Montalban said:
I think you are really nit-picking here. It is clear that Ignatius was alive when the Apostles were, and he was taught by them, and entrusted by them to be a successor of theirs
It is actually quite a difference to say that he lived in say 60's AD, etc. when most of the apostles were around, when already the circumcision question had been decided etc. He is living at the remote end of the apostolic period with only John around that we know of and Paul, Peter, etc. martyred for some time. But the bigger point is that you accept only half of what he says, that being Sunday, but not the other, being Sabbath.
They didn't need to. As noted we don't take the Bible as a stand-alone book, for it warns us not to - because it says it does not contain all of the teachings of Jesus.
Inded, the GOSPEL account says that it does not have all the teachings. The others also reference oral tradition. But what you cannot show is that
a. The aposltes tradition is accurately revealed in these texts.
b. Why so many were in fact keeping Sabbath if they had been clearly told not to by the oral tradition.
The facts are that the very Sabbath keeping that endures for all this time, straight through the councils where it is again condemned is ALSO a reflection of the early church. They were early Christians, taught by the apostles.
Are you determined to go around in circles? I've already refuted this with Paul and circumscion. Paul also warned against Judisers, and it's clear from argument between Peter and Paul over even spreading the Good News to the Gentiles they were unsure about some things; but luckily Jesus had sent them the comforter.
So any time you state something to be a refutation all discussion on that point is to stop? Your refutation first of all refutes nothing here. It is an example of what you claim is a similar concept. Moreover it is not parallel at all.
A. Paul does NOT teach ALL OF THEM to circumcise. Quite the opposite. He preached against it. Whereas Ignatius clearly encourages all of them to do it.
B. Paul notes that it was an exception for practical purposes. Nowhere does Ignatius do this.
C. Paul specifically states that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, realizing that circumcision was in fact no longer binding. Ignatius does not say this either. In fact he seems to indicate they should all do it.
D. Paul addresses this back in the time period when all these questions were addressed by the church, around the time of the council in Acts 15. Ignatius writes long after that.
So I would say that your refutation was insufficient. That is not repeating the same question. That is addressing your refutatin.
I did this already too; I cited where he said it was for man; if you'd read that reference you'd have seen His enemies questioning Him about breaking it. But alas I see a pattern emerging where you simply will go on repeating the same questions.
And if you read the rest of the thread you would see that we have spelled this out quite clearly too. Jesus did not break ANY command of God, and He reformed the day from the Jewish traditions. You have introduced two things here which I asked for clarification on, which you have not clarified.
A. How is saying it was PAST TENSE made for man (from the beginning) breaking the commandment? This is a new question that you have not answerd.So no, you have not already done this.
B. Where did the Pharisees' restriction of not healing occur in the OT? Etc. As Trust and Obey often points out, are you taking ALL of the arguments of the pharisees at face value? Obviously not. So show how they were right in saying that Jesus broke a commandment. This is before His resurrection, so even by your own reckoning the commandment is still valid. If He broke a commandment, then He is nobody's Savior. But I trust you will recall that Hebrews mentions him being tempted in all ways like us yet without sin.
I haven't. I've cited Ignatius.
Agreed, you haven't. Though it may have been a typo on your part.
So where do you get your translation from? You're still undecided if you want to use Ignatius as an authority, anyway.
I initially got the translation from Samuele Bacchiocchi's Sabbath to Sunday book, published by the Pontifical Gregorian University Press with the Catholic Imprimatur. Bacchiocchi is a Sabbatarian who gained permission to research the question from their original records.
Having started with that I then found the greek version of the Church Fathers online. Here is the link to chapter 9, the chapter in question.
http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/ignatius-magnesians.htm#IX
Now a few points:
A. there is no word for day, hmera , some assume it to be a supplied substantive.
B. The only Greek manuscript actually has the word zwhn which is not present in this Greek version provided by the web site. They omitted this, following the Latin translations.
C. There is evidence from the next phrase "in which", which is in the feminine, that there is a feminine word being referenced.. The aforementioned hmera, or zwhn could be that word. But since the one is clearly present in the Greek (Zwhn) but the other is not present in any text, but was assumed, then the issue is rather clear.
D. Moreover, as commentators have pointed out, the context is referring to the prophets of old. No one suggests that they kept Sunday. So the reading is much better rendered:
If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer sabbatizing, but living in the observance of the Lord's own life (or own way of living), by which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death-whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith .....
Which then also harmonizes perfectly with the later reading which speaks of keeping the Sabbath in a spiritual way.
The Sabbath was to be a day of rest. Jesus didn't 'rest', and He cited David doing the same thing.
So you understand that
A. David was not a Jew, bound to keep the Sabbath? Which none that I know of believe.
B. Jesus was not a Jew, bound to keep the Sabbath?
If your argument was that Jesus changed the command, then why did he say that David was not guilty for what he did?
MT 12:3 He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread--which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, `I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
Now notice that David would have been under the command but Jesus did not consider him to be breaking the Sabbath. Nor did He consider the priests to, He said they were innocent. So if the day was MADE (past tense) for man, (from the beginning), and Jesus is pointing this out to them even in the Scriptures, then it is clear that He was not breaking the command any more than David, or the priests. That was His whole point in fact. They had misunderstood the law, and His earlier statement "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." They put all their own rules around the law, and Jesus was bringing them back to the original. So, either you think that God is here disagreeing with Himself, and on one hand says you are to keep it a certain way, and on the other that it was from the beginning not meant to be kept that way, or I think you will have to agree that Jesus kept the command the same way that David did, the same way it was intended to be. And interestingly He kept it the same way that Ignatius urged that the prophets of old did, and that the church should.
So you believe you should be a Messianic Jew, 'cause you're against 'progress'?
The progress that the early church recognized was that those things pertaining to the sacrificial service, etc. were done away with. But the Sabbath, which they did not state there was done away with, was not pointing to the sacrificial service when given in the garden, as it in fact came before sin.
Moreover you seem to be confusing progression, which in this case is simply a way of saying progressing in a new direction by increments, is the same as progress in the more beneficial sense. Actually I don't see it as progress at all, but deform.
Why only 'His immediate Apostles'? The Apostles themselves chose one to replace Judas; one whom Jesus had not chosen
I will paste some of my response to Debi at this point. I hope you don't take me for repeating myself, but since you asked, and apparently didn't see, I will.
tall73 said:
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.
But apart from the question of apostolic succession, what you have not demonstrated, and in fact even oblio seems to agree, that there is a progression. Ignatius was not saying the same thing as Paul, and Justin was not saying the same thing as Ignatius. Moreover, the fact that we see again and again that there were people keeping the Sabbath, and in fact still are from that time, shows that this too was part of the tradition. So tradition has in fact developed, changed, progressed, whatever you want to call it. And this is natural with any tradition. I personally don't want progression. I want what the apostles taught, because they were the ones given the task from Jesus. They appointed elders, true. But they said to those after them to listen to their words, as has oft been stated here. They did not say to change and progress their words.
This then is just too much. I have already answered this. I have stated about they chose books from the Bible based on those that knew Christ from the first generation. But alas the pattern is confirmed.
Ah, and the reason I asked again is so you could clarify your answer and so you can see it in the proper light. You just asked above why the foundational apostles were the important ones. Why not ask those who made the canon? That seems to have been their view as well.
