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

[Montalban]

Thanks! Okay I'm still a bit behind you fellows:

So, each 'church' has one bishop (=apostle) so is that 13 bishops and 13 churches, (12 tribes and one grafted Gentile church?)

There is no limit to the number of bishops; the fact that the Apostles (in the Bible) were able to declare or raise a member to the same chosen status that Jesus had made for them is significant. Also is the power Jesus gave them to go out and do things in His name; but all bishops today are descendant (through the office - not by blood) of those 12... through Apostolic Succession. The 'precedent' of appointment is in the Bible. The establishment of churches also was undertaken by the Apostles.

James headed the first church in Jerusalem

(2) What exactly does/can a bishop do that a priest can't and perhaps vise versa.

This is probably a question best asked of over on the Orthodox fora, as it's going to entail a bit of a response

(3) If the other functions besides 'sacrifice' are continued, (other than say Israelite Covenant matters, to be managed by Levites/Aaronites) who witnesses a Nazarite vow and takes an offering? The priest or the bishop in your (respective) systems?

I don't understand this question - excepting insofar as a priest can act in the Eucharist. It too seems to be heading off into other fora territory.

(4) I am glad you don't deliberately put yeast in your bread. Now what does alcoholic beverages have to do with the passover? What was wrong with the original grape juice?

Wine was used. Wine is grape juice fermented.

 

[Nazaroo]

Wine was used.

The mythology of Roman winemakers.

Wine is grape juice fermented.

The modern misunderstanding of 'oinos'.

 

[Cliff2]

Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath?

Lets get this back on track a bit.

The answer to the question is the 7th day.

Now until someone comes up with a Biblical answer to say that is wrong and is now the 1st day of the week then I would imagine the case for any other day apart from the 7th day is over.

There is over 1200 post on this subject and not one can say with any certainty that the 7th day is no longer the Sabbath.

No one can produce a Bible text to say that it has been changed.

 

[BigDave]

There is over 1200 post on this subject and not one can say with any certainty that the 7th day is no longer the Sabbath.

At the same time no one can say with certainty that the 7th day (as counted from Creation and/or the inception of the Sabbath law) is still on Saturday.

 

[tall73]

So I am just BigDave and you are VeryBigDave



Doesn't that just drive you nuts? I just tell them, "No I don't play basketball. I prefer theological disucussions."



Some assertions here that I haven't yet seen supported (maybe you have before I joined).
1) The Sabbath observance was a proscribed law before the Mosaic
2) The Sabbath observance was a practice at all before the Mosaic law

Human observance was not the issue. The original meaning was that God was creator. This was not changed by the sacrifices.

3) Since the law is written on men's hearts (Rom 2), it could be said that Cain knew murder was wrong without the need for a revealed law. The fact, that the penalty for murder is given *after* the fact of murder seems to imply that there was no revealed law before that (since the penalty and the law generally coincide). So it seems to be an unsupported assertion to say that a particular set of laws was revealed to Adam.

GE 4:9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

GE 4:10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."

GE 4:13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

GE 4:15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

A. If God did not give them a law, or if they were not aware of it, then how can He hold him guilty and punish him?

B. Cain's evasive answer in regard to the killing shows that he is aware that he has done wrong

C. God says that Cain will be cursed. He does not say that he would be killed, yet Cain seems to recognize this.

 

[tall73]

I am still confused though. I followed up to the point about Hebrews (although I didn't agree, but more on the elsewhere), but got lost in the next part:

First of all, the expanded part seemed to be counterlogical and not evident in line with the context. Secondly, I am still mystified as to how the concept of fasting, etc. is being inserted here. At this point it just seems like a string of assumptions being used to prove a point.

I am not sure who you are asking on fasting, but I think they saw fasting in Romans, not here.

 

[SpeakNow]

At the same time no one can say with certainty that the 7th day (as counted from Creation and/or the inception of the Sabbath law) is still on Saturday.

Actually it can be proven that the Sabbath that Jesus kept is the same day we call "Saturday".

Plus you need to consider that if the day we call Saturday is no longer the 7th day, then the day we call Sunday is no longer the first day either.

 

[tall73]

BigDave ,



re: "Instead of worshiping once a week, the moral requirement is that we worship constantly."

I don’t see where the Sabbath commandment says anything about worship. All it mentions is a cessation of work. Also, why do you suppose animals are not to work on the Sabbath?

LEV 23:3 " `There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a Sabbath to the LORD.


ISA 58:13 "If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
and from doing as you please on my holy day,
if you call the Sabbath a delight
and the LORD's holy day honorable,
and if you honor it by not going your own way
and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,

ISA 58:14 then you will find your joy in the LORD,
and I will cause you to ride on the heights of the land
and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob."
The mouth of the LORD has spoken.e

the day was for sacred assembly and was to be considered a delight, holy, etc. It was not just for resting.

As for animals, because

a. God knows even animals need a day off. In Jonah God not only mentioned the people but the cattle that would have been destroyed.

b. It reminded others to rest. If you are working an animal, you are likely working yourself

Slaves were also free on the Sabbath so that they could worship God.

 

[tall73]

You said Paul never visited the Temple. I cited Acts showing he had. Simple; biblical proof.

Montalban, if you refuse to read the words on the page I can't help that. But I won't allow you to lie.

Here is what I said in post 83. It has not been edited, it lacks the time stamp that edited posts have.

The synagogue was analagous to today's church, and yes Paul attended. The temple was where the sacrifices was done, and while he did in fact go to make a nazarite vow, which involved offerings, it was done as a concession to James and the Judaizers. Hebrews makes it quite clear that not only was the priesthood supplanted by Jesus' priesthood, but that the whole thing was unable to take away sins to start with. It was simply a symbol.

It was after that, in post 86 that you posted the text from Acts, and pretended not to see what I put. Now perhaps you looked past it then, but I have twice now asked you to look at post 83 and you are still lying about what is there.

 

[tall73]

Your whole argument's falling apart because Paul went to the Temple, and the priesthood continued.

A. See above for your continued lies on what I said.

B. The priests continued in the temple, but Hebrews makes clear that the sacrifices did no good, nor did they ever. If you think that your priests are a continuation of the ot ones then they should be killing doves and having nazarite voews.

Even your mantra of Hebrews doesn't wash. IF Jesus replaced 'the High Priest' that still leaves the other offices of priest; which the New Testament quite clearly state. And in fact the idea that Jesus as "High Priest" would therefore not negate the priesthood of man; which Jesus Himself also instigated - it makes sense - because the NT mentions all three grades of clergy; bishops, priests, deacons. Of course, you believe that this is 'making the Bible lie'

It mentions elders and deacons. And then it mentiones OT priests descended from Aaron. Your priests don't qualify. Nor does it ever say that the bishop has to be a go between for you and Jesus but that we can come boldly to the throne of grace.

Moreover, I already posted where Peter said that all are a royal priesthood. So you don't need bishops to be your priest.

Your still in a selective rut. You believe that the 'sacrifice' of the Eucharist should be but once but

Wrong. I believe the eucharist is not a sacrifice, because it says Jesus was sacrificed once for all time, not constantly on your altar.

So sure, you want to apply one rule 'the Sabbath' selectively, that's entirely up to you. I wish you all the best. However if you enter a thread and proclaim something, then it can be examined in the light of reason and evidence.

And apparently with closing your eyes over what one says and pretending they never said it.

 

[tall73]

I didn't mention fasting in my statement unless you are talking about my reference of asceticists in the passage. If so, the surrounding context shows that to be so...you will have to be more specific in your response for me to answer properly, because your response is too general for me to comment on. Because I don't know what you are addressing that is conterlogical and what you think are the assumptions, remember my post really was for Tall73 and he understands the back drop of what I was saying, some may not understand where I am coming from, if not, I can expound where necessary.

Chris

Actually yes, in regards to the aesceticism that was clear. It was based on philosophy, etc. and they were apparently trying to impose it on the people.

The question remains whether the Sabbath was part of the aesceticism, or whether they were adding the practices to the practice of these other. The later description of aesceticism (abasement of self, worshipping angels, etc.) is clear, as are the earlier references to natural elements etc.

Incidentally, thanks for pointing out the order there OldSage. It is good to know when I miss something in the text!

 

[tall73]

I believe Tall73 will agree with you on the alcohol part. Same here. Now, if I am not mistaken, the EOC also uses leaven bread in their services. Which last I check is against how the feast ran.

Chris

At the passover no. The only place where leaven was permitted was in the dedicated harvest items. It is specifically mentioned in regards to food items, and then it again mentions it is not to be used with other offerings. Strong drink is mentioned in relation to these harvest tithes as well.

But the levean was removed from all the house at passover, so that would be clear enough.

 

[tall73]

Okay, as a street urchin, I have probably missed out on a lot of the subtleties of your dispute with Tall73...

(1) But can you please explain how THREE terms in the NT correspond to TWO terms in the OT Covenant?

More bluntly, what the * is a bishop? What is he supposed to do?

Is he A Levite, a Priest, or a 'place-holder' High Priest, or what?


(2) Obviously you both agree some services have been cancelled, (since the 2nd temple was dismembered!) which services exactly are under dispute? Who gets to perform them and how? As a Nazarite I am greatly interested in this...

(3) How can either of you support the idea that Jesus used an alcoholic beverage for the Passover? Are you all mad?

He seems to think that the priests of the eo are an extension of the temple priests, though of course they are not descended from Levi, etc.

He also states that the eucharist is a sacrifice, which is why they are priests. The subtle message here, since he quoted Ignatius who believes that only priests can do the eucharist, is that we need these priests to interceed for us with sacrifices. Which of course goes against Hebrews. We can come boldy to the throne of grace before our High Priest Jesus. And the sacrifice was done once for all time.

 

[tall73]

Well according to Tall73 he's not a high priest, because Jesus is, but because he is there, he must be, ispo facto, another position between that 'new' High Priest Jesus, and the rank and file believer; because clearly the NT and early writings says he's there and to be obeyed
The three in fact in one sense reflect the Holy number '3' - the Trinity etc - though they are not equal, but together make up the clergy.

I have only quoted Hebrews for you 4 times now to the effect that Jesus is our High Priest. I even put it in 7 point type for you. But when I asked you directly you still won't say that it is the case. Moreover, you now say according to me. Once again, you are hiding your head in the sand.

And an overseer is not a priest. He is not a go between to mediate between you and God. I also quoted Paul, that Jesus is our only mediator.

Each 'catholic' church is headed by a bishop who has succeeded from the Apostles the full teaching of Jesus Christ and the right to bind and loose as given to those Apostles.

Except that you have not demonstrated the apostolic succession gave the same rights. The only succession to the office of apostle was that of Judas, and it was because the Scriptures said that someone must fill his station. We don't see any replacement for James at his death. In fact, the requirement was that they had been with Jesus. It is not a continuing office. That is why they appointed overseers, not apostles.

Given that Jesus commaned we do this in memory of Him, and Paul says the same thing, and that we do this frequesntly, and Ignatius mentions it as the Eucharist, it's just that; the Eucharist.

Indeed, it is remembering the Lord's death, not sacrificing Him over and over.

Jesus used wine which became His blood, it ceased to be wine.
It is why (in the passages I cited earlier) when the Jews said 'are you really saying this body and blood is real food and drink' Jesus says 'yes, it's really food and drink'

Which is why He said I will not drink of the fruit of the vine again until heaven? He seems to still call it the fruit of the vine , and says it is a rememberance, not a sacrifice.

 

[tall73]

We have not altered* the bread

( * no pun intended)

The bread was at a passover service. There was not leaven used during the Passover service. You have altered the bread.

Of course this has been a discussion between east and west for some time.

 

[tall73]

At the same time no one can say with certainty that the 7th day (as counted from Creation and/or the inception of the Sabbath law) is still on Saturday.

Nazaroo rightly raises some modern issues of arctic circle problems, etc. But in general we agree that it was accurate back to at least the time of Jesus. Since Jesus kept it, and restored its meaning from tradition we assume He would also be able to correct any time issues.

 

[tall73]

It also would help if you address my other post; re 'the priesthood' where you were also wrong about there being no mention.

I said there was mention of the OT priests, there would have to be for Hebrews to speak of the sacrifices still going on that had no meaning.

Also for Paul to have a nazarite vow, as I think you have already acknowledged your priests don't kill doves etc.

But there is no mention of the office of priest as you define it, someone who is a mediator for you by offering Jesus again and again as a sacrifice. And I have in fact answered that multiple times and as usual you ignore it.

 

[BigDave]

Nazaroo rightly raises some modern issues of arctic circle problems, etc. But in general we agree that it was accurate back to at least the time of Jesus.

Understood. Just making clear that what was presented was an argument from silence.

Since Jesus kept it, and restored its meaning from tradition we assume He would also be able to correct any time issues.

That is, of course, assuming the issue of timing of the Sabbath was even an issue of significance.

But yes, I agree that if one holds to the importance of weekly Sabbath keeping, then this is a sufficient argument for its current placement on Saturday.

 

[oldsage]

Actually yes, in regards to the aesceticism that was clear. It was based on philosophy, etc. and they were apparently trying to impose it on the people.

The question remains whether the Sabbath was part of the aesceticism, or whether they were adding the practices to the practice of these other. The later description of aesceticism (abasement of self, worshipping angels, etc.) is clear, as are the earlier references to natural elements etc.

Incidentally, thanks for pointing out the order there OldSage. It is good to know when I miss something in the text!

We are all going to miss things, there is alot of text out there to read, I am always refining things, most are small things, but in time things start to harmonize better. I still have my questions in a few areas but I am working through them

I believe the Feast, New moons and the Sabbath were being kept and the heretics came in and tried to alter them after Epaphras taught them.

In vs 16 it is saying to the Colossians not to let the heretic judge them in the act of eating or drinking, or in regard (or in the matter) of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath. The way it is worded indicates they were already being practiced but Paul warns them not to let the heretics tell them how or what to do on those days. Because if they weren't keeping those days and the heretics came and told them they should then Paul would simply says for them not to keep those days, which is not even mentioned in the text.

But as I was saying in regard to the Sabbath in this text, it never says it is done away with, never says it is abolished, never says you don't have to keep it. All it is saying is not letting the heretics judge you in your practices. I know some people who read this verse like to take it out of its historic context and try to apply it to them.. For instance, a non sabbatarian will read this and say, "Paul it telling you (sabbatarians) not to judge me if I keep or don't keep the Sabbath." But that isn't the context in what Paul is saying. Paul isn't addressing the issue of whether you keep or not to keep the Sabbath but in how it is being kept.

wow, another morning of rambling...I need to cut that out
Chris

 

[BigDave]

Actually it can be proven that the Sabbath that Jesus kept is the same day we call "Saturday".

Plus you need to consider that if the day we call Saturday is no longer the 7th day, then the day we call Sunday is no longer the first day either.

Plus you need to consider that if the day we call Saturday is no longer the 7th day, then the day we call Sunday is no longer the first day either.

Luckily I am not arguing for keeping the Sabbath on Sunday either