Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath?

Normann said:

Where in the N.T. did they keep Saturday?

The word Saturday is not in the Bible at all!

Normann

Click to expand...

You must not have read the thread, there were several examples of sabbath keeping in the scriptures and that name "Saturday" has nothing to do with the sabbath except that it happens to be the day of the week that God's sabbath falls on in our calendar.

But you really should read the thread before making comments on subjects already answered.

Chris

Cliff2 said:

We await with much patience for someone to come up with it.

Click to expand...

I'd say it's more like pretending you didn't see it Or ignore it when it is given.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=20215078&postcount=620


Here it is again.

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:

Cliff2 said:

You are Biblically correct in saying that "Sarurday is the Sabbath"

Now can you show me from the Bible that "Sunday is the Lortds Day"

Once you do this then this thread can be shut down.

Click to expand...

The Church came together for the Eucharistic Celebration on the first day of the week from very early on, well before the Canon New Testament was determined by the Church. That fact is mentioned in Acts 20:7. But please, don't shut the thread down. This is an excellent opportunity to expose the error of those who didn't realize the day of worship was changed or why.

Click to expand...

Yours in Christ

TrustAndObey said:

Why believe anything about how to obey our Father if you can't find it in His Word?

Click to expand...

John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:15)

TrustAndObey said:

A person can be absolutely sincere and still be absolutely wrong.

Click to expand...

Indeed, which is why I follow the infallible church.

TrustAndObey said:

That's why we're told to study and show ourselves approved. Many things we are "taught" did not come from the Word of God. Sincere men can be sincerely wrong.

Click to expand...

So, you're saying that we should recognise we can be wrong, and if we fallible people study, we become infallible?

Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching.

He also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

He says that is authority to teach comes from the lord (1 Thess. 4:2), not the Bible.

Normann said:

Anything to draw people away from the Blood of Jesus. The Sabbath is the next day after you work six days. Twice a year the Jews changed the Sabbath to the following day.

Click to expand...

Normann, who is drawing anyone away from Jesus? Are you saying we as a church should not come and reason together? and as for the changing of the sabbath twice a year where in the bible or history do you find this?

Normann said:

The calendar we use was not designed until the middle 1500's at that time we lost 10 days, off-setting the 7 day week. That if we wanted to start a new false religion would make the Sabbath on Fridays.

Click to expand...

The sabbath has nothing to do with the calendar, as shown in previous post in this thread, also the 7 day cycle never was broke, Wed. was followed by Thrus, which was followed by Fri. only the count on the days changed, not the days of the week nor the months.

Chris

Normann said:

Seems these 7th day people know a lot about the calendar and nothing at all about the Bible. I have ask several times to show me the scripture that says Saturday is the Sabbath, or even where the word Saturday is in the Bible or even where it says that Saturday is the seventh day!

Now I certainly don't want to be unkind but I am one of those KJV people who go by scripture only and nothing else.

Click to expand...

What is a "one of those KJV people" That is a curious title. and if you go by scripture alone, then you go against protestantism and fall outside of orthodoxy. Which means the word Saturday doesn't even exist in your world because the word isn't in the bible. Does you name exist? it is in the bible? If not you need to pick another name, do you exist? how can you tell, if you don't deal in history and only the bible then you don't really exist, because I can only prove that by seeing you, but am I really seeing you? because you are not mentioned in the bible. Norman, you should also go by the Jewish Calendar, which is founded in the bible, and not the Gregorian one, because the bible never uses the Gregorian Calendar.

does all this sound silly, of course it does, as does your statments.

If you follow the bible only, do you follow the Ten Commandments of God? or do you spiritualize them away? Do you listen to God the way He says to do things? or turn things to suit you? We have an unbroken cycle of keeping the sabbath for the last 4,000 years from BEFORE the giving of the law in Ex 20 all the way to today.

to you want to walk as Jesus walked? then do the things He did.

Remember the Sabbath day to KEEP it holy.

For more infomation on Sabbath see you favorite dictionary and encyclopedia for more information or visit a catholic website, they are quite good with history there.

Chris

If you want me to go in the right direction (as per your teaching) then give me a chapter and verse.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann[/QUOTE]

IgnatiusOfAntioch said:

The Church came together for the Eucharistic Celebration on the first day of the week from very early on, well before the Canon New Testament was determined by the Church. That fact is mentioned in Acts 20:7. But please, don't shut the thread down. This is an excellent opportunity to expose the error of those who didn't realize the day of worship was changed or why.

Click to expand...

If we changed God's holy day every time the church came together for something then this would really be a good argument.

However....Acts 2:46 tells us they met to break bread every day. Sunday was nothing special.

In Acts 17 we see that Paul is still keeping the Sabbath. So you're saying he changed it after that and it wasn't nailed to the cross?

Montalban said:

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:15)

Click to expand...

You're overlooking the obvious here.....delivered and taught are past tense.

Montalban said:

Indeed, which is why I follow the infallible church.

So, you're saying that we should recognise we can be wrong, and if we fallible people study, we become infallible?

Click to expand...

how do fallible people choose which church is infallible? How do you verify if the church is infallible? do we do it by circular reasoning?

Chris

oldsage said:

how do fallible people choose which church is infallible? How do you verify if the church is infallible? do we do it by circular reasoning?

Chris

Click to expand...

No, we follow Jesus Christ who said His church would not fail.

debiwebi said:

Bright Candle you come into this thread 62 pages into and then say to me that it is my length of posts that are confusing the issue when indeed it is not because it is indeed that we have been posting this way to each other all throughout the thread .....

Assuming things ... well you know what they say ...

And I notice that palehorse did not answer that last post ..... it had nothing to do with the length of my post I assure you.... as palehorse's posts have been as long if not longer at times to me ....It was exactly what I said .... so I called it rightly

Click to expand...

I don't answer posts where the information has been covered over and over and over and over again.

debiwebi said:

Quit please using Hebrews with me when in fact you do not even know the real reason that the letter to the Hebrews was written as it was a REBUKE of them and to them that Held the letter of the Law .... not the other way around .... So therefore when you read Hebrews in it's full context you find that it is to the Isrealites alone and not to the Gentiles of the time .... It was rebuking them for still holding to the traditions of old and not accepting the New Covenant .... Therefore your exegesis is incorrect.....

II. DOCTRINAL CONTENTS



The central thought of the entire Epistle is the doctrine of the Person of Christ and His Divine mediatorial office. In regard to the Person of the Saviour the author expresses himself as clearly concerning the true Divine nature of Christ as concerning Christ's human nature, and his Christology has been justly called Johannine. Christ, raised above Moses, above the angels, and above all created beings, is the brightness of the glory of the Father, the express image of His Divine nature, the eternal and unchangeable, true Son of God, Who upholdeth all things by the word of His power (i, 1-4). He desired, however, to take on a human nature and to become in all things like unto us human beings, sin alone excepted, in order to pay man's debt of sin by His passion and death (ii, 9-18; iv, 15, etc.). By suffering death He gained for Himself the eternal glory which He now also enjoys in His most holy humanity on His throne at the right hand of the Father (i, 3; ii, 9; viii, 1; xii, 2, etc.). There He now exercises forever His priestly office of mediator as our Advocate with the Father (vii, 24 sq.).

This doctrine of the priestly office of Christ forms the chief subject-matter of the Christological argument and the highest proof of the pre-eminence of the New Covenant over the Old. The person of the High-priest after the order of Melchisedech, His sacrifice, and its effects are opposed, in an exhaustive comparison, to the Old Testament institutions. The Epistle lays special emphasis on the spiritual power and effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice, which have brought to Israel, as to all mankind, atonement and salvation that are complete and sufficient for all time, and which have given to us a share in the eternal inheritance of the Messianic promises (i, 3; ix, 9-15, etc.). In the admonitory conclusions from these doctrines at the end we find a clear reference to the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Christian altar, of which those are not permitted to partake who still wish to serve the Tabernacle and to follow the Mosaic Law (xiii, 9 sq.). In the Christological expositions of the letter other doctrines are treated more or less fully. Special emphasis is laid on the setting aside of the Old Covenant, its incompleteness and weakness, its typical and preparatory relation to the time of the Messianic salvation that is realized in the New Covenant (vii, 18 sq.; viii, 15; x, 1, etc.). In the same manner the letter refers at times to the four last things, the resurrection, the judgment, eternal punishment, and heavenly bliss (vi, 2, 7 sq.; ix, 27, etc.). If we compare the doctrinal content of this letter with that of the other epistles of St. Paul, a difference in the manner of treatment, it is true, is noticeable in some respects. At the same time, there appears a marked agreement in the views, even in regard to characteristic points of Pauline doctrine (cf. J. Belser, "Einleitung" 2nd ed., 571-73). The explanation of the differences lies in the special character of the letter and in the circumstances of its composition.

V. READERS TO WHOM IT WAS ADDRESSED



According to the superscription, the letter is addressed to "Hebrews". The contents of the letter define more exactly this general designation. Not all Israelites are meant, but only those who have accepted the faith in Christ. Furthermore, the letter could hardly have been addressed to all Jewish Christians in general. It presupposes a particular community, with which both the writer of the letter and his companion Timothy have had close relations (xiii, 18-24), which has preserved its faith in severe persecutions, and has distinguished itself by works of charity (x, 32-35), which is situated in a definite locality, whither the author hopes soon to come (xiii, 19, 23).

VIII. IMPORTANCE

The chief importance of the Epistle is in its content of theological teaching. It is, in complete agreement with the other letters of St. Paul, a glorious testimony to the faith of the Apostolic time; above all it testifies to the true Divinity of Jesus Christ, to His heavenly priesthood, and the atoning power of His death.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htmhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm

Click to expand...

All of this information is inherently flawed because they overlook the actual definition of the word sabbatismos. Also, the fact that you had to go to a site to so that someone else could explain your beliefs for you is very telling.

I think we're done.

Bless you,

Normann said:

Seems these 7th day people know a lot about the calendar and nothing at all about the Bible. I have ask several times to show me the scripture that says Saturday is the Sabbath, or even where the word Saturday is in the Bible or even where it says that Saturday is the seventh day!

Now I certainly don't want to be unkind but I am one of those KJV people who go by scripture only and nothing else.

If you want me to go in the right direction (as per your teaching) then give me a chapter and verse.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

Click to expand...

Normann,
How much scripture has been posted that directly supports seventh-day Sabbath keeping? Now compare that to the verses that support Sunday obervance. And you want to claim that we don't know the Bible? Oh goodness. I'm also a KJV person and using it and nothing more I found it quite apparent that the Sabbath never changed - so what is your excuse?
I guess I gave you more credit than you deserved. I'm sure you are an intelligent guy, please give me a better argument that this.

- Pale

PaleHorse said:

All of this information is inherently flawed because they overlook the actual definition of the word sabbatismos. Also, the fact that you had to go to a site to so that someone else could explain your beliefs for you is very telling.

I think we're done.

Bless you,

Click to expand...

The fact that I used an encyclopedia is telling .... OH COME ON! That has to be the poorest excuse I have heard for not looking into information that I have heard in my life!

Show me where in the Bible it says that I cannot look at an encyclopedia.......

And I did explain myself in the beginning of my post, and then used the encyclopedia to back up my exegesis.... Do you know what the word exegesis means? Do you know what showing empirical and objective proof means? And did you know that in the rules I am allowed to use bodies of work from the Church to back up my exegesis and argument?

It seems that you do apologetic work without even knowing what apologetics is even about either.... Have you looked up Christian apologetics .... It would be nice if the people that come here and make themselves out as though they know so much as to insult those of us that are actually doing these things correctly would at least know what they mean .....

PaleHorse said:

I don't answer posts where the information has been covered over and over and over and over again.

Click to expand...

Neither do I anymore because it seems to me that you are going round in a circular argument.....

Here is how it is going

Me

Argument

You

No it is the Sabbath and it is Saturday

Me to the new argument and whatever new Scripture you post I rebutt and then I disprove

You again No it is Saturday

Me show in the Bible where it is Saturday

You show me where it is sunday

Me so I procede to give you Biblical support and the support of 2 thousand years of History

you no it is Saurday

Me show me where in the Bible it is Saturday


ect......

round and round we go and it is not me that is not rebutting it is you that is not because the only thing you know how to do is use a set of perscribed scriptures and keep saying it is Saturday and this does not make it so I am sorry ....just because you can take scripture out of context which I have on almost every occasion shown it has been and keep quoting levitical law at me does not make it applicable to me or any other Christian .....

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Col 2:23 Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh.
Col 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
Col 3:2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
Col 3:3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Mat 11:28 Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
Heb 4:11 Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Joh 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

THOSE BORN OF GOD ?ARE NOT BOUND BY ANY DAY!


1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:

Montalban said:

No, we follow Jesus Christ who said His church would not fail.

Click to expand...

what is His Church? how do you know?

oldsage said:

what is His Church?

Click to expand...

The Orthodox Church

oldsage said:

how do you know?

Click to expand...

Jesus appointed 12 Disciples. Although 1 failed, the others did not (and in fact they appointed another to take his place; as they'd be empowered to do so). They continued to do this in all bishoprics down to our own age.

Apostolic Succession is one of the ways; because there's an unbroken chain through my bishop back to the Apostles.

In other words, Jesus founded the church; AND this is the church that gave you and I the Bible.

The following seems to be the textual support for the keeping of Sunday from the Catholic perspective. I will address each text. And please note that giving a rebuttal does not mean it is ignored. In fact it means that the time was taken to consider the arguments.

debiwebi said:

Go back a few pages and look at the Scriptural support cliff I have posted it now several times ... please do not do that because it is NOT becoming of you at this point ....

Here I will repost it for you

Scripture
Isaiah 1:13 - God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

As was noted before the context is simply saying that the ceremonies mean nothing without their heart being in it. Since they were turning away from God, their worship was of little value.


ISA 1:13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations--
I cannot bear your evil assemblies.

ISA 1:14 Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts
my soul hates.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.

ISA 1:15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide my eyes from you;
even if you offer many prayers,
I will not listen.
Your hands are full of blood;

ISA 1:16 wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds
out of my sight!
Stop doing wrong,

Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus' resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.

Click to expand...

a. it happened on Sunday, and was in fact an important event.

b. It fulfilled the OT service of the wavesheaf, the first fruits, just as His death fulfilled the Passover, and the events in Acts 2 fulfilled the feast of pentecost. This service was to take place on the first day after the passover, after the Sabbath. Paul recognized this fulfillment of this service in I Corinthians 15, stating that Jesus was the firstfruits from among the dead. Indeed He was. Just as the firstfruits are offered to God of the harvest, Jesus was the first from among the dead which guarantees our resurrection. Notice, He was not first in order, others were raised before Him, including at least three people that He raised Himself. But He was first in preeminence, and His guarantees the rest.

Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the "first day of the week." Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.

Click to expand...

Nowhere in this text is it stated that this is in fact the new apostolic tradition. It says that they got together to break bread. Paul spoke at length because he was leaving the next day. If Luke had wanted to distinguish it from the Jewish form of worship he could certainly have been more clear.

1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches "on the first day of the week," which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.

Click to expand...

1CO 16:1 Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. 3 Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. 4 If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me.

Actually it says that each one should set aside a sum of money and save it up. The reference seems to be to budgeting on Sunday, not giving a gift at church. The point is what he had said all along, that the money should be there as a gift willingly given, and that they should plan ahead. He had already boasted about their generosity and prompted others to give. Now if they did not give they would be embarrassed and so would he.

Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says "let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath."

Click to expand...

The reference is to new moons and Sabbaths, of the feasts. These are in fact fulfilled in Christ. The weekly Sabbath preceded sin and needed no fulfillment. It is not pointing to the death of Christ, but the creation of the world. The feasts however, which had Sabbath rests as well, did point to Christ's sacrifice, and were fulfilled.

2 Thess. 2:15 - we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

Click to expand...

We are not to hold to apostolic tradition over the written teachings of the apostles themselves. Just as they said to hold on to tradition they also said to test the spirits, and that savage wolves would come in devouring the flock.

Moreover the writings which you speak of were around during the time of the canonizing of the Scriptures, but they were not canonized. The canon had those works which from their beginning were recognized to be inspired, and to be from those who were closest to Christ. So to put the tradition ABOVE these writings seems to deny the whole point of forming a canon. The Scriptures were chosen to be placed above these other writings. Not to have their teachings subordinated to the later ones. While the Scriptures were canonized later their inspiration was recognized immediately. Peter called Paul's writings scriptures. So if they are seen then as coming from God then later teaching is to be judged by them, not the other way around. Because the church fathers themselves followed the apostles and were to be tested by them.

Since the tradition also shows some keeping the Sabbath in addition to Sunday then the whole argument that the one replaced the other makes no sense. Even Ignatius who you quoted said after keeping the Sabbath in the true way to keep Sunday. Now did he see Sunday as above Saturday by that time? Yes. But he did not do away with the Sabbath. Instead what we see in his letter is one step in a process that I already outlined straight from the pen of Pope John II in his papal letter on the subject. Sunday came to take on the meaning of the Sabbath over time.

Now from the papal perspective that is fine. As you said, they hold that they are in the line of Peter and have that right. We of course disagree on this point. But the point is that the papacy recognizes in its own writings that both were kept, Sunday did not at first take on this meaning, etc. So trying to make the apostles say what they did not say seems fruitless. You would be better to stick with the argument that the papacy did change it, but you feel they have the right to do so.

Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of "another day," which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord's resurrection, which was on Sunday.

Click to expand...

Actually I don't in fact agree with Palehorse that this passage is stating anything about the weekly Sabbath observance per se. Instead it is stating that God began resting on the Sabbath and since that time has invited others to that rest. And this is in fact pointing to salvation, which is available through Christ. However, it neither affirms or denies the weekly Sabbath.

But to say that it refers to Sunday is also a distortion.

The day that is "another day" in the text is plainly spelled out:



HEB 4:6 It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. 7 Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before:

"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts."

He is simply quoting the OT verse AFTER the exodus to point out that the rest is more than just going into a new land. It is to rest in the Lord's salvation. And that invitation is open today. But if we harden our hearts we will miss out.

Within the context of the book he is staying with the theme that these Christians who had been in the faith for a long time, who were in danger of turning back to Judaism due to lack of spiritual growth, and to persecution, should not turn back as those in the desert did, to their old way of life.

Just as those in the exodus who came out, but then rebelled were destroyed, so they, who came out and took their stand for Christ, if they turn back, will be destroyed.

Heb. 7:12 - when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.

Click to expand...

The Sabbath preceded the priesthood and the need for it. So this does not follow. If he wanted to say that we have a new day of rest...Sunday, or the first day, he certainly could have.

Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord's day, the new day of rest in Christ.

Click to expand...

Actually I don't see any reference to the eucharistic liturgy, perhaps you could point that out. He does say he was in the Spirit. I think that could happen on any day. There is evidence that the Lord's day could have in fact been understood to be

a. easter
b. Sunday

by this time. However, nowhere does John say that it replaced the Sabbath etc. And there is also evidence that if any day was the Lord's it was in fact the Sabbath. God calls it His Holy day.

One of the issues in this text is whether Lord is referring to Jesus, as it often did, or to God, which it also did. It is not LORD which in fact is an English rendering of the name for God. It is the generic lord which was used for any master, slave owners, God, Jesus etc.

Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.

Click to expand...

Now this is really your only argument. So we can take that up at length at some point.

"In fine, let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of the threat of death, teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath, or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered "friends of God." For if circumcision purges a man since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did He not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? At all events, in settling him in paradise, He appointed one uncircumcised as colonist of paradise. Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended; while He accepted what he was offering in simplicity of heart, and reprobated the sacrifice of his brother Cain, who was not rightly dividing what he was offering. Noah also, uncircumcised--yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath--God freed from the deluge. For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and in-observant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world; who did not first taste death, in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might by this time show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God." Tertullian, An answer to the Jews, 2 (A.D. 203).

Click to expand...

Now it is odd that you reference a heretic as your source. Especially since you have made the Trinity a part of your arguments in this thread. But in any case, coming at 203 AD when we have already shown that there was a gradual change seems to prove our point. Tertullian goes beyond Ignatius, who in turn went beyond the apostles. So we have no argument with him. He was giving the view of his time.

And then this question for why did the Lord our God save these men when they were indeed not Jews and did not observe the Sabbath?

Click to expand...

Abraham and David were saved by grace (Romans 4). Salvation has always been by grace.