Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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 GraceCliff2 said: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.
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 ....How silly ,that people would be bound to a day!
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.tall73 said: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.
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).tall73 said: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.
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.tall73 said: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.
Scripture and tradition do not conflict.tall73 said: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.
The 'new' theology is why we are Christans, not Jews - I give you a new covenant, Jesus said.tall73 said: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.
And Ignatius put in print what we should do... Sunday worshiptall73 said:Indeed. But did he put in print that it was what one should do?
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 authoritytall73 said: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.
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.tall73 said: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.
It's Sunday to all.tall73 said:The Sabbath discussion is different for protestants, catholics and orthodox as their views of the Sabbath is different.
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.tall73 said:There is a great difference between worship on Sunday and Sabbath, and worship on Sunday in PLACE of Sabbath. It is a progression.
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.tall73 said: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?
This is supposition on your part... and you're addressing not the evidence, but what you suppose a person believes per se; their Catholicitytall73 said:No, I am tailoring my discussion to her needs as she accepts things that you do not.
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".tall73 said: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.
Indeed. What's your point?tall73 said:And there is a difference between selecting TEACHINGs and selecting writings.
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).tall73 said: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.
What ever you find best.tall73 said: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.
debiwebi said: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 Thayers/Strongs 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 Thayers/Strongs 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.....
debiwebi said: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 ....
Montalban said: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).[/qMontalban said: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.
Montalban said:And Ignatius put in print what we should do... Sunday worship
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 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.
It's Sunday to all
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.
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.
This is supposition on your part... and you're addressing not the evidence, but what you suppose a person believes per se; their Catholicity
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".
My point is clear. They chose the writings based on apostolic authorship and recognized inspiration.Indeed. What's your point?
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.
Ignatius does. He wrote at the time of the Apostles.Tall73 said: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.
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.Tall73 said: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 that we should be Christians were plain to the Apostles then thered be no general debate on any such subjects, and there was.Tall73 said: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.
Largely supposition.Tall73 said: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.
They didnt reject Ignatius on the basis that it was not inspired, or of doubtful authorship.Tall73 said:No, I think they selected those documents that were always held as inspired and that had reliable authorship.
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.Tall73 said:No one denies these other books exist, or that the church uses them. But they were not canonized. Why not?
Like I need your permission?Tall73 said:I will allow you to answer that.
I am bound to speak the truth.Tall73 said:Definitionally you are bound to say this.
More speculation?Tall73 said:However, that remains to be seen.
I havent 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.Tall73 said: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.
It doesnt have to. Theres no Trinity formula in the Bible either. Theres a limitation to whats in the Bible as noted, the Bible itself says that the Bible doesnt contain all of Jesus teachings.Tall73 said: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.
Which is Sunday. Which I pointed out to you.Tall73 said: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.
Tall73 said: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.
Ignatius taught Sunday. You need to decide whether youre going to call him on as an expert, or not.Tall73 said:Except that Ignatius taught both, and nowhere do we see either Jesus or the apostles saying this.
Many Christians still dont get it on many different issues. That does not negate the truth.Tall73 said:Moreover, if they had, why were there so many Christians who didn't get it?
No, you were addressing her based on what you think she believes as a Catholic. She cited a Church FatherTall73 said:Then you should read her own response. I was responding to her given her own presuppositions since that informs how we all approach things.
I dont accept all popes as Church Fathers. I dont accept all patriarchs, either.Tall73 said: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.
You said all Catholics and Protestants disagree on this.Tall73 said: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.
See above; you seem to believe that Popes are Church Fathers.Tall73 said:Moreover the understanding of Catholics is not the same because it has been expanded on by popes which you reject.
Good for her, and there we disagree, so I didnt address it. However my question to you was over your ideas on Tertullian, and the Church Fathers.Tall73 said:I addressed the evidence, but to her the pope's view in a papal letter IS evidence.
Excepting your confusion over Church Fathers.Tall73 said: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.
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.Tall73 said:And this has what to do with initial recognition of inspired writings?
Which was known from Tradition. They didnt just know the books were inspired. They didnt just pick up a book and suddenly it revealed itself to them. They looked to tradition, as noted above, I exampled Ignatius.Tall73 said:My point is clear. They chose the writings based on apostolic authorship and recognized inspiration.
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.Tall73 said: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.
I did not say that at all you are misinterpretting my wordstall73 said: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.
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 .....tall73 said: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.
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 .....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.
pjw said: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.
debiwebi said: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
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.Cliff2 said: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 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.oldsage said:No, God showed the day back in Exodus 16, He didn't leave them guessing
Chris
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!PaleHorse said: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.
Why aren't you a Messianic Jew keeping all the ways of Judaism with Jesus thrown in?PaleHorse said: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.
oldsage said: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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?