Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath?

[Debi1967]

Just a minute, if the change of the Sabbath was going to be such a big deal with the early Church then why don't we see the Apostles coming out and being up front about it?

Why all the back door stuff when it would be so great a change?

I think the reason is that there was no change as far as they were concerned.

You can go into all the documents that you like but why not go into the Bible and in plain simple language just tell us where it says that a change has been made.

I have not seen it as yet and no one has showed us where it is.

And I have not seen you show me once where it says that ti is Saturday .... so therefore again stalemate and you should not be so legalistic yourselves.... Remember those who live by the LAW are also Judged by it as well .... Those that live by Grace are Judged by Grace

 

[spirit1st]

How silly ,that people would be bound to a day!
We are too count ourselves DEAD with CHRIST JESUS.Every day ,every moment for HIM.Not a day.
Would GOD?Create a NEW CREATURE,NOt even from this world and have it obey the rules for the flesh ,which is waiting to die .Because it is so evil!
Why would he desire a special day for the flesh.
Yes there is a rest for us.A new one,because we are NEW CREATURES.BORN OF GOD!

DO YOU REJECT THIS SCRIPTURE?Are we NEW or NOT.
ARE ALL THINGS NEW OR NOT?


Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.




Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
Gal 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.

Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
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.


ol 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.
Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
Gal 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.


Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Gal 5:7 Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
Gal 5:8 This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
Gal 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Gal 5:10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
Gal 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offense of the cross ceased.
Gal 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

 

[Debi1967]

How silly ,that people would be bound to a day!

In actuality we are not bound to a day, although we do celebrate with the Lord on the Lord's Day .... But everyday should be a day of celebration for a Christian because of our Love for Him ....

 

[Montalban]

I didn't constrain the argument to anything. I posted on numerous texts in this discussion. But since you quoted from my conclusion on Hebrews 4 I asked you why you stated what you did.

I have no comment directly on Hebrews 4, but on the Sabbath in general, which is why I addressed you, so you know that I'm talking to you.

Consider as it should be, as an historical source, not an authoritative one. Yes, we have different presuppositions. But that does not mean I ignore the works. It means that I think it is odd that we see this slow replacement of one day with the other, not an immediate one, as would be seen if the apostles established it.

You assume several things; a 'slow progression' (based on what? - I've quoted from the earliest of Church Fathers). Another is still based on the assumption of 'progress' which I think is faulty. There is no 'progression' there was a change, in light of the reasons the Church Fathers themselves gave; that the Sabbath was made for Man (Jesus Himself stated this).

Thus the early church understood this, and then later compiled the Bible, which you must think is odd, because it presumes that they weren't aware of what they were compiling, or simply were bloody-minded in selecting works you think refute them.

Compiled is not the issue. They were noted as inspired as individual works long before they were compiled, from their writing most of them. It was this noted inspiration and their sound authorship that was the basis for the choice. And it was also this that apparently ruled out the didache.

That is false. The reason books were not 'included' does not mean that they were 'rejected'. We Orthodox still use the Epistles of Ignatius, that of Clement etc. The Didache too. They all, with the Bible go to make up the works of the Church, you simply look to one book, ignore the context of the church, look to the 'lack of evidence' in the Bible for a day change, and like someone closing their eyes and complaining that it's dark, you get the results you want - by great artificial selection.
Indeed the books that were chosen were long known.

But they elevated some works in the form of the canon, and yet most of those here who look at them seem to prefer to put the tradition above the scriptures, using them to determine what the scriptures mean.

Scripture and tradition do not conflict.

I am stating that they elevated the books agreed by all to be inspired and foundational. And they simply read their new theology back in, so it was not a problem.

The 'new' theology is why we are Christans, not Jews - I give you a new covenant, Jesus said.

We have a 'new' testament.
But then you must worship in a synagogue?

 

[Montalban]

Indeed. But did he put in print that it was what one should do?

And Ignatius put in print what we should do... Sunday worship

Rather he argued against circumcision. Moreover when he did make this exception he noted it as an exception. This was not the case here. Again, you wish to modify your own tradition.

As noted in post above Jesus Himself 'broke the Sabbath'. He instigated a 'new covenant'. Thus the teachings of Jesus show that we are not bound as the Jews are to old ways. The 'new' traditions as you call them are of the Apostles as per Jesus' instructions to go out and do things in His name. They don't contradict the Bible, because Jesus Himself gave them the authority
There is no 'progress' because they fixed the new Sabbath as Sunday, and it's stayed ever since... because it is the new covenant; as noted by early church writers such as Ignatius, who wrote before the Bible was compiled.

I was not at all referring to any kind of east/west division here. I am speaking of people accepting writings from those they later called a heretic. Now I have no idea whether the church of the east ever did consider him a heretic. I was speaking to a catholic and they did indeed take him to be a heretic in the end. Perhaps the problem is that you are responding to a post that was not intended for you. So it is not addressing your presuppositions.

I understand that you were responding to a Catholic, but you were more concerned to address him because he is Catholic, rather than the evidence he presented.
And, I'm unaware that Catholics consider him a heretic.

The Sabbath discussion is different for protestants, catholics and orthodox as their views of the Sabbath is different.

It's Sunday to all.

There is a great difference between worship on Sunday and Sabbath, and worship on Sunday in PLACE of Sabbath. It is a progression.

The Sabbath was made for man, and broken by Jesus who instigated a new covenant. You could call the fact that we believe the Messiah has come a 'progression'... if you wish.

And again you are replying to a response for someone else, who has different presuppositions. You don't accept it, she does. However, I will address your point in a bit from your own perspective. Why would you expect me to address her from your perspective when you were not even in mind when it was being written?

No, the perspective's the same on this amongst Catholics and Orthodox; we believe in the Church Fathers comments on this, we believe in Jesus' new covenant.

No, I am tailoring my discussion to her needs as she accepts things that you do not.

This is supposition on your part... and you're addressing not the evidence, but what you suppose a person believes per se; their Catholicity

It was not solely from the understanding of the time that they were selected, but from the recognition of their inspiration from the beginning. It was this recognition, not just their understanding, that shaped the canon. And since Peter called Paul's works Scripture from the start there was little doubt about that one. Nor was there really with those who were affirmed to be of apostolic authorship.

As Jesus empowered the Apostles, so the Apostles chose members of the flock to act as Apostles. Jesus said "Go and do in My name".

And there is a difference between selecting TEACHINGs and selecting writings.

Indeed. What's your point?

But while we are on the topic I find the Eastern version of things easier to accept. It has less foreign material than the other. So on this we agree. But in speaking to those who accept the western tradition I must address their issues.

Here there's a false dichotomy. We accept all saints held in common before the Schism. Orthodox read Latin Fathers (we don't accept all that they wrote; it is true, but then again even Augustine recanted on some of his own statements).
We hold the early church fathers to be early church fathers. Simple as that.

I will take up the question of the church fathers evidence again in a bit. It is easier to post these in segments as I go.

What ever you find best.

 

[tall73]

No it is Historical and can be proven thank you ..... Also, just because something is not directly stated in Scripture but implied in Scripture does not mean that it is not so....

The Doctrine of the Trinity is not anywhere in the Bible directly stated it is an implied Doctrine and yet we all as Christians use it as a PILLAR and Core belief of our Faith ....

2Th 2:14(2:13) Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2Th 2:15(2:14) Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

Do you have any idea what the words gospel and epistle mean in the Greek?


gospel thayers defintion
G2098

εὐαγγέλιον

euaggelion

Thayer Definition:

1) a reward for good tidings

2) good tidings

2a) the glad tidings of the kingdom of God soon to be set up, and subsequently also of Jesus the Messiah, the founder of this kingdom. After the death of Christ, the term comprises also the preaching of (concerning) Jesus Christ as having suffered death on the cross to procure eternal salvation for the men in the kingdom of God, but as restored to life and exalted to the right hand of God in heaven, thence to return in majesty to consummate the kingdom of God

2b) the glad tidings of salvation through Christ

2c) the proclamation of the grace of God manifest and pledged in Christ

2d) the gospel

2e) as the messianic rank of Jesus was proved by his words, his deeds, and his death, the narrative of the sayings, deeds, and death of Jesus Christ came to be called the gospel or glad tidings

Part of Speech: noun neuter

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from the same as G2097

Citing in TDNT: 2:721, 267

notice here it says that it came to be called it was not originally called this this is a later definition that we applied to the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John..... The Gospel of Christ ..... as written by the Apostles themselves.

But it's original defintion and the one used in Biblical times was when the Bible was written was that of glad tidings or message of Christ .... it had nothing to do with it being written down .... it could be but that was not prerequisite and need not be.... so therefore they could have been given the Gospel by Verbal accounting, by Word....

the reasons we know that it was by traditionally transferred by word is because as this letter was written to the Hebrews the book of say the Gospel of John had not even been written yet ..... it would not be written and completed for some thirty more years after this letter was written.... The letter tot he Hebrews was written when

(1) The place of composition was Italy (xiii, 24), and more precisely Rome (inscription at end of the Codex Alexandrinus), where Paul was during his first imprisonment (61-63 AD).

Whereas John would not be written until John was in exile on the isle of Patmos

we have direct evidence concerning the date of composition. The so-called "Monarchian Prologue" to the Fourth Gospel, which was probably written about the year 200 or a little later, says concerning the date of the appearance of the Gospel: "He [sc. the Apostle John] wrote this Gospel in the Province of Asia, after he had composed the Apocalypse on the Island of Patmos". The banishment of John to Patmos occurred in the last year of Domitian's reign (i.e. about 95). A few months before his death (18 September, 96), the emperor had discontinued the persecution of the Christians and recalled the exiles (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xx, nn. 5-7). This evidence would therefore refer the composition of the Gospel to A.D. 96 or one of the years immediately following.

So therefore, it would have to be orally transmitted at this point.... And this is but one example .... also if we look at the Greek definition of epistle ..... it is this ....

G1992

ἐπιστολή

epistolē

ep-is-tol-ay'

From G1989; a written message: - "epistle", letter.

So this proves that it could be either/or at this proint conclusively .... especially with all the historical proof to back it up .... Therefore when they say to hold fast to what is handed down by word

G3056

λόγος

logos

log'-os

From G3004; something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

and then get the defintiion of Tradition itself

G3862

παράδοσις

paradosis

Thayer Definition:

1) giving up, giving over

1a) the act of giving up

1b) the surrender of cities

2) a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.

2a) objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching

2b) of the body of precepts, especially ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence

Part of Speech: noun feminine

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G3860

Citing in TDNT: 2:172, 166

So therefore we see that Tradition that is for the Glory of God is allowed as long as it is not for the Glory of men and this is what Christ himself Chastized the Pharisees about ..... because the traditions that they were doing were now not in accordance with God but for their own Glory....

There is nothing wrong with Tradition as long as it is for the Glory of God alone....

So we see, that the conclusive argument that switching the Day from Saturday to Sunday really is an objective one is it not? I believe that I do it still for the Glory of my Lord who died for me on the Cross to be resurrected and to give me the Hope of Salvation.... In humble thanks for this I celebrate His day as the Sabbath .... Bringing forth Glory to Him and His name forever and ever Amen.....

All of this simply agreed with me. It is not biblical. And in fact the historical element of a new earth is not exactly obvious. What is obvious is that later tradition held this view and that it developed over time.

 

[tall73]

Did not Christ say that not all would hear Him? Did not Christ say that many would say that they believe but in reality when the Day of judgement comes he will say to them get away from you cursed ones for I never knew you .....

Not everyone that calls themselves Righteous is open to hearing the message of God simply because they say they are ....

Ok, so first you are saying that I didn't have any evidence and when I present it you now you reinterpret it. Your whole argument is that this was taught by all the apostles. It was the oral tradition. Now you are saying this message was not even out by the time of Ignatius. This is clearly contradictory.

 

[tall73]

You assume several things; a 'slow progression' (based on what? - I've quoted from the earliest of Church Fathers). Another is still based on the assumption of 'progress' which I think is faulty. There is no 'progression' there was a change, in light of the reasons the Church Fathers themselves gave; that the Sabbath was made for Man (Jesus Himself stated this).[/q

I have no comment directly on Hebrews 4, but on the Sabbath in general, which is why I addressed you, so you know that I'm talking to you.

You assume several things; a 'slow progression' (based on what? - I've quoted from the earliest of Church Fathers). Another is still based on the assumption of 'progress' which I think is faulty. There is no 'progression' there was a change, in light of the reasons the Church Fathers themselves gave; that the Sabbath was made for Man (Jesus Himself stated this).

A. you have not shown the change stated in the Scriptures during the time of the apostles. It is not there. Nowhere do they speak of a new earth, of an eighth day, or a new Sabbath.

B. The earliest church father you quoted was Ignatius who referred to both Sabbath and Sunday. So we see from him, and other historical documents, and from the councils that there were people regularly keeping the Sabbath. If this were in fact a direct change by Jesus there would be no reason for them to do this or for Ignatius to say this. So we see a change in that they are now advocating Sunday worship, but not as a replacement.

C. Those by 135 or so were arguing for an 8th day, a new creation, etc. and they were doing this in response to the Jews. Now Sunday is seen as a replacement rather than just a day to keep along with Sabbath. There is clearly a progression. The progression is seen as the Christians continually define themselves more and more apart from the faith of Judaism. The first disciples were shocked to even see that the gentiles could receive the Spirit. They saw the faith as the extension of Judaism promised all along. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. But increasingly it became expedient to make a separation.

Thus the early church understood this, and then later compiled the Bible, which you must think is odd, because it presumes that they weren't aware of what they were compiling, or simply were bloody-minded in selecting works you think refute them.

No, I think they selected those documents that were always held as inspired and that had reliable authorship.

That is false. The reason books were not 'included' does not mean that they were 'rejected'. We Orthodox still use the Epistles of Ignatius, that of Clement etc. The Didache too. They all, with the Bible go to make up the works of the Church, you simply look to one book, ignore the context of the church, look to the 'lack of evidence' in the Bible for a day change, and like someone closing their eyes and complaining that it's dark, you get the results you want - by great artificial selection.

No one denies these other books exist, or that the church uses them. But they were not canonized. Why not? I will allow you to answer that.

Indeed the books that were chosen were long known.

Scripture and tradition do not conflict.

Definitionally you are bound to say this. However, that remains to be seen. The principle fromure the OT on was not that tradition and Scripture don't conflict, but that tradition is tested by Scripture. You have reversed that to make tradition the interpreter of Scripture. If those things that came after do not agree with the inspired writings, then they should be rejected, no matter if the church thought they were helpful or not.

The 'new' theology is why we are Christans, not Jews - I give you a new covenant, Jesus said.

We have a 'new' testament.
But then you must worship in a synagogue?

Please quote for me the old covenant and the new covenant. I don't think it says quite what you think. If you are basing all of your theology on this new covenant then you should at least spell out what the Scriptures say the new covenant is. It certainly doesn't mention an eighth day or Sunday.

 

[tall73]

And Ignatius put in print what we should do... Sunday worship

And he also put in print what we should do--Sabbath worship. Which you apparenty don't want to acknowledge. See my response to Debi on the topic.

As noted in post above Jesus Himself 'broke the Sabbath'. He instigated a 'new covenant'.

If Jesus broke the Sabbath then He could not be your substitute. He did not break any command of God. And since He had not brought about His resurrection yet He would certainly be bound by it either way. What He violated were the traditions built up around the Sabbath by man.

Thus the teachings of Jesus show that we are not bound as the Jews are to old ways. The 'new' traditions as you call them are of the Apostles as per Jesus' instructions to go out and do things in His name. They don't contradict the Bible, because Jesus Himself gave them the authority
There is no 'progress' because they fixed the new Sabbath as Sunday, and it's stayed ever since... because it is the new covenant; as noted by early church writers such as Ignatius, who wrote before the Bible was compiled.

Except that Ignatius taught both, and nowhere do we see either Jesus or the apostles saying this. Moreover, if they had, why were there so many Christians who didn't get it?

I understand that you were responding to a Catholic, but you were more concerned to address him because he is Catholic, rather than the evidence he presented.
And, I'm unaware that Catholics consider him a heretic.

Then you should read her own response. I was responding to her given her own presuppositions since that informs how we all approach things. You insist what you accept as an Eastern adherent should be addressed. Very well, but she would insist on the same. So that is what I did. If she for instance accepts the pope as an authority then his papal letter is quite instructive. If you don't it is not.

It's Sunday to all

Not true. Had you read through the thread you would find a number of protestants who hold that it is not Sunday. Some think it is one in 7, whichever it is. Some think there is no Sabbath. Some think every day is a Sabbath. They only hold Sunday as a tradition not a notion with any authority. And they don't mean tradition in the catholic/orthodox sense.

Moreover the understanding of Catholics is not the same because it has been expanded on by popes which you reject.

The Sabbath was made for man, and broken by Jesus who instigated a new covenant. You could call the fact that we believe the Messiah has come a 'progression'... if you wish.

Indeed, the new covenant wrote the law on the heart and mind. And Jesus said he did not come away to do away with the law but to fulfill it. He in fact expanded the commandment of adultery, of murder and restored the Sabbath from tradition.

Again, show me Jesus' new covenant, and you will see that it is in fact the restoration of the law to the heart, and forgiveness for sins. It makes up for all the deficiences of the old covenant, which were not at all in God's commandments but with the people.

And the progression is in fact evident after Jesus time. So don't blame Him. I have not seen one person quote Jesus to say anything about a change from Sabbath to Sunday. There is no such statement.

No, the perspective's the same on this amongst Catholics and Orthodox; we believe in the Church Fathers comments on this, we believe in Jesus' new covenant.

The comment was on papal development of dogma. . Are you saying you both agree with that as the Western Church interprets it? Considering you had just gotten done saying you don't I think you should reconsider your statement here.

This is supposition on your part... and you're addressing not the evidence, but what you suppose a person believes per se; their Catholicity

I addressed the evidence, but to her the pope's view in a papal letter IS evidence. Surely you understand that. The whole argument is based on differing views of authority. So I will continue to address Catholics by their understanding. And I will continue to address protestants by theirs.

As Jesus empowered the Apostles, so the Apostles chose members of the flock to act as Apostles. Jesus said "Go and do in My name".

And this has what to do with initial recognition of inspired writings?

Indeed. What's your point?

My point is clear. They chose the writings based on apostolic authorship and recognized inspiration.

Here there's a false dichotomy. We accept all saints held in common before the Schism. Orthodox read Latin Fathers (we don't accept all that they wrote; it is true, but then again even Augustine recanted on some of his own statements).
We hold the early church fathers to be early church fathers. Simple as that.

Then it is a false dichotomy that you introduced because you spoke of not accepting their views of the development of dogma, papal succession etc. But of course it is not a false dichotomy and I reject those things too.

 

[Montalban]

A. you have not shown the change stated in the Scriptures during the time of the apostles. It is not there. Nowhere do they speak of a new earth, of an eighth day, or a new Sabbath.

Ignatius does. He wrote ‘at the time of the Apostles’.
Jesus Himself stated that the Sabbath was for Man, and Himself ‘broke it’.

B. The earliest church father you quoted was Ignatius who referred to both Sabbath and Sunday. So we see from him, and other historical documents, and from the councils that there were people regularly keeping the Sabbath.

Yes, as noted Paul circumcised someone, even though he said it was not necessary, and at the same time he warned against Judisers. The fact that the early church held the new ‘Sabbath’ to be Sunday from the earliest times is, I think something you should not ignore.

If this were in fact a direct change by Jesus there would be no reason for them to do this or for Ignatius to say this. So we see a change in that they are now advocating Sunday worship, but not as a replacement.

If that we should be Christians were plain to the Apostles then there’d be no general debate on any such subjects, and there was.

C. Those by 135 or so were arguing for an 8th day, a new creation, etc. and they were doing this in response to the Jews. Now Sunday is seen as a replacement rather than just a day to keep along with Sabbath. There is clearly a progression. The progression is seen as the Christians continually define themselves more and more apart from the faith of Judaism. The first disciples were shocked to even see that the gentiles could receive the Spirit. They saw the faith as the extension of Judaism promised all along. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. But increasingly it became expedient to make a separation.

Largely supposition.
If you see these ‘progressions’ as bad, then you should be a Messianic Jew.

No, I think they selected those documents that were always held as inspired and that had reliable authorship.

They didn’t reject Ignatius on the basis that it was not inspired, or of doubtful authorship.

No one denies these other books exist, or that the church uses them. But they were not canonized. Why not?

The Bible was meant to contain all of the first generation of Christians…including the witness of Christ. The ‘rejection’ of other books was not a ‘rejection’ per se.
“The letters (of Ignatius) have often been cited to determine what beliefs were held in the early church.”
http://www.ntcanon.org/Ignatius.shtml
This is because the Bible clearly says that it DOES NOT contain all the sayings of Christ.

I will allow you to answer that.

Like I need your permission?

The Church didn’t just ‘know’ the Gospel books were authentic, but often depended on the writings of people such as Ignatius
“The testimony of Polycarp and Ignatius is again capital in this case.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Definitionally you are bound to say this.

I am bound to speak the truth.

However, that remains to be seen.

More speculation?

The principle fromure the OT on was not that tradition and Scripture don't conflict, but that tradition is tested by Scripture. You have reversed that to make tradition the interpreter of Scripture. If those things that came after do not agree with the inspired writings, then they should be rejected, no matter if the church thought they were helpful or not.

I haven’t ‘reversed’ anything. You have. The teachings of Christ came BEFORE the Gospels were written. Paul urges people to keep to the traditions, either by written word, or by mouth. He even quotes a saying of Jesus not contained in any of the Gospels.
The Church made the Bible, not the other way around.

Please quote for me the old covenant and the new covenant. I don't think it says quite what you think. If you are basing all of your theology on this new covenant then you should at least spell out what the Scriptures say the new covenant is. It certainly doesn't mention an eighth day or Sunday.

It doesn’t have to. There’s no Trinity formula in the Bible either. There’s a limitation to what’s in the Bible as noted, the Bible itself says that the Bible doesn’t contain all of Jesus’ teachings.
Jesus gives the Apostles authority…
Mark 16:17
And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
John 14:13
And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.
John 14:14
You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
John 16:23
In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.
John 16:24
Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.
The newness of the covenant is explicit in the fact that we are Christians, not Messianic Jews.
Jesus commissioned His Apostles (above) and called a new covenant
Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you…”

And he also put in print what we should do--Sabbath worship. Which you apparenty don't want to acknowledge. See my response to Debi on the topic.

Which is Sunday. Which I pointed out to you.

If Jesus broke the Sabbath then He could not be your substitute. He did not break any command of God. And since He had not brought about His resurrection yet He would certainly be bound by it either way. What He violated were the traditions built up around the Sabbath by man.

I’ve already noted that He said that the Sabbath was not made for God, but for Man.
Try reading Matthew 12
Or
Mark 2:27
Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”

Except that Ignatius taught both, and nowhere do we see either Jesus or the apostles saying this.

Ignatius taught Sunday. You need to decide whether you’re going to call him on as an expert, or not.

Moreover, if they had, why were there so many Christians who didn't get it?

Many Christians still don’t get it on many different issues. That does not negate the truth.

Then you should read her own response. I was responding to her given her own presuppositions since that informs how we all approach things.

No, you were addressing her based on what you think she believes as a Catholic. She cited a Church Father

You insist what you accept as an Eastern adherent should be addressed. Very well, but she would insist on the same. So that is what I did. If she for instance accepts the pope as an authority then his papal letter is quite instructive. If you don't it is not.

I don’t accept all popes as Church Fathers. I don’t accept all patriarchs, either.

Not true. Had you read through the thread you would find a number of protestants who hold that it is not Sunday. Some think it is one in 7, whichever it is. Some think there is no Sabbath. Some think every day is a Sabbath. They only hold Sunday as a tradition not a notion with any authority. And they don't mean tradition in the catholic/orthodox sense.

You said all Catholics and Protestants disagree on this.

Moreover the understanding of Catholics is not the same because it has been expanded on by popes which you reject.

See above; you seem to believe that Popes are Church Fathers.

I addressed the evidence, but to her the pope's view in a papal letter IS evidence.

Good for her, and there we disagree, so I didn’t address it. However my question to you was over your ideas on Tertullian, and the Church Fathers.

Surely you understand that. The whole argument is based on differing views of authority. So I will continue to address Catholics by their understanding. And I will continue to address protestants by theirs.

Excepting your confusion over Church Fathers.
I could also cite on issues the findings of several Ecumenical Councils which she would also believe in… even if I don’t follow the Pope.

And this has what to do with initial recognition of inspired writings?

It has to do with the fact that when people were confused on issues, the Church, inspired by God, and authorised by Jesus could rule on something – and this was not ‘contrary’ to the Bible, which they themselves authorised.

My point is clear. They chose the writings based on apostolic authorship and recognized inspiration.

Which was known from Tradition. They didn’t just ‘know’ the books were inspired. They didn’t just pick up a book and suddenly it revealed itself to them. They looked to tradition, as noted above, I exampled Ignatius.

Then it is a false dichotomy that you introduced because you spoke of not accepting their views of the development of dogma, papal succession etc. But of course it is not a false dichotomy and I reject those things too.

This is totally illogic. The fact that I accept that Jesus died on the cross, and so does a Lutheran does not mean that the Lutheran and I have to agree on every other issue. I have stated those things we (Catholics and Orthodox ) accept, and hold in common. You seem to think that because I accept these I must have a ‘take all, or none’ approach, which is simply really dumb.
I can defend the Holy Fathers, the Eucharist, Baptism, sacramental life, holy orders etc, without having to be Catholic. I’m sorry that you can’t see this and continually find it difficult that I would defend what I believe in, regardless that someone else believes in other things as well.
You continually demand that because I accept Church Fathers held in common that I must also accept Papal Authority! And this is your problem in dealing with the Catholic author here, you continually debate not on the evidence presented, but what you suppose should be believed!

 

[Debi1967]

Ok, so first you are saying that I didn't have any evidence and when I present it you now you reinterpret it. Your whole argument is that this was taught by all the apostles. It was the oral tradition. Now you are saying this message was not even out by the time of Ignatius. This is clearly contradictory.

I did not say that at all you are misinterpretting my words

 

[Debi1967]

All of this simply agreed with me. It is not biblical. And in fact the historical element of a new earth is not exactly obvious. What is obvious is that later tradition held this view and that it developed over time.

No it did not it agreed with me and you well know it too ...... As I have soundly this time proven ..... your basis is that TRADITION CANNOT BE USED and mine is that it can .... I have shown Biblically where indeed it can .... also, I have proven in Matthew 16 where they had the AUTHORITY to do just that .....

So therefore your argument is moot ....

The fact that it was not universally accepted overnight attets to nothing as Christ Himself was not accepted overnight either and in fact because of it died on the Cross because they would not accept Him for who He was .... Again my point is made ....

Ok, so first you are saying that I didn't have any evidence and when I present it you now you reinterpret it. Your whole argument is that this was taught by all the apostles. It was the oral tradition. Now you are saying this message was not even out by the time of Ignatius. This is clearly contradictory.

And I am not contradictory, it is YOU that has again misinterpretted .... In fact I am finding that whenever I make a valid point that seems to happen .... I wonder why? I did not say that the message was not out by the time of Ignatuis .... I said that you expected clear interpretation and obedience on the behalf of everyone in a day and age when it was hard to even get a message .....

And yes there may have been some that still needed to be preached to for in the Bible it says what that the apostles and their successors would have to spread the word .... Thsi was going to take time .... It also says that Christ will not return untill all of mankind has been able to hear His name and He has not returned yet so therefore I guess it is still going on isn't it .....

As some died they taught the ways of the old to the young without them knowing that it had changed now so they had to be educated .... and remember they did not always have the benefit of being able to rea or being able to assemble all the time .... This was a process that took time .... Do not think in this day and age think as if you had none of what we do now and lived back then .... think of it as if there were times you did not even have an animal to ride apon but had to travail hundreds of miles from place to another to get a message through and do this on foot .... as sometimes this is how they did have to do it .... think logically here ... and remember that it was a letter of rebuke so they must have known beforehand too

 

[oldsage]

agree with this. but, God didn't say, keep the seventh day of creation, He said, keep the seventh day, which is the day after any period of six days. e.g. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday = 6 days. seventh day = Sunday.

No, God showed the day back in Exodus 16, He didn't leave them guessing

Chris

 

[Cliff2]

And I have not seen you show me once where it says that ti is Saturday .... so therefore again stalemate and you should not be so legalistic yourselves.... Remember those who live by the LAW are also Judged by it as well .... Those that live by Grace are Judged by Grace

I am assuming that you belong to the RCC from your icon.

Now you know which day of the week is the first day.

Just in case you have forgotten, go back to Easter and see what day of the week your Church celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ and then what day of the week you commemorate His death?

I will tell you.

On Sunday you celebrate the resurrection of Jesus which is the first day of the week. You then celebtrate the death of Jesus on Friday which is the 6th day of the week. That day is known as the preparation day in the Bible.

The day that Jesus was in the tomb was the Sabbath, which we call Saturday, the 7th day of the week.

I am not sure what your objection is to saying that Saturday is the 7th day of the week when you keep the 1st day of the week, the day of the resurrection.

Now taking the Bible as your guide you will find no support for such a belief/doctrine.

If there is just come and show me the text.

I am waiting.

 

[PaleHorse]

Just a minute, if the change of the Sabbath was going to be such a big deal with the early Church then why don't we see the Apostles coming out and being up front about it?

Why all the back door stuff when it would be so great a change?

I think the reason is that there was no change as far as they were concerned.

You can go into all the documents that you like but why not go into the Bible and in plain simple language just tell us where it says that a change has been made.

I have not seen it as yet and no one has showed us where it is.

One thing to consider, the Bible tells us that truth is established by two or more witnesses (Matt 18:16, 2 Cor 13:1) - if someone has to use 10+ verses in order to establish their argument then it is probably wrong. I think it is clear that seventh-day Sabbath keeping is easily established using only two or three verses while it takes a short book for someone to try and slide Sunday observance under the door.

 

[PaleHorse]

No, God showed the day back in Exodus 16, He didn't leave them guessing

Chris

And isn't it strange that God didn't write the decalogue until Exodus 20 yet folks want to say Sabbath didn't exist until Mt Sinai when that covenant was established? It even seems to me that in Exodus 16:28 God asked "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" If God had just established the Sabbath in verse 23 I don't think He'd be asking them "how long" in verse 28.

I know, I have to giggle a little too.

 

[Montalban]

One thing to consider, the Bible tells us that truth is established by two or more witnesses (Matt 18:16, 2 Cor 13:1) - if someone has to use 10+ verses in order to establish their argument then it is probably wrong. I think it is clear that seventh-day Sabbath keeping is easily established using only two or three verses while it takes a short book for someone to try and slide Sunday observance under the door.

You're kidding, so the less you use of the Bible, the better? Of course it would be better if you ignore the evidence and stick with the OT cries!

Anyway, to address the general mistake about tradition exihibited in this thread:
Not everything taught, was written down
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.
Specific lessons were not by scripture
Luke 10:16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

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!

Paul himself handed on faith...
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11).

The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The teachings of the early church as witnessed by people such as St. Ignatius of Antioch show that Sunday worship was kept as the Sabbath... because Jesus had established a new covenant.

 

[Montalban]

And isn't it strange that God didn't write the decalogue until Exodus 20 yet folks want to say Sabbath didn't exist until Mt Sinai when that covenant was established? It even seems to me that in Exodus 16:28 God asked "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" If God had just established the Sabbath in verse 23 I don't think He'd be asking them "how long" in verse 28.

I know, I have to giggle a little too.

Why aren't you a Messianic Jew keeping all the ways of Judaism with Jesus thrown in?

 

[justinstout]

.

Real Player

MP3 Download


.

 

[BrightCandle]

Bright, the philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church and how they deal with Scripture and Tradition is quiet diferent than how protestants deal with it, so I would think in order to resolve at least the communication problem is to learn the others philosophies.

Chris

Yes, I know that, that is why I concluded with the statement that I made.

Either God's word is final, or does tradition trump it? That is the question.