Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath?

Normann said:

The best place to go is not a web-site or a dead saint's quote. The Bible itself, explains itself and is the written word of God. To inquire of any other is trusting man and placing one's eternity into the hands of a fallen creature.

2 Tim 2:15

A close study of the Old Testament will show that two different days each year was kept for the Sabbath.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

Click to expand...

We use scripture to show the sabbath is for us today and why would we follow your fallible interpretation of it? You cannot devoid tradition from the scripture, you just need to put it in its right place.

Chris

Normann said:

I've been trying to get them to show the same thing to me. Not one place in the Bible, Old Testament or New does it say that Saturday is the Sabbath. They are in a corner and cannot anwer the question.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

Click to expand...

No, I have explained this in this thread, it is silly to think you can find the modern names of the days of the week in a 2000 year old text. History attest to which day the sabbath is today, but you refuse to read history it seems.

Chris

oldsage said:

No, I have explained this in this thread, it is silly to think you can find the modern names of the days of the week in a 2000 year old text. History attest to which day the sabbath is today, but you refuse to read history it seems.

Chris

Click to expand...

No we read History it just does not add up to your hispry and considering the inception of your church was when?

Also you are right you cannot devoid tradition from Scripture but you are devoiding the tradition of the Apostles it seems and their followers in succession .... just because of what that at the point and time right then it was not unformly instituted? This is ridiculous in the extreme and this is another point I have also made ....

debiwebi said:

No we read History it just does not add up to your hispry and considering the inception of your church was when?

Also you are right you cannot devoid tradition from Scripture but you are devoiding the tradition of the Apostles it seems and their followers in succession .... just because of what that at the point and time right then it was not unformly instituted? This is ridiculous in the extreme and this is another point I have also made ....

Click to expand...

My church started with Jesus instituting it. I do consider the traditions of the Apostles, which we can read in the bible quite clearly in the book of Acts and their letters. and we can trace in the Early Church Father's writings about when the change from Sabbath to Sunday took place. We are saying that there was no authority that could change it but only if God would change it would it change, for He is the Law Giver and the only one that can change His Law.

My church started with Jesus instituting it.

Click to expand...

Show me your History then please .....

Montalban said:

Ignatius does. He wrote ‘at the time of the Apostles'.

Click to expand...

Ignatius wrote at the very end of the time of the apostles, with perhaps only John living, if him. Since Ignatius died in 107 according to some scholars (117 according to others) John would not be living either if the letter were at the end of Ignatius' life. He was bishop, according to Irenaeus during the reign of Trajan, who reigned from 98-117. In fact he says he is already a bishop in this letter, at the end. So this would place Ignatius' writing here at the very end of the apostolic period, if at all.

And note that I said that the apostles did not write of these things. And indeed we don't find any of the apostles writing of these things.

And again in the time of Ignatius he spoke of both Sabbath and Sunday keeping, not a replacement, which was what later church fathers contended. If that was Jesus' original teaching then Ignatius should not be confused on the point according to your reasoning.

Jesus Himself stated that the Sabbath was for Man, and Himself ‘broke it'.

Click to expand...

The Sabbath is for man. How does that change anything? And show where He broke it.

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, if only you could show that it was true in the times of the apostles. But you can't. Which I think you should not ignore. Moreover he doesn't simply keep it, he tells ALL of them to keep it. Moreover, the first quote you gave, from the beginning of chapter 9, is also not a literal translation. Here is the quoted version:

no longer observing the Sabbath,
but living in the observance of the Lord's Day,

And here is the literal version:

"attained a new hope, no longer sabbatizing but living according to the Lord's life" or in the transliterated Greek, "meketi sabbatizontes kata kuriaken zoen zowntes. "

The word day does not appear. They supplied the substantive to try to make it clearer. However, by doing so they read in their own opinion on the text. They also rendered the participle as keeping the Sabbath, but the context favors the literal sabbatizing.

Compare the above literal version with his later comment in chapter 9 and the two are completely harmonious where before they seemed contradictory:

But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner,
rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring
the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before,
nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor
finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And
after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the
Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all
the days.

Click to expand...

Here he clearly says let EVERY ONE of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, not observing the traditional requirements of the Jews. Note that this was in fact how Jesus kept it. He did not break the Sabbath, He kept it the way it was intended, free from the traditions of the Jews, not Judaizing or Sabbatizing.

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.

Click to expand...

You will have to explain what you mean here about what is plain to the apostles. But in any case the evidence is the same. You have progressive strains of Sunday keeping, and repeated attempts to stop Sabbath keeping. Why? Because it is obvious that the churches were keeping Sabbath. Not only that but Ignatius said they should, but after a spiritual manner. So all of this you have posted has shown that

a. Many were keeping the Sabbath
b. One of the church fathers endorsed every one of them keeping the Sabbath
c. Later church fathers said Sunday replaced it.

We see a progression as relations with the Jews deteriorated.

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

Click to expand...

They are bad if they depart from the teachings of Jesus and His immediate apostles, and the moral law of God which Jesus said He did not come to destroy and which the new covenant affirms is written on our heart, which Paul says we keep fully by the Spirit, and not the written code. Indeed, I find them bad.

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

Click to expand...

So I await your reason for them rejecting it.

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.

Click to expand...

And if they set aside the first generation, being recognized as inspired and important, why would you take the word of later writers over them?

"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.

Click to expand...

Then if that were the case you would be keeping Sabbath and Sunday, because Ignatius tells you to.

Like I need your permission?

Click to expand...

No, more as in I will not presume to say what I think your view is, but will rather ask you to reply.

The Church didn't just ‘know' the Gospel books were authentic, but often depended on the writings of people such as Ignatius

Click to expand...

The fact that the early fathers recognized who the first apostles were (which of course the NT itself cited anyway) is not in question. What is in question is that the writings of the first generation, those of the apostles, were rejected for doctrinal reasons. That was your contention. That they would not canonize those works that disagreed with them. Well first of all they disagree with themselves as in the case of Ignatius and later fathers. And secondly they canonized them on the basis of authorship and recognized inspiration, not on the basis of simply theological suppositions.The point is this, you yourself said that the basis was

a. the first generation
b. noted inspiration and usage by the community from the time of their writings.

Now, given that was the case, why would you put these attested to writings in a subordinate position to later authors by interpreting them according to the latter? Especially when the later works show evidence of development, progression, etc? I prefer the original faith, not the later version informed by anti-jewish sentiment. And if you question the anti-Jewish sentiment, then take a look at all of those apologies etc. It was practically all they could talk about. Why? Because the Jews were reviled in the empire at this time, and the Christians began to separate themselves.

I am bound to speak the truth.

Click to expand...

Tradition and Scripture not conflicting may be the truth to you, it is certainly not to others. And you in fact have yet to show that tradition even agrees with itself, as Ignatius and later ones are saying two different things.

More speculation?

Click to expand...

Not at all. It remains to be seen that they do not conflict. It is your contention they don't, but that is not something that can simply be proven by stating it. Until you first resolve the conflicts in tradition itself, and then show that the apostles agreed with it, then it is simply your contention.

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, Jesus and the apostles taught before the written Scriptures . But the church fathers wrote AFTER . You can say that it accurately preserves the oral tradition. But again, that needs to be verified. And any contradiction in fact must be settled by the Scriptures which were inspired before the other.

As to the church making the Bible, the Scriptures say that God inspired the Bible. The church recognized that. That does not make the church the originator of the Bible.

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.

Click to expand...

Indeed, but why won't you quote what the Bible calls the new covenant? Perhaps because the actual new covenant not only doesn't mention the 8th day, but in fact DOES mention that the law is written on the heart. It DOES mention that the new covenant was given because of the failure on the part of the receivers of the old covenant to keep their promise. It does in fact affirm the laws that God always gave, but changes the manner of keeping them to the Spirit, in the heart, not the written code.

Moreover, the elements of the trinity were in the Bible. The name was not. I can believe the teaching, and even refer to it by the name Trinity without saying that the church somehow instituted it by their authority.

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.

Click to expand...

Now here we are in fact getting somewhere. So you are saying that the change was made by the authority of later apostles and did not originate with Jesus or with the founding apostles? (Which does go against your implied assertion that Jesus founded it at the last supper).

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

Click to expand...

The new covenant was in the OT and was written to Jews. So I don't really see how that would in fact follow. Moreover all of Jesus' apostles were Jews, and those that joined were grafted into the Jews, and were heirs of Abraham. Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, and the ultimate goal of Judaism. Did the death of Jesus do away with the sacrificial service, etc.? Sure. But not with the moral law of God that was in fact said to be written on the heart and mind in that very covenant according to Hebrews 8. Moreover the title Christian was one later applied to the church in Antioch.

The apostles, as stated before did not even realize the gentiles could receive the Spirit. They were in all respects an extension of, and the goal of Judaism. The radical separation is one that occurred in history. A progression if you will. What to you was obvious was surely not to them. And it was not because Christianity was the goal of Judaism, not a departure from it. They used Jewish Scriptures, had a Jewish Messiah, adopted the promises of the Jews as a part of the covenant, were called the True Israelites not after the flesh etc. Now they did recognize that the sacrificial system was done away with, etc. because the true sacrifice had been made. But they were thoroughly Jewish. Jewish believers who were privileged to see God bring about what He had promised long ago to the...Jews.

Paul spoke in Romans about the advantages of the Jews, and how they were His countrymen and how God had not given up on them but they could be grafted back into their own vine, which we were in. Perhaps you should re-examine how non-Jewish the early church really was.

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…"

Click to expand...

Indeed. And the new covenant is covered in some detail in Hebrews, where it is quoted from Joel. But it says nothing of an 8th day.

Which is Sunday. Which I pointed out to you.

Click to expand...

Afraid not since he mentions Sunday following the Sabbath and that it should be kept to. See in my response above.

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."

Click to expand...

Indeed. How did that break the Sabbath? Note the tense...it was MADE. It was always for man. It was not to be laden down with the needless, near endless requirements that had been put upon it by the Pharisees during the intertestamental period as a hedge against breaking the law. Jesus got rid of the traditions. But He kept the Sabbath. And He kept it as it was MADE–for man.

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

Click to expand...

Indeed, and also Sabbath. And he is definitely on as a witness. Because he contradicts both the Scriptures and later tradition. He is a stepping stone in the progression. See above.

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

Click to expand...

ah, but then that cuts both ways doesn't it? Your whole argument regarding the day is that certain church fathers advocated it. Obviously many other people didn't. And it was so persistent that they had to keep making efforts to change it.

Besides that I am not the one saying that Ignatius is in fact a rule of faith. But since you made him one, and he argues for Sabbath keeping, then why are you not keeping it? I simply accept Ignatius as a representative of himself, his own understanding. What he writes is to me what he ‘Gets' of what the original apostles write. If you believe he is more than that, then it is up to you to reconcile his statements with later tradition and the Scriptures. So to me if he doesn't get lots of things, just as doubtless others didn't, no big deal. He is one witness to the early church. And as you know, even today disciples do not think all the same things as their masters, or get it all.

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

Click to expand...

She believes he became a heretic, which you were not even aware that the western church taught. I also addressed the evidence of the church father's writings, and still am with you. But it IS important what she thinks. Because what she accepts as an authority shapes her whole view. As it does with all of us.

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

Click to expand...

And here again you assume that what you accept should shape my discussion with her. Why would it? If she accepts that the popes are infallible when issuing certain writings then it is helpful to address what those popes say in said writings when talking to her. What does that have to do with you? And if the western church called him a heretic, then that enters into it too.

Now she can clarify and say that writings before that are alright. Ok, fair enough. But the point is he was STILL a Christian in the line of the apostles even AFTER he was a heretic. So to dismiss him because he disagrees with one point is hardly helpful.

You said all Catholics and Protestants disagree on this.

Click to expand...

Here is in fact what I said:

tall73 said:

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

Click to expand...

And what I said is quite true. A papal letter changes the understanding of the western church. Differing protestant traditions change their view, and the eastern view is different again. Is it Sunday to all? No, it is not. To some protestants it is not Sunday.

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

Click to expand...

No, not at all. But I do believe that popes write about church fathers in official letters, and that becomes dogma to the western church. And the pronouncement that the church father in question was a heretic also comes into play.

You might also note that Debi already replied to my response long ago and clarified her view, which was informed by her tradition. So this is a fairly pointless part of our discussion.

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.

Click to expand...

And my response to her was regarding the western church's rejection of him as a heretic.

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.

Click to expand...

I have no confusion over the church fathers in this regard , though you seem to be ignorant of how the western church at least views this particular one.

And the councils themselves are yet more evidence of continual Sabbath keeping even to that time. Hardly an argument for Jesus setting them all straight on the issue from the beginning.

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.

Click to expand...

In fact the question was on selecting writings, not promulgating new notions. So it has nothing to do with it.

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!

Click to expand...

who said I demanded you accept anything? You began posting about my reply to Debi as though I should be addressing your issues, which at that time were only in your head, not posted on the forum. I addressed BOTH the ECF evidence itself AND her view of it. Your view is your own. And I am more than willing to discuss that. But this whole rehash of what I said to Debi, which she clearly understood and clarified her stance on is pointless.

My statement that started this little bit of the conversation was that I agreed with the orthodox church in rejecting such things as papal succession, etc. Note...I AGREED with you. So why you keep arguing as though I didn't is beyond me.

debiwebi said:

tall73 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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Here is what you said:

debiwebi said:

So therefore, the contention that just because some were still following the old ways, the ways of the JEWS does nto mean that it was correct, simply means that it needed to be corrected .... and remember this is not long after Christ died .... to think that all would be in accordance all of the sudden and that it would not take time when there were no telephones, no televisions, no forms of such quick cimmunication in other words is kind of ridiculous don't you think? Of Course it is going to take time to educate the Masses .....

Click to expand...

You indicated that it was not out at the time of Ignatius, though you also contend that it was there from the beginning from Jesus. If Jesus had said it at the beginning to His disciples then it would not NEED to get out to all the Christian bodies. Because there WERE none before His disciples. So they all would have gotten it from them.

PaleHorse said:

Considering I am on a dialup connection, could you give me the short answer to what they say?

Click to expand...

Jesus was the fulfillment of the Sabbath.
He is our Sabbath Rest.

Let me know your address and I'll send you a CD absolutely free.

This offer goes to anyone who would like to receive a free sermon CD entitled Our Sabbath Rest.

justinstout said:

Jesus was the fulfillment of the Sabbath.
He is our Sabbath Rest.

Let me know your address and I'll send you a CD absolutely free.

This offer goes to anyone who would like to receive a free sermon CD entitled Our Sabbath Rest.

Click to expand...

If Jesus is our Sabbath rest then why did He make a future prediction about the Sabbath DAY, a Sabbath He knew would be many, many years after His death/resurrection/ascension?

Why are we going to honor the Sabbath on the new earth if Jesus is our Sabbath rest now?

I'd like to have a copy of your CD....so long as it addresses either of those questions.

debiwebi said:

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 ....

Click to expand...

Let's review. I said it was not in the Bible. You said it didn't have to be...etc. etc.

I said you agreed it wasn't in the Bible, and then you change subjects.

No matter how you put it your view is that they had later authority to change it. We of course do not accept that at all that they had the ability to change the new covenant itself and God's laws.

So that is fine, that is your view. We think it is wrong. But what it does not change is that it is not in the Bible. So on this what you put agreed with me.

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 ....

Click to expand...

No it is not. Because these are not the general population they are CHRISTIANS. How could Jesus not be accepted by the Christians? That makes no sense.

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 .....

Click to expand...

No, what I said was that we expect that if Jesus taught that Sunday replaced Sabbath that you wouldn't have all of these people who received His message from the apostles keeping Sabbath, you wouldn't have Ignatius ENDORSING it, which is what he was doing contrary to your earlier statement that he was correcting it, and you wouldn't need councils years later to say that Sabbath keeping was wrong. Nor would you have the pope acknowledging that some groups kept them as brother days from the beginning.

And your so called valid point completely ignored what Ignatius actually said, which was to keep the Sabbath in a spiritual way, and then keep Sunday.

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 .....

Click to expand...

You are completely missing a HUGE fact. He is writing to correct CHRISTIANS! Not to correct those who haven't heard of Jesus.

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

Click to expand...

It was a letter of rebuke which TOLD ALL OF THEM TO KEEP THE SABBATH.

And it was speaking to Christians. So your whole argument is based on a flaw in your understanding of what Ignatius said and who his audience was.

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.

Click to expand...

er, wouldn't 10 witnesses be better than 2?

However, your overall point is clear, there are not clear texts that show a change so several that don't show it are gathered together to infer.

prodromos said:

When you refer to God's word, do you mean only that which is recorded in the bible? Surely you must realise that God's word encompasses far more than that?

Click to expand...

It does indeed. However, that which comes later must be tested by that already established. And in this case Ignatius does not even agree with later tradition, and none of them correspond with any clear teaching from the apostles.

Let's put it this way. Just because something is said after the Bible does not mean it is not God's word. Very true. But it does not mean it IS God's word either. One must test the message, the author, the agreement with earlier inspiratin etc.

prodromos said:

Circumcision was given in Genesis 17 and predates the Sabbath command by centuries. If we are no longer required to be circumcised, why do you insist we must keep the Sabbath which was a later addition to the covenant God made with Abraham?

John

Click to expand...

It was not the Sabbath command that Old Sage was speaking of. That was given at Creation and not only came before circumcision, but any sin, or the need for a sacrifice.

What he was speaking of was the question of what day the 7th was. And the only reason he had to do that is because some want to try to rationalize by saying that we don't know which it was. Why? Because they only accept the Bible, so they can't accept the ECF reasons for keeping the day. And they can find no clear text otherwise about anything like Sunday. So they just say it is any day after 6.

prodromos said:

The first christians were Jews who had thousands of years of Sabbath keeping deeply ingrained in their psyche. It was not something they were able to give up easily and required at least a generation or two to pass in order to make the adjustment. God often described the Jews as a stiff necked people and in this regard they were no exception. Look at how God had to pour out His Holy Spirit on Cornelius and his household before their baptism in order to convince the Jewish Christians that salvation was not just for the Jews but for the Gentiles also. Look at the con job Paul and Peter pulled on the Jewish Christians in Galatians 2:11-14 in order to bring them around without scandalising them. This is why you don't see a sudden change in the keeping of the Sabbath, because such an abrupt change would have scandalised the Jewish converts and likely driven them into schism.

John

Click to expand...

Ok, now while it may not seem like progress, this is progress. You at least acknowledge that there was a progression in PRACTICE if not in doctrine.

Fair enough.

Now you only need show that the doctrine of Jesus and the apostles was Sunday and that others were just obstinant and you are set. But I don't think the evidence bears that out. In fact, the evidence seems to bear out that understanding developed as a response to anti-Jewish sentiment.

Exodus 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

Jesus went out walking with His disciples on the Sabbath, and gathered corn in the field. this is a clear sign that the Old Testament ceremonial and civil laws regarding the Sabbath have been wiped away, and it has been restored to its original Creation ordinance of a holy rest to God one day in seven.

DrBubbaLove said:

Act 8:30 And Philip ran thither to [him], and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
So either Phillip is not a "fallen creature" (which would make him an angel) or this text is saying we need someone with knowledge (tradition) to explain the Bible to us. I say tradition because if it is true that we need someone with knowledge rather than reading the Bible and attempting to understand it ourselves, then one would rather trust someone claiming it was passed on to them (as Paul is shown doing for Timothy) from an Apostle than someone claiming today that they somehow know better than an Apostle (or those taught directly by them).

Click to expand...

Herein lies the problem. Those who kept the Sabbath were likewise in the line of the apostles. All of the Christians were.


So your advice is that we accept some witnesses to the early church, but not others. To me that doesn't make sense. The witnesses provided DO show a progression. Some might say this is because of the traditions of Judaism holding on. And some of that might be true. However, it is interesting that these clear declarations of the Sabbath issue only came up later, when all of the rest of these things were settled in doctrine, if not always in practice, back in the Jerusalem Council. Do you think that those who were pushing for Circumcision would not also have mentioned Sabbath keeping were it not going on? Of course they would have. But likely it was going on. Just as it was in the days of Ignatius.



Why?

debiwebi said:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sda.htm

History:

The origin of the Seventh-day Adventists can be traced to the Millerite Movement of the 19th Century. This movement was largely responsible for what has been called the Great second advent awakening. William Miller (1782-1849) was a farmer who settled in upstate New York after the war of 1812.

Click to expand...

OldSage is not a Seventh-day Adventist. So that wouldn't really help you.

But moreover Jesus prayed in John 17 for all those who would believe on the disciplies' testimony. Sorry, but that includes us. I guess we will have to all learn to get along since we apparently will have to in heaven.

I said you agreed it wasn't in the Bible, and then you change subjects.

Click to expand...

No let's review I said that it could be traditional and you agreed .... then you said it had to be in the bible but have yet to prove where in reality and I have proven where the apostles could more than adequately change it ....I did not change the subject it is you that keeps doing that in order to deflect from the argument at hand ... because quite frankly it sinks your ship... so the only thing you have left is to accuse me of exactly what you are doing that is ad hominem in the extreme ....

Inverted Ad Hominem

Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse. As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its lack of subtlety.

Usage
A regular ad hominem fallacy consists stating that a person and/or their argument is wrong to argue purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by them rather than about the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. But this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are widely agreed that this use is incorrect.

pjw said:

Exodus 16:29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

Jesus went out walking with His disciples on the Sabbath, and gathered corn in the field. this is a clear sign that the Old Testament ceremonial and civil laws regarding the Sabbath have been wiped away, and it has been restored to its original Creation ordinance of a holy rest to God one day in seven.

Click to expand...

PJW, who was it that accused Christ and His disciples of breaking the Sabbath for picking and eating corn? It was the Pharisees. What did Jesus tell them back?

They also accused Him of breaking the Sabbath because He healed on that day. He told them it was "LAWFUL" to do good on the Sabbath. Obviously He was NOT breaking the law.

The Pharisees also accused Christ of being a drunkard and of being possessed. Do you agree with them on those accusations?