Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath? (2)

moicherie · Dec 9, 2005

Montalban said:
Actually it goes to show that she had no idea what she was talking about when she wanted to start up a church (a woman-made church)

LOL Is this the real issue you don't like women and why state the facts when you can twists things instead......

Normann · Dec 9, 2005

I know a lot of people on this toipic disagree with me. That's just fine because I have given you the chance to win me over to the SDA.

My questions are simple and the only thing I request is that you give me scripture to prove your doctrine. However you instead have your eyes locked on a calendar designed in the middle 1500's by Catholic Pope Gregory.

Regardless, even if this calendar were designed by a member of my own church, it is still man-made. It still has flaws, one of them must be corrected every four years, called leap-year.

The calendar is a tool we use to keep things in some kind of order. It is not the Gospel and cannot regulate the laws of God. Read the Bible and find a passage the tells which modern day is the Sabbath; you won't find such.

I only ask for scripture and you have not provided it.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

Nazaroo · Dec 9, 2005

Normann said:
I know a lot of people on this toipic disagree with me. That's just fine because I have given you the chance to win me over to the SDA.

My questions are simple and the only thing I request is that you give me scripture to prove your doctrine. ...
The calendar is a tool we use to keep things in some kind of order. It is not the Gospel and cannot regulate the laws of God. Read the Bible and find a passage the tells which modern day is the Sabbath; you won't find such.

I only ask for scripture and you have not provided it.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

Hi Norman.
I use scripture exhaustively in my analysis and debate.
I have gone over all your posts in the previous two pages of posts.
But I can't get a handle on exactly what you believe or are complaining about.

Given that calendars are not very reliable, what is YOUR solution to the problems of coordinating and choosing a day of the week or year, and what Law/laws do you think are still in effect/not in effect today?

Basically, can you summarize either your position on the issues in this thread, or at least tell me what questions you feel have not or cannot be adequately answered? You see, your posts seem too disjointed for me to understand what you seek!

Cliff2 · Dec 9, 2005

Normann said:
Miller and White founded the SDA and made a predoiction Christ would return in 1843.

The seventh day sabbath is founded on a lie.

Normann

When Miller made some predictions about 1844 he was not a Seventh-day Adventist.

You may have to take that up with the Baptists or the Methodists as the Millerites mainly came from those groups.

The SDA's were not even around then.

remnantrob · Dec 9, 2005

Normann said:
I know a lot of people on this toipic disagree with me. That's just fine because I have given you the chance to win me over to the SDA.

My questions are simple and the only thing I request is that you give me scripture to prove your doctrine. However you instead have your eyes locked on a calendar designed in the middle 1500's by Catholic Pope Gregory.

Regardless, even if this calendar were designed by a member of my own church, it is still man-made. It still has flaws, one of them must be corrected every four years, called leap-year.

The calendar is a tool we use to keep things in some kind of order. It is not the Gospel and cannot regulate the laws of God. Read the Bible and find a passage the tells which modern day is the Sabbath; you won't find such.

I only ask for scripture and you have not provided it.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

Hey Norman,
My apologies for calling you out like that before. If I didn't like what you said I could have always just stopped reading it. But my sentiments are the same. I don't think a lot of people disagree with you on here. From my count there were anly about 5 or 6 adventist who disagreed with you and 1 or 2 sabbatarians. But it wasn't turned into the church vs. the SDA until your proponents let their emotions loose when they disagreed with a point made and didn't take time to type up a logical rebuttal. I don't think its fair to say that SDA's are trying to win you over in this debate. You know that you disagree with our doctrine and that's cool...but you don't have to make it a Norman vs. us battle. Just stick to your arguments and present any new information that will help your cause...resorting to "well its you SDA's " in my opinion is just foul play. I personally respect if you disagree with the Saturday sabbath(not SDA Sabbath) point of view if you present your evidence without trying to be condesending. I'm sure you love Jesus and want to manifest his love to your brothers/sisters, but getting mad at them because you disagree w/ them on a point of doctrine doesn't show it. Once again this debate is not to convert you to an Adventist, because not all sabbatarians are Adventist.
God bless you,
Rob

remnantrob · Dec 9, 2005

Montalban said:
Don't read them then.

That's a fallacy. The whole debate shows that the SDA church selectively re-established the seventh-day.

That's the whole point, we're not Jewish.

What does your rabbai say on the issue? (given that you want to go back and worship in a Jewish fashion)

I've noticed that you enjoy responding negatively to posts that aren't intended for you. To answer your first response I have to say if I don't read then I won't be informed. In my opinion though, as smart as you are, you're getting pulvarized in this debate by Tall. He always answers your question and you always tell him he doesn't. The only reason the debate continues in a circle is because you're not honest enough to admit that you just don't agree...you just intend on winning the debate rather than answering simple questions. But whatever will be will be, right. God bless you as you continue to fight for what you believe.
Rob

oldsage · Dec 9, 2005

Normann said:
I know a lot of people on this toipic disagree with me. That's just fine because I have given you the chance to win me over to the SDA.

My questions are simple and the only thing I request is that you give me scripture to prove your doctrine. However you instead have your eyes locked on a calendar designed in the middle 1500's by Catholic Pope Gregory.

Regardless, even if this calendar were designed by a member of my own church, it is still man-made. It still has flaws, one of them must be corrected every four years, called leap-year.

The calendar is a tool we use to keep things in some kind of order. It is not the Gospel and cannot regulate the laws of God. Read the Bible and find a passage the tells which modern day is the Sabbath; you won't find such.

I only ask for scripture and you have not provided it.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

Ok, Normann,

This is my last post to you because you obviously don't read anything that is typed to you. Several people has addressed this issue of the calendar, you have not responded to their replies. You have been told repeatedly that the calendar has nothing to do with the Sabbath. You have been shown how the weekly cycle of the Sabbath is separate from the calendar. Your own reasoning contradicted itself when talking about what day of the weekly cycle the Sabbath fell on. You have been given the testimony of scripture, you have been given the testimony of history. I personally don't think you have studied out the subject, nor do I think you even care to study it out. I think you are here in this thread because you have some sort of grudge against the SDA church. I have been the principle person responding to your post and you keep bringing up the SDA church. I am not one of them, so those post are irrelevant to our discussion. You obviously are in error about your history of the SDA church and the history of the Sabbath in church history.

With this being said, I will just "over look" your post from now on as was recommended by someone earlier.

God bless,
Chris

tall73 · Dec 9, 2005

Montalban said:
The existence of priests was. You don't have Jewish custom there.

Indeed, the priest was. And we do have a priest. His name is Jesus. Moreover the sacrificial system was the point of the priesthood. Do you not agree that Jesus was the Sacrifice for our sins?

You have me on a technicality; I mentioned rabbai, not priest.

And now I addressed both.

You've mentioned this fact before, that God had rested on the seventh day, show me how that meant that Adam did. Are you comparing the creative work of God over six days to man's work over six days, or what?

We have already shown you that the commandment referred back to the day. If God blessed it and sanctified it with Adam there (created the 6th day) do you think Adam didn't notice?

As you don't observe either; based on Paul over-turning something, you're the one who is confused.

You appear to not understand the text referenced. Paul went to the place of prayer where there WAS NO SYNAGOGUE in that town. Whenever there was, he went to one. So he didn't change anything.

No, I'm saying that if you contend that the Sabbath was modified, and that was bad, then why isn't the modification of the temple/synagogue service by the Apostles bad?

Paul didn't modify the synagogue service. The synagogue service first of all was not a command of God, as we already covered. But churches are essentially just Messianic synagogue services. They were a place to read and hear the Scriptures read etc.

The temple was for sacrifices and God Himself showed that it was finished by rending the temple. Jesus is now our High Priest in heaven.

So you are right. If God Himself instituted it as part of the new covenant, I would have no problem with it. But there is no text that says He changed Sabbath to Sunday as part of the new covenant.

Where did Jesus say "Don't go to church anymore?"

You might want to read the text in question. Paul never said don't go to church. He went to church whenever there was one.

tall73 · Dec 9, 2005

Nazaroo said:
Awesome! Somebody is reading what I have posted!
This is a very good summary of what I have posted here.
Obviously I have not provided details on a few points, such as the Sabbath Covenant (an everlasting Identity Covenant) made with Israel.

To clarify a. and b.:

a. I do not believe in 'un-loseable' salvation, or predestination. This heresy spawned from Luther/Calvin opened the door for a lot of foolishness. See my ongoing discussion in Sotoirolgy section, under 'reprobate' (not my thread)

**For supplimentary arguments I depend upon as to the Sabbath, Food Laws and circumcision, see my thread in (I think) Soteroiolgy called "Paul and the Law: Clarification" (my thread).

b. My position is that the Sabbath Covenant is everlasting, but belongs to Israel (physical, loyal remnant). However, the Sabbath itself is older than the Jews or Israel or Moses, and as a Law belongs to all mankind.

Important supplimentary issues I would love to discuss with you particularly.

c. I believe in the Food Laws, both the Noahic Covenant, and the later Levitical instructions, and in fact the vegetarianism of Daniel and John Baptist.

d. I believe the SDAs are correct in insisting that the Sabbath is still a Law, but believe they are in error about the day, or even whether the original day can be established with any plausible scientific accuracy.

e. Since the Sabbath Law is worded as a 'local' commandment, not accounting for time zones or Arctic Circles, it has to be modified and interpreted intelligently to be applied practically.

f. I strongly doubt the SDA argument that SDA were given a 'revelation' to restore Sabbath. But that is a moot point, since it should always have been obeyed.

g. I don't think Jesus is concerned about the technical aspects of calendars as much as He is about HOW the Sabbath must be kept, and the unity of community.

h. I do believe if you are going to have a biblical calendar, it will be the solar one of Qumran, not the Babylonian Lunar calendar of the 2nd Temple priests.

Thanks for the clarification! I will try to go point by point over the posts first to see where we agree. Then I will get down to the points for further discussion and where we might disagree. Great stuff here!

BrightCandle · Dec 9, 2005

In the first part of this thread there was a post lising the dictionary definition of Sunday in Spanish as "domingo" meaning "the Lord's day". I checked this reference and this what I found. The majority of the languages in the world, have in one form or another, the word "Sabbath" for the 7th day of the week.

Sabbath ['sæb??] n (judío) sábado
(cristiano) domingo

tall73 · Dec 9, 2005

I decided to put it all in one post, since it was too much of a pain to separate out the agreement and disagreement.

Nazaroo said:
Confusing the Law with the Covenant

Paul adds to the confusion when he uses Jewish idioms to speak to gentiles in the first place, as in using the Greek word 'nomoV', translated 'law'. In Paul's letters this should really be rendered 'Torah'. In any case Paul does not intend either the ancient Greek meaning or the modern civil one. For Paul 'nomoV' can be the covenant, the commandments, the history of Israel, or any combination of these depending upon the emphasis or context.

Indeed, in Romans 7 he also uses law to speak of the "law of sin in the flesh/our members." Here it seems to be an immutable principle which battles against the law of God. And then He introduces the law of the Spirit of life, walking by Jesus' indwelling Spirit. So no doubt, Paul's use of the word is quite flexible.

Even though he uses 'law' everywhere, Paul obviously knows the difference between the covenant with the Jews, and the commandments which are for everyone. How else could he have waived the Sabbath, the circumcision, and the food laws for his gentile church and kept the others? These and these only are the unique marks of the covenant.

I will address this below in the section that covers it more thoroughly.

Yet these three laws alone are not the covenant either. A covenant is a consenting agreement or contract between parties. Expressions like The Law, The Testimony, The Ten Words, the Stone Tablets, and Mt. Sinai, are all freely used to symbolize the Covenant with Israel. This is precisely what Paul does in (2 Cor.3). The Tablets represent the covenant but they are not themselves the covenant. The covenant itself is the complete verbal agreement between God and Israel, mediated by Moses.

Yes, a covenant is always an agreement. Some scholars see similarities to Hittite suzerainty covenants of the time. You are dealing with a covenant between a Superior and a group of inferiors. They make agreements on each side, and the commands form the contract agreements. God promises to bless them and make them a nation of priests, etc. and they, for their part, agree to do all that He has asked of them. Obviously God is the one who is superior in the agreement.

Some try to equate the Covenant with the Ten Commandments, and the Ten Commandments with 'the law' of Paul, in an attempt to show that the Sabbath has been 'nailed to the cross' and wiped out. (pg 174) The other commandments then somehow bounce back by the authority of being restated in the NT, because they are 'true-for-all-time' principles, which are self-evident. The Sabbath falls through the cracks because it is merely revelatory, ceremonial and arbitrary. But this explanation is completely artificial,and has the appearance of a cheap card trick.

Agreed, the argument doesn't hold. However, a careful view of Col. 2 shows that the issue is not the covenant or the law, or even the ceremonial law, but the certificate of debt, a business document, written in the person's own handwriting. The debt was our sin, and Jesus paid for it on the cross. In context the verse even says, He forgave us all our sins, taking away the certificate of debt, that was against us, that stood opposed to us, nailing it to the cross. The law was not opposed to us, sin was. Without sin the law was a good thing. Jesus took away our sin.

In reality the commandments remain because they were never crossed out. There is no secret shuffle. Paul has been misunderstood by Luther, Calvin and some Protestants, and there is no hint of such magical thinking in the rest of the NT.

Yes, it has not been done away with. But what has happened is that it is written on the heart, and kept by the Spirit. The emphasis is not on the stone tablets, but the tablets of the heart.

NT Authority to drop the Sabbath?

The original source of this idea is Heresies Exposed by W.C Irvine, 1921, pg 165. (which we will refute here):

But the summary there shows that the Nine were mentioned in the NT arbitrarily, not to single out and drop the Sabbath. For instance, False Witness and Profanity score 4 appearances each. Other sins are treated equally gravely and just as severely condemned, like drug dealing, 5 times. (Gal.5:20, Rev.9:21,18:23,21:8,22:15, original Greek)

The commandments do not derive their authority from the arbitrary examples and incomplete lists in the NT. For instance, Paul lists five at random, and then says if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' (Rom.13:9) Jesus is equally loose, listing a different five commandments with some overlap. (Lk.18:20) On that basis we might as well keep the Sabbath!

Complete lists of all the commandments would be pointless. We already have the OT. Listing all possible sins would be like listing all the deeds of Jesus. (Jn.21:25) Literally hundreds of commandments are indirectly referred to, as well as new sins not found in the OT. But making endless lists won't help if we don't see the underlying principle of love, (Rom.13:9) or know the guiding rule of how to love, (Lk.6:31) or find the will to do so, (Lk.7:47) and cling to the power that can enable us to. (Jn.15:4)

Indeed, the law was the baseline. Love goes beyond. It doesn't look to remove laws but to love beyond the requirements. And as mentioned before, the Sabbath was kept by both Jesus and Paul, so there is no reason to think it was eliminated.

The idea that eternal principles are 'self-evident' is a flop. They are not 'self-evident' to natural man. (1.Cor.2:14) There may be a future time when we will no longer have to teach one another, (Jer.31:34) but we aren't there yet. 'Do not steal' presupposes abstract concepts of ownership defined by other commandments. 'Adultery' requires a marriage culture. 'Do not kill' requires explanation because of other contradictory commandments! Nothing in the first two commandments is self-evident. The test simply fails to distinguish the Sabbath. If anything, 'Do not covet.' is the oddball, since it talks of internal desire, is impossible to keep, and 'self-evident' as to its unreasonableness! (Rom.7:7-8)

Indeed, Romans says that men at one time knew of God's righteous requirements, but turned away and became darkened in their understanding, so God gave them over to lusts, idolatry etc. By the time of the giving of the law at Sinai the innate knowledge of the law implanted in man, while still there in the conscious (Romans 2) was only sufficient to make them guilty, not to help them keep it, because the flesh would not allow it. So I mostly agree here. Romans tells us that men are still without excuse due to the conscience. But these laws are universally broken.

But in fact all of the Ten Commandments are either lexically too empty and vague, or too detailed and specific to be 'self-evident' principles in any meaningful sense. They all require the actual context in which they are found: They stand within a body of literature belonging to a living community providing a historical and cultural background complete with many other laws, definitions, applications, examples and oral traditions, without which they would be meaningless.

Agreed here. The commandments at Sinai were a clear, specific manifestation to the people of Israel who were then to take this knowledge to the world as they were blessed by covenant obedience. By this way all nations would take note of their blessings and righteous law, and the God who gave it. But they are certainly not as all encompassing as the law of the Spirit lived out in the believer which goes beyond the letter. Coming out of years of slavery, and having almost no knowledge anymore of God they needed a specific iteration of God's lasting law in ways they could understand. Therefore Paul could speak of the law coming 400 years after Abraham, because in this form they had not appeared before. Yet Cain still knew killing was wrong, etc. So this was a new, more plain way of stating them that convicted of sin.

The commandments receive their authority not because they are 'self-evident', but because they were delivered through the ruin of Egypt, the deliverance of Israel, and the terrifying voice of God in a pillar of fire on mount Sinai.

Yes, certainly the delivering of the people, and the communicating of the covenant was meant to inspire awe and root the concept of the covenant in their minds.

The confusion between Law and Covenant clouds over Israel's continuing obligations, and those of others. Israel could not escape the commandments just by 'breaking' the covenant. Nor can exiles or gentiles escape them by claiming they don't have a covenant. Those outside the covenant God judges, (1 Cor.5:6) - by the same standard! (Rom.2:26) The only things Israel lost were the promised blessings when they transgressed the Covenant.

Yes, the covenant did in fact have both blessings and curses. And in the prophets we see that while Israel was judged on covenant obedience, the other nations were judged on more plain violations, such as ripping open pregnant women, etc.

Interestingly, in the four horsemen of Revelation we see these elements of cursing restated...war, death, famine, plague, wild beasts of the earth. God will in the end judge the earth in a similar means to the judgement of Israel, as the prophets point to. It is the final Day of the Lord that is pointed to in the judgment during Israel's time.

Actually, to speak of 'covenant-breaking' is misleading. The covenant already covers both obedience and disobedience to the commandments. Israel has no power to break the covenant itself. (Ezek.16:8, 59-62) The covenant provides both punishments and a sacrificial system for forgiveness of personal and national sin. (Num.15:22-29) But this raises the question of how the covenant itself can even be transgressed: Some crimes are so serious that the law requires exile (Num.15:30-31) or even death (Num.15:36) with no option of forgiveness. (Heb.10:28, Mk.3:29, 1st.Jn.5:16!) Yet the crimes of a few do not amount to a national transgression. But when offenses reach an intolerable level, a whole city or nation might be exiled or destroyed. (Gen.18:26-32)

Yes, covenants of a merchant manner, etc. could be broken if one party violated the terms. But this is not a commercial covenant. It is a covenant of a King with His subjects. They cannot escape His rule, but they can invoke His wrath or His blessing.

However, God being merciful reworked the covenant out of mercy. One could say that God always hoped they would experience the new covenant reality. Even the prophets spoke of circumcision of the heart ,etc., and obedience that went beyond externals.

Israel was exiled long before Christ. By transgressing the covenant, they moved out of the blessing and under the curse. (Hos.6:7) Israel was now trapped, for there is no way back under the law. (Rom.8:3) Only God can redeem Israel, by lifting the covenant curse, and only He can save mankind by declaring an amnesty for lawbreakers. (Lk.18:27)

Minor disagreement here. I don't see salvation for Israel tied to their covenant, which was more about their status as God's people. For one thing, individually God always had those who were saved in Israel. Salvation was through the sacrifices which pointed to the Messiah. Even David and Abraham were saved by grace in their time.

If they turned to the temple and truly sought God He would again bless them. Of course, in their history this was never sustained. They were under progressive curses during the vast majority of the time.

It is true however that any transgression rules out salvation by law keeping (Romans 3:19,20, etc.)

Amnesty and a New Covenant

The old covenant must be renovated; rewritten, and renewed by God. To save all people, the New Covenant must include them. But there are conditions. (Jn.9:41) There is no such thing as absolute freedom. (Rom.6:16-18) The amnesty offered by God clearly entails obedience to the Law. (Ezek.33:14-20,Rom.8:4) Israelites must not rely on the old covenant alone, which has left them under a curse. (Jn.5:39) They must repent and be baptized into an amnesty for sins, and await the promise of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)

Since I see all people as being able to be saved before I don't really agree totally with this, but I would say that they are now included among God's covenant people. And yes, he renovates the covenant. As Hebrews 8 says, "He found fault with the people", and the new covenant is based "on better promises." Obviously the problem was the promises of the people who could not keep their promise. Now the promises are all on God's end, to write them on the heart, and forgive their sins, etc.

Obviously obedience is required, but it is seen as internal and willing, rather than external and forced.

Christ redeems us from the curse of the law, (Col.2:14,Gal.3:13) and the Spirit works to keep us from sinning and enable us to do good. (1Pet.1:22) We must not resist the Spirit, (Eph.4:30) but act in love, fulfilling the Law. (Rom.13:10) This opportunity to cooperate with God is the gift which produces true spiritual fruits and good works. (Gal.5:22) Christ does not destroy the Law. (Matt.5:17) The Holy Spirit would not normally lead anyone to break the Law of God, or tempt them to commit crime. (James 1:13)

Right on! That is walking by the Spirit, the new covenant.

We can now understand in what sense 'we have been delivered from The Law' (Rom.7:6) Israel is delivered from the curse caused by covenant transgression, and gentiles are saved from criminal punishment, when they accept the terms of the amnesty. This includes a 'cease-fire' on lawbreaking, and a commitment of service to God involving the carrying out of new commands (John 14:21)

Yes, although I wouldn't take this to the extreme that any further sin results in new cursing. I John is clear that we are not to sin, but if anyone does sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous.

New Symbols for Old

But the New Covenant needs new signs and symbols of membership, and those belonging to Israel cannot be appropriated lawfully. Paul drops The Sabbath, circumcision and food laws as entry requirements of the New Covenant. He drops them because they are exclusionary and already belong to someone else, not because they somehow lack 'eternalness'. The new symbols, baptism and Last Supper, and the new sign, 'that we should love one another' (Jn.13:35) had already been given by John and Jesus. Paul merely argued that the old signs and symbols had to be peacefully and quietly abandoned as entry requirements for Gentiles, not forced unlawfully upon other nations. (1.Tim.1:8)

Ok, now here is where things start to get less clear for me as to your view. I will try to look in the reprobate thread, etc. soon to see if it clarifies. You stated that the entry requirements were dropped, but you still seem to see them as general commands, as they come before the covenants. However, here you seem to suggest that the nations are not keeping them.

Moreover, I am not sure how you selected these three.

I will agree with this, that the covenant of Sabbath keeping with the Israelites as a sign of specific relation is not the reason that everyone keeps the Sabbath. As God's called people who were to Glorify God before the nations it makes sense that He would recall them to this more or less lost command from creation. But it is the creation account that gives the basis for Sabbath keeping for all people.

As to requirements for gentiles Acts 15 is still a good basis for deciding those requirements, in regards to the law of Moses (here distinguishing from the commandments, which we both see as binding on all).

I agree that Paul dropped circumcision as a covenant sign with Abraham and the people of Israel, as it applied to the first covenant.

Gentiles were always prophesied in the new covenant, and never did it mention circumcision. Moreover, the baptism by the Spirit of the gentiles at Cornelius' home indicated God's fulfillment of this prophecy, and the council recognized that eventually.

As for dietary laws, I am not aware of a text that speaks of them as a covenant sign. In fact they were already in place in Noah's time, and dealt with what animals could be sacrificed. These were later then given as food after the flood. I actually disagree with some Adventists in that I don't see the dietary laws as in place anymore because they always dealt with ritual cleanness or uncleanness for the temple service. Since the sacrificial system was done away with through the offering of the true sacrifice, they were no longer needed.

Having said that, I endorse the health aspects of the law, and in fact the original vegetarian diet of Eden. But not on the basis of the OT temple regulations.

As for the Sabbath, it was also in place in Genesis. I agree that it was not a covenant sign, but was still one of the commandments.

The rest of the requirements in Acts 15 were also derived from the OT. I think that they took them from the requirements of foreigners in Israel. Once God indicated that they need not be circumcized to be under the new covenant, it made sense to apply those rules for foreigners among Israelites.

Eating blood:

LEV 17:10 " `Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood--I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."

Sexual immorality

LEV 18:6 " `No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

LEV 18:7 " `Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

LEV 18:8 " `Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.

LEV 18:9 " `Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

LEV 18:10 " `Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.

LEV 18:11 " `Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

LEV 18:12 " `Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.

LEV 18:13 " `Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.

LEV 18:14 " `Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

LEV 18:15 " `Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.

LEV 18:16 " `Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.

LEV 18:17 " `Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

LEV 18:18 " `Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

LEV 18:19 " `Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

LEV 18:20 " `Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.

LEV 18:21 " `Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

LEV 18:22 " `Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

LEV 18:23 " `Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

LEV 18:24 " `Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

idols

EZE 14:7 " `When any Israelite or any alien living in Israel separates himself from me and sets up idols in his heart and puts a wicked stumbling block before his face and then goes to a prophet to inquire of me, I the LORD will answer him myself. 8 I will set my face against that man and make him an example and a byword. I will cut him off from my people. Then you will know that I am the LORD.

For those who wonder, while the 10 commandments were not on the table in this discussion, the Sabbath was also required of foreigners. This way of viewing the decision of Acts 15 makes a lot more sense than simply saying it was a compromise. The requirements seem to be an odd confusion until we understand they were simply trying to apply the OT rules about foreigners.

Thus the answer to the puzzle of Paul and the Law is not found in the concept of 'ceremonial' or 'temporary'. Since the Old Covenant was for Israelites, and was being replaced by the New Covenant, Gentiles need not join the old one first. - They can proceed directly to the New Covenant, just as Jews already could and did. Paul did not obliterate the Old Covenant, or redefine 'Israel' as the 'church', nor did he erase the distinction between Jew and Gentile. He simply pointed out their equal footing regarding the New Covenant. For Paul, regardless of its benefits, (Rom.3:1-2) the Old Covenant gave no direct advantage to Jews as to entry into the New Covenant. (Rom.3:9) Both Jew and Gentile were called to repentance and acceptance, and both equally benefited if they did so. (Rom.10:12) If some Jews chose to remain in the Old Covenant, they were free to do so. (Lk.5:31-32,39) If others were willing and able to keep both covenants, they were also free to do so. (Rom.11:7,14:5) Far from negating Old Covenant obligations, Paul actually recognized them repeatedly. (Gal.5:3,Matt.23:23)

This I have a bit of an issue with.

A. Hebrews makes it clear that whether or not you kept performing the sacrificial rituals, the real sacrifice had come.

B. Hebrews 8 also seems to say that the old covenant is fading (ie, some would continue to do some elements, but the new covenant transcends it).

HEB 8:13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

And in fact it did disappear at the destruction of the temple, which Jesus had predicted (so he felt safe in confirming). While he could speak of the priest in his day performing his religious duties day after day, he knew this would soon not be the case. God had ordained an end to the old.

So while temple rituals ,etc. would certainly not hurt anyone, I am not sure that they were still required. On this Oldsage would probably agree with you more.

On the other hand, He did phrase the feasts and the Sabbath as enduring signs to Israel. So this is certainly an item for discussion.

In any case, we agree that the old covenant agreements wouldn't really effect gentiles, but they would still be under the commandments.

The Jewish Christians came to recognize that certain commandments, specifically three, were heavily 'symbolic' of the Old Covenants. They also realized that such symbolism was inappropriate for the New Covenant, and it was impeding the spread of the gospel. They had both the need and the power to regulate the application of these specifically national and tribal laws.

I agree that they recognized that the gentiles were under the new, not old covenant, however it was not the decision of men, but the revealing of God both through prophecy, and in the incident with Cornelius, the miracles among the gentiles through Paul and Barnabas, etc. I still don't really see how the Sabbath entered into that in your model because you still hot as a law, but not a covenant for the gentiles.

This is an incredible affirmation of the authority of Godly men to interpret, define the scope of, and selectively apply the Law (the actual office Moses created for the ancient judges). But now we must measure the limits of that authority and its ramifications, by seeing what exactly happened, and how those individual laws were treated.

I don't particularly agree here for the reasons stated above, and because it said that it seemed good to them AND the Holy Spirit in Acts 15 when they made the actual decision about what was binding. And I didn't see anything about dietary laws in that discussion. I assume you were speaking of Paul's later comments on that.

Also, in regards to Paul's speaking of new moons and Sabbaths we generally hold that to be speaking of the feast Sabbaths which were, along with the other shadows pointing forward to Jesus. As the Sabbath command came before sin, would not in fact be a part of those shadows.

Nazaroo · Dec 9, 2005

Excellent Analysis, Tall73!

It appears we do agree for the most part on the issues under discussion.
I think you will find more details and a more comprehensive idea of my position
when you consult my other posts.

You have spent a lot of time responding, and I thank you for all your time and effort!
Obviously I am not an SDA, but clearly we agree on alot of things!

I arrived at my view by independant study and practice over a period of about 30 years, but I have no commitment other than to the truth as I understand it,
so I am willing to expand and alter my views if presented with cogent arguments and evidence.

Peace!

tall73 · Dec 9, 2005

Nazaroo said:
...To continue my analysis:

How the New Covenant really reached the Gentiles

The New Covenant was given in three very pronounced stages. There is a seed hidden in each stage, however, foreshadowing the next one. Each new stage caused difficulty inside and outside the Christian community. But the third step was by far the most controversial, and it is the crucial step in our discussion of law.

The progress of the gospel was in fact in three steps, as the disciples could grasp the new realities. Jesus summarizes the steps in Acts 1:7

AC 1:7 He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

(1) To the Israelites: (Acts.2:5,14, 6:1) Contrary to popular conceptions, the Day of Pentacost did not usher in the Gentiles. The Galilean disciples went forth preaching in all languages to visiting Israelites of all nations. (Acts.2:5,14,22,29,36, 6:1) At this time, salvation was officially announced to the diaspora, the dispersion of exiled Israel. This event had been anxiously awaited from the start of Jesus' ministry. (Jn.7:35,12:20) The 5000+ converts were all Israelites. (Acts.2;41,4:4, note the parallel and symbolism of the 12 baskets, Lk.9:14,17) This was outrageous enough to the self-righteous Judaeans, who thought of themselves alone as the Faithful Remnant of Israel! (Jn.7:48,49) There was also trouble in the Christian community between Judeans and Exiles. (Acts.6:1) Jesus had much to say on this. (Lk.15:11-32) Even Proselytes (prior converts to Judaism) received the Word, and were welcomed, setting the stage for step 2. (Acts.2:10,6:5)

(2) To the Proselytes: (Acts.8:5) When Israel was conquered, Samaria was largely repopulated by foreigners. (2 Kgs.17:24) The Assyrian king ordered them converted to Judaism, (2 Kgs.17:27-28) but the conversion was only partial. (2 Kgs.17:41) The Samaritans scorned the Judaeans and the xenophobic Judaeans never acknowledged this forced adoption. (Neh.4:2,Jn.4:9) Ironically, God used the evil Paul (Saul) to bring in these communities. Paul's persecution of the disciples sent Philip to the Samaritans. (Acts.8:3,4) Yet Jesus Himself had prepared both the Samaritans and His own disciples for this event. (Jn.4:1-42) He used it to underline the false pride of Judah (2 Kgs.17:19, Jn 7:19) and reveal what they would have to accept to enter the New Covenant. (Lk.18:11) Even Ethiopian converts were accepted. (Acts.8:27) The Law itself did not support racism. (Lev.19:34) Anyone could join Israel under the old covenant if they kept the law. (Lev.24:22) None of this raised questions about the law itself. Converts obviously got circumcised, kept the food laws and observed the Sabbath.

Good summary, the refusal of the returning Jews to allow the Samaritans to aid in the temple construction, as well as the destruction of the Samaritan temple during the inter-testamental period explains in part the personal differences here. Jesus began to break these barriers down even during His own ministry at Sychar.

(3) To the Gentiles: (Acts.10:35) The idea of Roman Gentiles being accepted into the Christian community was a surprise at first. (Acts.10:34,11:18) But since they had already received the Holy Spirit, Peter could not refuse them baptism, the sign of community membership. (Acts.10:47) It was not clear at the time how to integrate Gentiles into the community, or that any commandments needed to be modified or dropped, even temporarily. (Acts.11:3,15:1) God's acceptance of Gentiles before conversion to Judaism, and the problem of Jewish/Gentile fellowship brought the issues of circumcision and the food laws to the surface. (Acts.11:2,3) The answers were not obvious, but required new revelations, some field experience for Peter and Paul, and a council meeting of the Apostles. (Acts.10:3,10, 15:2)
[/quote]

I agree with the general thrust here, but the dietary element in Acts 10 was not actually about food at all, but rather an indication to not call any man unclean.

Responsibilities for Gentile Christians

The following instruction and blessing is part of a formal letter issued by the Jerusalem Council of the Apostles under the authority of the Holy Spirit. It was sent by Peter and James and received by Paul on behalf of the Gentile church. It is meant to tell us what is really required so that Jewish and Gentile Christians can have problem-free fellowship together. Before we become overly concerned about how such instruction might inconvenience us, let's see if we can understand the Spirit of the letter.

'For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us,

to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

that you abstain from things offered to idols,

from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.

if you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.' (Acts.15:28-29)

(A) The letter is not a return to the legalism of the Pharisees. (Acts.15:5-11) Circumcision has been deliberately dropped, and Paul has won his case against the extremists. Nor does it mark a split between the Jerusalem church and the Gentile church. The unity and goodwill here is remarkable, and Paul has the hearts of his fellow Israelite Christians. The letter has the joyful consent of the Apostles, elders and the whole Jewish church! (Acts.15:22)

(B) The letter is not some kind of compromise between Judaism and Christianity. The Apostles and elders met to exchange all the facts, and gain unity of understanding over God's acceptance of Gentiles into the Way. But only a few extremists were actually compromised. Although designed to create peace, the letter is not whimsical or arbitrary. It was carefully composed and it still provides practical guidelines for Gentile Christian conduct today:

(1) Avoid Idolatry through food: (Exod.20:1-6) By explaining the obligation of the 1st Commandment in very practical terms, the letter shows how Christians can keep themselves unstained by the world, (James 1:27), maintain their fellowship with Jewish Christians, and take a stand against idolatry. (1st.Cor.10:14-33)

(2) Eat no Blood: (Gen.9:4) Next we have an appropriate reminder to Gentiles that all mankind is already living under a covenant with God, the covenant of Noah, with its own obligations and symbols. (Gen.9:1-17) Although many nations have lost knowledge of this covenant, even as Israel occasionally lost knowledge of hers, (2.Chr.34:14-33), it is still in effect. It extends to the end of this age, and its symbol, the rainbow, confirms it to this day. Again a practical rule is given to help Gentiles: Abstain from eating animals which have been strangled, and hence improperly killed, and in which the blood obviously remains.

(3) Abstain from sexual immorality: (1.Cor.10:8-9, 1.Thess.4:3) Again, a sensible instruction, finding complete agreement from Paul.

In sum, the letter is not some disguised form of 'legalism' or 'Judaizing'. Its spirit reflects sound biblical teaching and the united wisdom of the early church. It's very terseness shows that the council of Apostles and elders entrusted Paul both to deliver the letter, and to personally explain more fully the details of their position, which he later did. (Gal.2:9-10)

I covered this more extensively in the earlier section. I agree it was not a compromise. All agreed. And it was carefully crafted. But the basis for the agreement in my understanding is that it was based on regulations for aliens in Israel, which was essentially what the gentiles here were, living next to the Jewish Christians. While each of the above commands is in the OT, so are many others which were not chosen. This understanding eliminates the charge that the apostles simply did a pick and choose approach, which would in fact be a compromise.

After all the controversy from the book of Acts until the present, we might expect to find Paul proposing some sweeping reforms or radical changes in the Law, or at least in its interpretation. Yet when we actually search Paul's letters, we are instead struck by several remarkable things:

1. Paul's repeated denial that he had preached any kind of lawlessness. (Rom.3:8,Gal.6:7etc.)

2. His stated belief in the justness of God and of His Law. (Col.3:25,Rom.10:5,etc.)

3. Paul's claim that the OT is the inspired Word of God. (2nd Tim.3:16,Rom.3:2,15:4 etc)

4. His many appeals to the Law and the Prophets for his authority. (Rom.3:21,etc.)

5. His frequent approval of both specific commandments and the general Law (Rom.13:9 etc.)

6. His clear condemnation of both specific and general sins. (1.Cor.6:9-10, Gal.5:19-21)

7. His insistence that Christians can, do and must obey the Law. (Rom.8:4,Eph.5:1-5)

8. The only specific laws that he appears to have qualified, waived, or adopted lenient views toward, are either specifically Jewish, or else involve tribal customs or health and cleanliness issues. (Sabbath, circumcision, food laws)

See above

The Jewish Case against Paul

We don't want to minimize the importance of these laws. But we feel compelled to remark that if we were looking for evidence to convict Paul of preaching lawlessness, our total case would be pretty flimsy. The non-Christian Pharisees could hardly accuse him of failing to circumcise Gentiles, (as the Christian ones did in Acts.15:5) and he actually did circumcise Timothy, whose mother was Jewish, as required by law. (Acts.16:1-3) Since they were under Roman occupation, he could hardly be expected to enforce the Sabbath among Gentiles either. At best, they might accuse Paul of ritual uncleaness, for eating with Gentiles. (Acts.11:3) But this wouldn't even merit a scolding, let alone a Sanhedrin council or a stoning. And Paul remedied any questions of impurity while in Jerusalem by taking a 7 day Nazarite vow of purity and paying the offering! (Acts.21:26/Num.6) These are hardly the actions of someone renouncing OT law. Paul, as a master of the law himself, could have easily defended himself along these lines before any reasonable inquiry.

Agreed. However, it was James' idea on the nazarite vow. But Paul did go along to show the point, that he was not opposed to the law.

When we actually examine the hysterical reaction to Paul in the temple, however, we discover that the riot is not about morality at all! (Acts.21:27-22:23) Their outrage was due to Paul's teaching on circumcision, and perhaps Jewish festivals. (eg.Gal.5:2-6,Col.2:16-17). "they have been told that you teach the Israelites of the diaspora that they shouldn't circumcise their children, nor keep the customs..." (Acts.21:21) This is of course an unfair misconstrual of Paul, since he only had authority over Gentiles, and wrote primarily to them. (Gal.2:9!) Paul's own view of the motives of his accusers was that either they were cowards, hiding their Christianity to please the Jewish authorities, or else they were Judaean spies loyal to Temple Judaism. (Gal.6:12,13) This is why he did not answer the charges directly, but took the opportunity to testify of the Way. (Acts.22:1-22)

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that these were Judaizers among the Christians, so the latter seems more likely.

Also Paul did speak to both jews and gentiles in his ministry in the diaspora. And even Jesus was opposed to the extra-Scriptural customs. So perhaps the charges, from their viewpoint, were not far off. Notice what he said to Peter:

GAL 2:14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Paul, and apparently Peter, were not advocating the Jewish customs. However, Paul consistently upheld the commandments, and kept the customs when it was necessary to avoid scandal. Acts 16 makes it clear that he circumcised Timothy as a concession.

Summary of the Law under the New Covenant

The Law of God, meaning the commandments, remain valid and all people are required to obey them. The Old Covenant is unworkable due to the gravity and size of Israel's sin.

Agreed.

Jesus during His ministry suspends the curse of the Law on the following basis: Legitimate authority from God has been rejected, (Lk.20:2-8) nobody is wise enough to interpret the Law, (Jn.3:10) nor able to judge rightly, (Jn.9:3) nor qualified to carry out the sentence. (Jn 8:1-11) Jesus claimed the authority to forgive sins, (Mk.2:10) but He did not do so on an arbitrary basis. He was fulfilling God's promise of redemption under the conditions God had already laid out. (Ezek.33:14-20 = Luke 19:8! - Ex.22:1)

God lifts the curse of the Law with a one-time amnesty of forgiveness for past sins. The amnesty is available only through the New Covenant. (Jn.10:7) God does not restore autonomy or the kingdom to Israel at this time. (Acts.1:6) Israelites and Christians have to accept foreign occupation and rule. (Lk.20:22-25) The Aaronic Priesthood no longer has authority to govern over Israel or enforce the Law. (Heb.7:12) Instead, all members of the New Covenant are their own priests and judges under one new High Priest, Jesus the Christ. (1.Cor.11:31-32, Heb.8:1,9:11) In fact, the laws of sacrifice, and the laws of redemption (Ex.13, Lev.6, 25:47) also remain valid, because they are the very laws Jesus fulfills to free us!

Ok, here we agree some, and part ways a bit as well.

A. I still am unclear on your view of a ONE TIME amnesty of forgiveness. I agree that you are not once saved always saved. But define the one time aspect.

B. Jesus does not restore the kingdom, we agree on that.

C. Jesus is the High Priest, agreed.

D. The law of sacrifice does not seem to remain as Hebrews includes them in the old covenant which is passing away. Jesus did fulfill the requirements by providing the sacrifice. So perhaps you could outline what you mean by they are still valid.

We need not think the correct interpretation of Paul is artificial just because we have to work hard to get to it. Even scripture testifies that Paul's letters contain 'things hard to understand'! (2Pet3:16) It is even harder for modern English readers because of translational bias, and the foreign idioms.

Agreed, it is attainable, but obviously not simple.

tall73 · Dec 9, 2005

Nazaroo said:
The Argument that Jesus Broke the Sabbath Examined

Is This the Jesus We Know?

A recent book states offers a sad interpretation of Jesus' preaching: 'It is obvious...that Jesus...is saying that he can do just what he wants to do on any day, even on the Sabbath!' (pg 177) Even if the Son of God can do whatever He wants, this is hardly permission for others to. Again it's irrelevant. But this portrait of Jesus seems so unnatural, we are compelled to ask: Does the author really understand Jesus' teaching about the Sabbath? (Matt 15:12-13)

Jesus' Real Teaching about the Sabbath

As a Teacher of Israel, Jesus gave a clear and spiritually uplifting ruling on Sabbath keeping: One of the major controversies at the time was how the Sabbath should be kept. Some groups like the Essenes were extremely strict. Like a breath of fresh air, Jesus injects some common sense into the discussion. He teaches that itis lawful to do good on the Sabbath. The purpose of the Sabbath is to serve man, the crown of God's creation. The law is good if used lawfully. (1 Tim 1:8) The Sabbath cannot serve man at all if it is revoked! Neither is the Son of Man Lord of the Sabbath, if the Sabbath does not exist. (Mark 2:27) This harmonizes with His complaint that the lawyers had loaded men with unbearable burdens, and with His promise that His own yoke would be light. (Luke 11:46, Matt 11:30) Surely, if Jesus had intended to either move the Sabbath or cancel it, the opportune time to say something would have been during these Sabbath disputes! (The author uses this same argument in defending musical instruments for worship on pg.128!). Instead, Jesus chose to illustrate the spirit of the Sabbath, a spirit of service, by helping people.

Agreed completely. Jesus was reforming the Sabbath of man-made burdens.

A Movable Sabbath

The book finally retreats to the position that the day was simply moved from Saturday to Sunday, at the start of the New Covenant. (pg 178 f) But even if we grant the author's apparently strong argument regarding the moving of the Sabbath, then obviously the principle of the Sabbath has remained entirely intact! (which he admits):

'There may be a principle behind the Sabbath law,..

which demands...that we set time aside each week..' (pg 173, italics his)

Furthermore, if we believe the New Covenant is eternal, then if the Sabbath has simply been moved, no new revelation can surely be expected to then cancel it later. And this seems to be his position:

'The day of the OT was the seventh day of the week,

and the day of the NT was the first day of the week.' (pg 173)

Essentially in this he agrees with John Paul II's papal letter stating that the Sabbath was transferred with enduring meaning and moral force.

No Agreement on True Sabbath

This explanation of the Sabbath in the NT is naive. The truth of the matter is more subtle than the author understands it to be, but it is no mystery. There is no direct evidence that Jesus commanded the Sabbath to be moved at all, at any specific time, for any reason. The author admits that,

'Jesus himself lived and died under the Judaic Covenant.' (pg 115)

In fact, the central church in Jerusalem (and Paul too!) continued to observe the Sabbath until they were banned from the synagogues. As a matter of fact, the Sabbath was not officially moved to Sunday by the church until the 4th century. This is well known both from Acts, and common history. Later references in Acts and Paul refer to the Gentile churches, not the Jerusalem congregation. All he has shown is why the moving of the Sabbath was so easily accepted by Christians later in history.

Agreed that they did not change it. In fact, Paul even in gentile lands kept it, even going to a place of prayer when there was no synagogue in town. By the 4th century I assume you are referring to the ecumenical council decision. I also noted that even by the 5th century the majority of Christians were still keeping the day, earlier in the thread.

A much simpler and more plausible explanation for meetings on the First of the Week is this. It is now known that Jews at the time of Christ were already divided into at least five major religious parties, which were already quarreling fiercely over what calendar to use for worship. Those in control of the temple used a lunar calendar. Protesters used a solar calendar, celebrating holidays at different times, yet continuing to worship at the temple also, like Jesus and His followers. It is likely that a large number of Christians came from these marginalized Jewish groups.

That is true, and some see this as responsible for the apparent questions about what day Jesus celebrated the passover, (it seems that Jesus ate it before the priests from the John account).

However, I am not sure that would account for the difference here. The issue was more over feasts.

Original Sabbath Unknown

Simplistic solutions to the Sabbath just don't address reality. The Middle East has been under many different calendars, disrupted by numerous empires. No one knows nor can demonstrate on which day the original Sabbath took place. Even the Bible can't tell us, nor can the Jews.

Our modern calendar appears to be inaccurate by several years! But even if we could establish when the Sabbath was kept in Jesus' day, it would be meaningless. The Babylonian lunar calendar brought back by the Jews of the Second Temple has no relation at all to the solar calendar of Moses. The author and his opponents are arguing about nothing.

We have no comment from Jesus, but this silence cannot be interpreted as approval of any calendar given the raging controversy in His times. The apparent approval of a rival calendar by Christians does nothing for the author's argument: If the temple calendar was wrong, then the Sabbath wasn't moved at all, but restored back, and Christians were simply keeping the Sabbath. The situation is even worse for the Adventists, since they would then be reverting to a false Sabbath. But it is likely that the exact Sabbath day was not an issue for Jesus in the light of more serious breaches of law. He merely followed cultural norms to avoid creating a new and totally needless controversy over the day.

Here I predictably disagree

A. Jesus never mentioned any confusion over the day

B. These numerous calendars would not disrupt the weekly cycle, as Old Sage has pointed out.

C. If I understood you correctly you are positing that Sunday could have been regarded by the Christians as the true date of the Sabbath (or perhaps that was the view of the author). But this goes against the fact that many Christians were keeping both in later times, and clearly they saw the resurrection as the basis for Sunday observance, not the true Sabbath.

Moreover, if anything Jesus was a day ahead, keeping the passover on Thursday, while the priests did on Friday.

D. It might in fact be true that we cannot go back and discover the original Sabbath at creation, since no records exist to substantiate that. However, we can go by Jesus' own practice. Even if you assume it is flexible, why would we go against the best evidence for what day Jesus himself kept? The eventual reasons for change in the Christian church were certainly not for a corrective to the calendar.

Time Zone Problem Unresolved

Jews and Gentiles no longer live in a narrow geographical region of one time zone. Do we clock the Sabbath by Jerusalem time, or by the wording of the command? (dusk to dusk). Do we use Greenwich Mean Time or invent a new system? The world is no longer flat! Finally, we now know that for large areas of the earth near the poles, days and nights are six months long! Year-long Sabbaths are hardly feasable for people living in these regions. Consequently, the commandment has to be modified or interpreted somehow.

Now this is quite true. And it does cause debate, albeit for a rather small percentage of the population.

Firstly, for Israelites, the Sabbath is a sign of their own identity. Thus it can be and should be kept, wherever Israelites may find themselves. Locally, Israelites ought to keep sabbath on the same day, to encourage community, minimize inconvenience, and clearly mark it. This requires communicaton and agreement to establish local convention. Similarly, it must not be kept too strictly, because this would transform it from a day of rest and celebration into a burden. Yet, not so leniently that it is indistinguishable from other days.

I would agree with that.

For Christians, the same concerns apply. The added purpose of celebrating the resurrection may seem to make establishing a basic date for the Middle East both important and plausible. But consider the following: In 1582 Gregory XIII found a miscalculation and decreed to drop October 5th to the 14th and to drop three leap years in every century. In England 11 days (Sept. 3rd - 13th) were dropped in 1752, in addition to other changes. It is unknown by us whether records are even complete enough to count backwards with corrections and establish even the Roman days of the week, and perhaps from there determine Jewish reckonings for the time of Christ. One thing is clear: currently equally qualified and intelligent scholars of every denomination cannot agree upon exact dates, even as to the year, let alone the exact day, of events in the time of Jesus. No one even claims it is humanly possible to reach back to the time of Moses.

Again, calendar issues, in regard to seasons, years, etc. are one thing, but the weekly cycle of Sabbath keeping would not be bothered by this. Now pre-Moses I agree, we would have a hard time establishing it historically. But since God told them when that first Sabbath observance would be, I can be sure He at least did not forget!

Considering the added issue of emergency and other essential services, such as policing, firefighting, ambulance and medical, as well as global commerce, for now it seems reasonable to continue to use established (relaxed) conventions for Sabbath or Sunday worship. We would do so in order to minimize the burden a weekly Holy Day imposes upon the poor and sick. Furthermore, allowing reasonable exceptions for those forced to do shiftwork or provide essential services, we believe is in the Spirit of Christ.

I probably would not go that far, nor would I see any reason to extend it to Sunday. If anything I would say those who want to honor the resurrection should keep both days.

Thanks for this exposition of your views! It was good to take a look at it. We agree on a great number of issues. I would like to get Old Sage into this and clarify a few more things, but overall the picture is pretty clear!

Nazaroo · Dec 9, 2005

I agree with the general thrust here, but the dietary element in Acts 10 was not actually about food at all, but rather an indication to not call any man unclean.

...and we are not in disagreement here either.
I also believe the vision of Peter is about people, not food (as explained in Acts).

... I still am unclear on your view of a ONE TIME amnesty of forgiveness. I agree that you are not once saved always saved. But define the one time aspect.

This appears to be the only thing in which we may have a serious disagreement or potential misunderstanding. Now if you like, I would invite you to catch up on and join in on the discussion in my other thread on this issue.

The only other issue I can think of that we might discuss fruitfully together here is the Sabbath Covenant. (Which I would be delighted to do!).

tall73 · Dec 9, 2005

Nazaroo said:
...and we are not in disagreement here either.
I also believe the vision of Peter is about people, not food (as explained in Acts).

This appears to be the only thing in which we may have a serious disagreement or potential misunderstanding. Now if you like, I would invite you to catch up on and join in on the discussion in my other thread on this issue.

The only other issue I can think of that we might discuss fruitfully together here is the Sabbath Covenant. (Which I would be delighted to do!).

Fair enough. I think I understand for the most part your take on the Sabbath covenant (assuming you mean in Ezekiel). The degree to which the absence of this covenant effects the gentiles would be interesting to know.

But the more important conversation at this point I think would be the calendar reckoning.

I will follow up on the soteriological discussion in the other thread.

Nazaroo · Dec 9, 2005

Here I predictably disagree

A. Jesus never mentioned any confusion over the day

B. These numerous calendars would not disrupt the weekly cycle, as Old Sage has pointed out.

C. If I understood you correctly you are positing that Sunday could have been regarded by the Christians as the true date of the Sabbath (or perhaps that was the view of the author). But this goes against the fact that many Christians were keeping both in later times, and clearly they saw the resurrection as the basis for Sunday observance, not the true Sabbath.

Moreover, if anything Jesus was a day ahead, keeping the passover on Thursday, while the priests did on Friday. (John ?)

D. It might in fact be true that we cannot go back and discover the original Sabbath at creation, since no records exist to substantiate that. However, we can go by Jesus' own practice. Even if you assume it is flexible, why would we go against the best evidence for what day Jesus himself kept? The eventual reasons for change in the Christian church were certainly not for a corrective to the calendar.

Excellent and exciting points!

A., B., true. As far as they go.
But A. would be disengenious if we did not also mention the historical fact that Jews were deeply divided over the authority of the priesthood, and the various calendar options. Jesus could not have been unaware of those burning controversies.

C. Yes, I am positing this. But since as you have admitted, it is an independant problem from festival appointments, the gospel of John has no direct bearing here, except to witness that indeed, there were differences of practice regarding the dates of festivals and days, which supports my position, rather than refuting it. Second, the practices of various sectarian subgroups within Palestinian Judaism has no direct relation to the practices, and the reasons (rationalizations?) for them adopted by Gentile Christian converts or diaspora/apostate Jews who received the gospel. Again, what can be established is multiple practices and a variety of views, not any singular simple solution to the problem of a complex conglomerate of practices that changed over a 500 year period.

So I would say that this is a gray area in which opinions can differ, but which doesn't affect fundamentals like the universality of the Sabbath or the perpetuality of the Sabbath Covenant with Israel.

So again, if we differ on some historical ambiguities or complications,
the fundamentals are still rather solid and easy to agree upon.

For convenience, the Soteriological thread is here:

Paul: "Lest I be reprobated."

Montalban · Dec 9, 2005

moicherie said:
LOL Is this the real issue you don't like women and why state the facts when you can twists things instead......

How'd you know?

But seriously, I don't believe in man-made religion. I believe in God-made religion. You want to believe E White who came along 1,800 years after the events, so be it.

tall73 · Dec 9, 2005

Nazaroo said:
Excellent and exciting points!

A., B., true. As far as they go.
But A. would be disengenious if we did not also mention the historical fact that Jews were deeply divided over the authority of the priesthood, and the various calendar options. Jesus could not have been unaware of those burning controversies.

C. Yes, I am positing this. But since as you have admitted, it is an independant problem from festival appointments, the gospel of John has no direct bearing here, except to witness that indeed, there were differences of practice regarding the dates of festivals and days, which supports my position, rather than refuting it. Second, the practices of various sectarian subgroups within Palestinian Judaism has no direct relation to the practices, and the reasons (rationalizations?) for them adopted by Gentile Christian converts or diaspora/apostate Jews who received the gospel. Again, what can be established is multiple practices and a variety of views, not any singular simple solution to the problem of a complex conglomerate of practices that changed over a 500 year period.

So I would say that this is a gray area in which opinions can differ, but which doesn't affect fundamentals like the universality of the Sabbath or the perpetuality of the Sabbath Covenant with Israel.

So again, if we differ on some historical ambiguities or complications,
the fundamentals are still rather solid and easy to agree upon.

For convenience, the Soteriological thread is here:

Paul: "Lest I be reprobated."

Thanks for the clarifications. Now a few more thoughts.

A. I have seen evidence of the questions regarding feasts. Do you have historical evidence of questions about the timing of the Sabbath? That would be interesting.

B. The discussion of the Christians does have a bearing, because they formulated those views (I agree, rationalizations), in opposition to the currently practicing Jews (dialogue with Trypho, etc.). So it is a witness to the Jewish understanding of the Sabbath at the time.

And while they certainly did have a variety of opinions (as my earlier posts documented), they nevertheless seem to have had a universal understanding of what days were what. They simply disagreed on their significance.

Thanks for the link to the other converstion

tall73 · Dec 9, 2005

Montalban said:
How'd you know?

But seriously, I don't believe in man-made religion. I believe in God-made religion. You want to believe E White who came along 1,800 years after the events, so be it.

Montalban,

Please define how EGW founded our religion?

She was never ordained as a minister (though she did for a time have a ministerial liscense)

She never held the top spot of GC president (though her husband did many times).

She never formulated ANY of the doctrines of the church. In fact, as much as people in this thread think that SDA's have all of these false teachings we actually only contributed one unique doctrinal understanding, and that was formulated by Hiram Edson.

EGW was slow to adopt dietary laws, rejected the Sabbath the first time, and was the last to recognize that it went from sundown to sundown. In general her role was to encourage, and at times rebuke by the Spirit.

Moreover, the Adventists are one of many organizations that keep the Sabbath. Here is a place that catalogues them:

http://www.biblesabbath.org/

There are over 400 organizations and over 1600 congregations in addition to that. So making this an SDA debate is quite pointless.

Now of course you would still have a problem with that, being man-made. But since the Sabbath was GOD made from creation, and your own church kept it until the 5th century, I feel confident in accepting it.

Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath? (2)

True Brit

Well-Known Member

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Sophia7's husband

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Well-Known Member

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency