Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath?

[BrightCandle]

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

The law of God of the which the Sabbath is number 4 of the 10 commandments was written with God's finger in stone, that is enduring, and it was stored inside the ark of the covenant. While the law of Moses, was written by Moses on paper, and was stored on the side of the ark of the covenant. That is the difference. One is applicable for all people for all time, while the other was transitory.

 

[prodromos]

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

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?

 

[prodromos]

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?

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

 

[Normann]

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

 

[Normann]

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

I'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

 

[Normann]

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

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

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Gal 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
.................
..............................

Very good post, as a rule I don't read long ones but this was like reading the Bible and I love it.

Thank you, thank you,

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[prodromos]

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.

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

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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

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).

 

[Cliff2]

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).

Interesting comment you have made.

If you say that Philip used Tradition to show him the truth then please explain why Philip want down into the water and baptised him?

If that was the traditional way of baptising then why isn't that the way it is done today.

It is true that Philip did expalin things but di not contradict what was in the Bible.

I am not even sure what this example has to do with "What day of the week is the Sabbath"

 

[Cliff2]

The law of God of the which the Sabbath is number 4 of the 10 commandments was written with God's finger in stone, that is enduring, and it was stored inside the ark of the covenant. While the law of Moses, was written by Moses on paper, and was stored on the side of the ark of the covenant. That is the difference. One is applicable for all people for all time, while the other was transitory. (BrightCandle)

Exactly right, why were the "ten commandments" written in stone by God?

To show us that today, many thousands of years later that God's law does not change.

 

[PaleHorse]

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

No, there is no question to it - to anyone who can reason this is solved in a very elementary manner:

Luke 23:52,54,56 - This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus (Christ was dead at this point, and we all know that Christ died on a Friday - hence "Good Friday")....And that day was the preparation (all Sabbath-keepers understand that "the preparation" is Friday), and the sabbath drew on (sunset was about to occur , so they)....And they returned (to their homes), and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.(because the sun had set and Sabbath has started)
Matthew 28:1 - In the end of the sabbath, (Sabbath is finished) as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week (check your encyclopedias, the first day of the week is Sunday), came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. (and we all know Christ rose on the first day of the week, Sunday, which is where Sunday observance is rooted in)

What we have here is a simple description of the passing of three days - from Friday (Christ's death) to Sunday (Christ's resurrection); Saturday (the seventh-day Sabbath) is nestled right between them.

Seriously, if your hangup surrounds the name of the day (currently called Saturday) then that is your problem and, in order to be consistent, you would have to give up Sunday observance as well for Sunday isn't named in the Bible either. God, being smarter then man, didn't give the days of the week names - He gave them a number, a count - those cannot and have not been changed.

If you require additional supporting information you can always look to the world's languages and see that in most cultures the Sabbath (or a derivative thereof) is used for the seventh-day of the week. Just <CLICK HERE>.

An interesting quote you'll find on that page:
"The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria."
Socrates, "Ecclesiastical History," Book 7, chap.19.

Seems that Socrates agrees with the other post-apostolic quotes we've read during the course of this thread; that Sabbath observance was common but for various reasons Sunday began to also be observed. If Sunday observance could be found in the Bible (the apostolic writings) then there would not be this change after the fact of a change from Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday.

 

[justinstout]

.

Real Player: Real

Download: MP3


.

 

[PaleHorse]

.

Real Player: Real

Download: MP3


.

Well, what do they say?

 

[justinstout]

Please listen to the audio. You'll be blessed by it.

 

[PaleHorse]

Please listen to the audio. You'll be blessed by it.

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

 

[Debi1967]

No, there is no question to it - to anyone who can reason this is solved in a very elementary manner:

Luke 23:52,54,56 - This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus (Christ was dead at this point, and we all know that Christ died on a Friday - hence "Good Friday")....And that day was the preparation (all Sabbath-keepers understand that "the preparation" is Friday), and the sabbath drew on (sunset was about to occur , so they)....And they returned (to their homes), and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.(because the sun had set and Sabbath has started)
Matthew 28:1 - In the end of the sabbath, (Sabbath is finished) as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week (check your encyclopedias, the first day of the week is Sunday), came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. (and we all know Christ rose on the first day of the week, Sunday, which is where Sunday observance is rooted in)

What we have here is a simple description of the passing of three days - from Friday (Christ's death) to Sunday (Christ's resurrection); Saturday (the seventh-day Sabbath) is nestled right between them.

Seriously, if your hangup surrounds the name of the day (currently called Saturday) then that is your problem and, in order to be consistent, you would have to give up Sunday observance as well for Sunday isn't named in the Bible either. God, being smarter then man, didn't give the days of the week names - He gave them a number, a count - those cannot and have not been changed.

If you require additional supporting information you can always look to the world's languages and see that in most cultures the Sabbath (or a derivative thereof) is used for the seventh-day of the week. Just <CLICK HERE>.

An interesting quote you'll find on that page:
"The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria."
Socrates, "Ecclesiastical History," Book 7, chap.19.

Seems that Socrates agrees with the other post-apostolic quotes we've read during the course of this thread; that Sabbath observance was common but for various reasons Sunday began to also be observed. If Sunday observance could be found in the Bible (the apostolic writings) then there would not be this change after the fact of a change from Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday.

palehorse wasn't it you who said that we should not hang all of our teachings on one verse in the bible?

I believe it was you that contested this with me when I continually brought up Matthew 16:18-19 where it says that they had the Authority to change it

 

[PaleHorse]

palehorse wasn't it you who said that we should not hang all of our teachings on one verse in the bible?

I believe it was you that contested this with me when I continually brought up Matthew 16:18-19 where it says that they had the Authority to change it

It would appear that I am using 4 verses, not one. Thanks though.

 

[Jesus Is Real]

Saturday.

The fulfillment of the Sabbath was Great and Holy Saturday when Christ rested from His work in defeating death by death. It is no longer an obligation for anyone. Jew or Gentile.


.

Oblio,

Not one tittle of the Law will pass away until all is fulfilled, but what you think I am meaning will most likely not be what you think I'm saying. Sabbath is a Holy Rest unto God. Each Day is Sabbath in Christ. But we must repent to enter in this Holy Sabbath Rest. We are warned in the book of Hebrews about this very word "Sabbath."

God bless you,
Connie

 

[PaleHorse]

Oblio,

Not one tittle of the Law will pass away until all is fulfilled, but what you think I am meaning will most likely not be what you think I'm saying. Sabbath is a Holy Rest unto God. Each Day is Sabbath in Christ. But we must repent to enter in this Holy Sabbath Rest. We are warned in the book of Hebrews about this very word "Sabbath."

God bless you,
Connie

Warned? How so? Hebrews 4 (verse 9 specifically) contains a clear statement of fact that Sabbath keeping remains.

 

[Debi1967]

It would appear that I am using 4 verses, not one. Thanks though.

It would appear that so am I ....

1 Cor. 3:11 - Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.

Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).

Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.

Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Matt. 16:18-19 - in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter's leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter - you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.

Matt. 16:17 - to further rebut the notion that Jesus was calling Peter a small pebble, Simon in Aramaic means "grain of sand." If Simon's name meant "grain of sand," it would be pointless for Jesus to change his name from "grain of sand" to "pebble."

Matt. 16:13 - also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.

Matt. 7:24 - Jesus, like the wise man, builds His house on the rock (Peter), not on grain of sand (Simon) so the house will not fall.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus selects Peter to be the chief shepherd of the apostles when He says to Peter, "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Peter will shepherd the Church as Jesus’ representative.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter's faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles) to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren. (I just love context and understanding of the Old greek and Aramaic and how words were used)

Acts 1,2,3,4,5,8,15 - no one questions Peter's authority to speak for the Church, declare anathemas, and resolve doctrinal debates. Peter is the rock on which the Church is built who feeds Jesus’ sheep and whose faith will not fail.

And I can provide more if you like .... but I think that whole chapters of the Bible and several biblical verses that back up Matthew 16 are sufficient don't you say? Therefore, mine is adequately backed up Scripturally and you still only have four to my what? Hundreds .....