• 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.

Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Debi1967

Proudly in love with Rushingwind62
Site Supporter
Dec 2, 2003
20,540
1,129
58
Green Valley, Illinios
Visit site
✟94,055.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
IOWS I show Biblical proof, subjective proof, and empirical proof that your argument is lacking and instead of attacking my arguments in a logical manner you attack the way that I am arguing that is an ad hominem attack and therefore discredits you not me
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Actually anyone caring to investigate rather than just make stupid assumptions by relying on what they think they know about us would know that the Church still practices full immersion, it is just less common in most parishes. Also since many Catholics are baptized as babies the practice is less practical for infants. Any adult can request full immersion and will be accommodated if they stick to the request.

The topic of tradition and it’s value along side the Bible goes directly to the assumptions being made here that nothing but scripture is to be relied on for determining what day of worship was held in practice by the Apostles and first century Christians. It shows that scripture itself clearly states that it is not the sole source to be relied on for anything.


The fact that some here choose to ignore what was done and that no writings of the Apostles condemns what is a documented practice of 1st century Christians does not support the notion that because it is not explicit (in their opinion of scripture) that all these other documented instances of Sunday worship over Saturday are somehow invalid.


Why would so many of the first century Churches be doing something some here want to claim is blasphemous, with no Apostles speaking out against it?

If the Saturday’s crowd opinion of scripture is correct, then why in the world would the Church centuries later create a canon that includes books in it that some here claim supports the idea that what the Church was already doing was blasphemous? Are we to believe the people creating the canon were idiots? They left books out of the canon for single statements that did not agree with their teaching. How could they miss this one?
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think it would have been very important to Jewish Christians, just as circumcision was clearly very important to them, so much so that they nearly had a brawl about it. History and scripture shows that the Church decided those were Jewish laws and customs that need be applied to the Gentile or for that matter the Christian in general. The real question was does one have to be a good Jew to be a Christain. Paul repeatedly says not, so am not sure what your point is or what you think this proves.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,691
6,107
Visit site
✟1,049,810.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Now, more on the issue of the ECF's. I was again looking at the Epistle of Barnabas today. And frankly, while I am sure the guy was in fact a follower of Jesus, and had some interesting things to say on a number of topics, I also found that at times he was downright strange in his takes on things.


Here are a couple of examples:

Now is it really the church's teaching that Abraham understood circumcision to be a symbol of the initials of Jesus, and therefore circumcized just the right number of people to spell out the initials of Jesus in Roman Numerals?

This he says is the most excellent piece of knowledge that he has imparted to a person.


And notice this one:


Is it truly the contention of the church that God gave the dietary laws to show that people should not associate with those who have oral sex and conception as he thinks that weasels do? Or who change genders as he thinks that hyenas do?

Is it really the church's contention that David wrote Psalm 1 to clarify the kind of people that the dietary laws were referring to?

These things are way out there. His approach to Scripture leaves a lot to be desired.

Now here is his argument on the Sabbath question.


Ok, so first of all he is saying that the Sabbath command was not in fact a command but was an eschatalogical prophecy.

Second he is predicting the second coming in 6k years. Apparently he missed the memo on not knowing the hour of Jesus' coming. But he certainly was not alone on that error. Or perhaps he used the same justification others have that it is not the day or hour, just the general time period.



And now he speaks of an 8th day. Never mind that he already said that the seventh day will not occur until the second coming. He now says that the 8th day...which follows the 7th...comes at Jesus first coming. And on what does he base this? Well we are a bit in the dark on that one, but he bases the removal of the Sabbath on a misreading of the statement about "Your Sabbaths I cannot endure."

While I see some things in his epistle which are in fact quite good, there are things like this that are just off the wall. His conclusions don't at all follow from the evidence he provides. Nor do they match with Ignatius. Nor do they match with the Scriptures. And his use of the OT Scriptures is odd at best.

So while I can accept that he was an historical Christian, I don't plan on shaping my view of Jesus' teachings on this letter. Because some of it is just embarrassing.
 
Upvote 0

Debi1967

Proudly in love with Rushingwind62
Site Supporter
Dec 2, 2003
20,540
1,129
58
Green Valley, Illinios
Visit site
✟94,055.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
oldsage said:
Read the book of Acts

Chris
wait I just put my thing over his icon and laughed my you know what off .....

old sage I may not agree with you but that was funny .....

sorry didn't mean to derail the thread ....

Church hopper could be in yours next .... heaven help us all if it is mine ....LOL
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,691
6,107
Visit site
✟1,049,810.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

What Paul said was that we were set free from the shadows to enjoy the reality. But the shadows were those things that pointed to the sacrifice of Christ.

The Sabbath was not even raised at the Jerusalem council, because it was not a point of contention as was circumcision, etc. Circumcision and the law of moses, the apects particularly applying to the Jews and the sacrificial service were done away with. But no where does it say the Sabbath was.

The Sabbath was in fact given at creation, was not pointing to sacrifice, but to creation, and was not, as was circumcision, etc. done away with in Acts 15.

So again. why not? Why did the Judaizers not mention the Sabbath? Because they would have no reason to if in fact it was being kept by all.
 
Upvote 0

PaleHorse

Veteran
Jun 1, 2005
1,405
32
56
Arkansas
Visit site
✟24,359.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
tall73 said:
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.
All I meant to show with that statement is that if I take enough verses out of context, just shimming each a little bit, I can probably prove that Christ raised elephants on the ocean floor but only at night.

We know that one verse on any biblical topic, especially doctrine, usually leads to an incomplete picture of that truth. So it is best to get, as the Bible itself says, two or three witnesses to establish the truth - anything over and above that (as long as the verses aren't taken out of context) is merely supporting in nature. The truth itself is established rather quickly being the point.
 
Upvote 0

PaleHorse

Veteran
Jun 1, 2005
1,405
32
56
Arkansas
Visit site
✟24,359.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
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.
While I thank you for your generous offer I will have to decline but only on the basis that I have solid scripture that not only tells me Christ will give us rest but also that the seventh-day Sabbath remains for the people of God (i.e. - Christians).

Thank you very much, however.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,691
6,107
Visit site
✟1,049,810.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Actually you have shown that it happened after biblical times, in tradition, which was my contention.

Now first of all what you have tried to show is that Peter had the ability to change anything he wants, including the covenant, including the law of God. Seemingly he could just vote God out of existance by your view.

Did you note the text that your Orthodox friend quoted? If you ask IN MY NAME?

It is not simply a blank check. Yes the apostles had authority. No they could not change God's law. Especially when the new covenant you love to talk about, but never actually quote, was to write that law on their hearts.

Moreover you have not shown that this power was transferred to others. They were the foundational apostles. They appointed elders for local groups, yes. But could any church elder change God's law?

And where is the evidence that succession of the apostolic office happened more than once?

Note why Peter said it happened then. Not because it would always happen. But because the Scriptures specifically said that someone would fill the office of the betrayer of Christ. It also gave the requirements. One had to be there from the beginning. That puts a rather limited time on the office doesn't it?

In fact Paul said he was one abnormally born. He didn't meet the criteria, but God appointed him.

Where was Jame's successor when he was beheaded in the book of Acts?

So much for apostolic succession.

So no, it is not an ad hominem argument. I have not called you names or made fun of you in any way. I simply said you agreed with my point in that regard. It was not in the Bible. Which means you have one argument left. That of the authority question. And it is the one we urged you all along to use because the Bible doesn't give you any other support at all.


And now I have addressed your point about apostolic succession. Feel free to respond.
 
Upvote 0

lmnop9876

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2005
6,970
224
✟8,364.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
all I'm saying is that the old testament law and Pharisaical tradition said, don't go out or gather food on the Sabbath. Christ allowed both, because He was returning the Sabbath to its original purpose, which was to be a rest for manking, a blessing to them. He is emphasizing the fact that we are allowed to do works that are necessary on the Sabbath, and it is a good thing to do good works for others on the Sabbath.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,691
6,107
Visit site
✟1,049,810.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

Incidentally I have a different take on Hebrews 4 than Palehorse, and I do think that the author is speaking of the rest of salvation. However, his use of an illustration using a psalm and the creation account say nothing one way or the other about the weekly Sabbath.

I will try to listen to you link if I get a chance. However, at the moment my computer motherboard fried and this machine is a bit old. So it may be after I get that worked out.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,691
6,107
Visit site
✟1,049,810.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

A. They were not allowed to go gather food for a whole day when it was available to do the day before and they were instructed to.

B. Jesus was not gathering food for a whole day or anything of the sort. He ate some seeds.

C. Yes, you have it just right. He was RESTORING it. But not from God's commands, but from those of the pharisees who took the commands of God and expanded them. He intentionally healed on the Sabbath and pointed it out to pick that fight.

Why did He do all this? Why bother reforming something that was going to be over in no time anyway? Becuause it was not meant to be over. It was part of the law that He came to restore to the heart in the new covenant.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,691
6,107
Visit site
✟1,049,810.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
DrBubbaLove said:
Why would so many of the first century Churches be doing something some here want to claim is blasphemous, with no Apostles speaking out against it?



First of all you have a false notion here. It is not blasphemous to honor Sunday because of Jesus' resurrection, though we see no clear evidence of this in the Scriptures.

It IS blasphemous to do away with a command of God by replacing it with Sunday. And that happened later...by a progression as even Oblio admits to, if only on a practical level.

But the bigger question is why would so many be keeping Sabbath in the first place if it was clear that this was not part of the message? If it was clear that they were totally breaking with Judaism and becoming something new, a Christian, why didn't so many of them get it? Especially since we are now a number of years past the Jerusalem council? And why would those such as Ignatius commend it when he had little good to say about other Jewish customs.
 
Upvote 0

lmnop9876

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2005
6,970
224
✟8,364.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
agree 100%. i may have sort of missed it there, i guess i probably took the Exodus verse out of context, sorry about that.
but He was definitely ridding the Sabbath of all the Jewish traditions, and I also believe that in His Life, Death, and Resurrection, He fulfilled all the laws of God in every detail. He also abolished the Old Testament ceremonial and civil laws about the Sabbath, and returned it to its Creation ordinance of commemoration of 1. The Rest that God had from all His works, and 2. The Rest that Christ has given us in salvation. The fourth commandment is to Remember the Rest, to keep it holy, work six days and do all your work, but rest on the seventh day.
it is apparent from the New Testament (ignoring any other early church writings), that the early church came together for worship services on the first day of the week, to break bread, hear the Word, pray, give offerings, and share a fellowship meal.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,691
6,107
Visit site
✟1,049,810.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Well we agree on about 90 percent of this then. That is not too bad! I simply think that the 7th day was fairly clearly spelled out, so we are to honor it. But I agree that Jesus kept all the law, that Hebrews is speaking of salvation, that the rest at creation was what Jesus restored it to, etc.
 
Upvote 0

lmnop9876

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2005
6,970
224
✟8,364.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
the seventh day is indeed clearly spelled out, it's the day after six days of work. , for me, that's Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday [don't you hate how the days of the week are named after ancient gods?] Thursday, Friday, Saturday, the Lord's Day.
 
Upvote 0

PaleHorse

Veteran
Jun 1, 2005
1,405
32
56
Arkansas
Visit site
✟24,359.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution

Actually, I think we only disagree on one point - and even then I don't think we disagree as much as maybe I didn't express my position as clearly as I could have. Basically, I agree that Paul wasn't trying to "prove" that the Sabbath was still to be observed by Christians, he was talking about the 'rest' we have in Christ. But, my contension is, that he also didn't want them to think that the Sabbath was done away with either - and that is why he used a very particular word in verse 9 of Hebrews 4. That word, of course, being sabbatismos. I think this was on purpose since Paul used an entirely different word throughout the rest of his epistle for 'rest', which was katapusis.

The word sabbatismos is a technical term for seventh-day Sabbath keeping. How do we know this? Well, it's pretty simple really. Since sabbatismos only appears once in the entire Bible we must look to outside sources and see if that word is used in them - and if so, how is it used. That will provide us with most, if not all, of the possible meanings for the word. Well, it just so happens that in the case of sabbatismos that in every known usage of the word in Greek liturature it always means seventh-day Sabbath keeping - without fail. Here is the list of known documents that contain sabbatismos:

  • Plutarch, “De Superstitions 3 (Moralia 1660)
  • Justin Martyr,”Dialogue With Trypho” 23,3
  • Epiphanius, “Adversus Haereses” 30,2,2
  • “Apostolic Constitutions” 2,36
  • Martyrdom of Peter and Paul
Which is probably why these very respected lexicons define sabbatismos in the following manner:

BDAG 6544 σαββατισμός
• σαββατισμός, οῦ, ὁ (σαββατίζω; Plut., Mor. 166a cj.; Just., D. 23, 3) sabbath rest, sabbath observance fig. Hb 4:9 (CBarrett, CHDodd Festschr. ’56, 371f [eschat.]). —S. on κατάπαυσις HWeiss, CBQ 58, ’96, 674-89. M-M. TW.

Louw-Nida 6544 σαββατισμός
• σαββατισμός, οῦ, ὁ (σαββατίζω; Plut., Mor. 166a cj.; Just., D. 23, 3) sabbath rest, sabbath observance fig. Hb 4:9 (CBarrett, CHDodd Festschr. ’56, 371f [eschat.]). —S. on κατάπαυσις HWeiss, CBQ 58, ’96, 674-89. M-M. TW.

Liddell-Scott 36978 Σαββατισμός, σαββατισμός
Σαββα±τισμός, ὁ, a keeping of days of rest, N.T.


So my point is if a word only has one known meaning at the time the word was used in the scriptures, then we must accept it at face value. I think Paul used this specific word just so there wouldn't be any confusion while he was teaching the audience of the Hebrews epistle the other theme of our 'rest' in Christ.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on this before.
 
Upvote 0
T

TrustAndObey

Guest
pjw said:
the seventh day is indeed clearly spelled out, it's the day after six days of work. , for me, that's Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday [don't you hate how the days of the week are named after ancient gods?] Thursday, Friday, Saturday, the Lord's Day.

If you think Sunday is the Lord's Day, you have to be able to prove that with scripture and I haven't seen that done yet (and won't, because it's not biblical).

If you believe that Christ rose on Sunday, then the Sabbath is Saturday. Scripture proves that without question.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.