianism,"

If you had a Bible argument in favor of editing one of the Commandments of God no matter what Christ said to the contrary in Mark 7:7-13 Now would be a good time to post it.

For all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23
"The Sabbath was made for MANKIND" Mark 2:27

EVERY single "Sabbath after Sabbath" worship service with gospel preaching that is mentioned in the NT is a case of Gospel-accepting Christians doing it as noted many times in this thread in the case of the book of Acts.

If you ignore enough details in this discussion .. you could get there.

But the reason this comes up is that some folks like to post arguments that opposing ALL the Christian denominations that affirm ALL TEN of the Ten commandments (like you posted) -- instead of directing their objections to "just the unedited Sabbath commandment" as if "failure to edit the Sabbath commandment would be wrong.".

IF you were actually posting such a "failure to edit is what I object to" position then you are right - I would not be posting those affirmations by all those non-SDA non-seventh-day sabbatarian groups. They all affirm ALL TEN.

But I can't be blamed for what you posted - it is you that decided not to post carefully isolating the case of "failure to edit the Sabbath commandment" if indeed that is now the position that you want to adopt.

First day sabbatarianism is not affirming the TEN. The fourth commandment is to keep the Sabbath Day. The first day is NOT the Sabbath Day.

Christians didn't gather in synagogues, they gathered in churches. They only went to synagogues to proselytize.

It's impossible to take the name of God in vain without breaking the New Testament commandment to put off all blasphemy.

 

[All Becomes New]

The first heresy was Gnosticism.

"A man named Simon had previously practiced sorcery in that city and amazed the Samaritan people, while claiming to be somebody great. They all paid attention to him, from the least of them to the greatest, and they said, “This man is called the Great Power of God.” They were attentive to him because he had amazed them with his sorceries for a long time." (Acts 8:9–11)

This was before Paul entered the scene so likely within 2-3 years of the Ascension.