Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath?

[Debi1967]

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

 

[oldsage]

Show me your History then please .....

Read the book of Acts

Chris

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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"

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?

 

[TrustAndObey]

Debiwebi, Oldsage isn't Adventist.

I wish he were though. If I can get him to sign up I'll get a free toaster.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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?

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.

 

[tall73]

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:

Learn then, my children, concerning all things richly, that
Abraham, the first who enjoined circumcision, looking forward in spirit to
Jesus, practiced that rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters.
For [the Scripture] saith, "And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and
three hundred men of his household." What, then, was the knowledge given
to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten
and the eight are thus denoted — Ten by I, and Eight by H. You have [the
initials of the, name of] Jesus. And because the cross was to express the
grace [of our redemption] by the letter T, he says also, "Three Hundred."
He signifies, therefore, Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. He
knows this, who has put within us the engrafted gift of His doctrine. No
one has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than
this, but I know that ye are worthy.

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:

Now, wherefore did Moses say, "Thou shalt not eat the swine, nor the
eagle, nor the hawk, nor the raven, nor any fish which is not possessed of
scales?" He embraced three doctrines in his mind [in doing so]. Moreover,
the Lord saith to them in Deuteronomy, "And I will establish my
ordinances among this people." Is there then not a command of God they
should not eat [these things]? There is, but Moses spoke with a spiritual
reference. For this reason he named the swine, as much as to say, "Thou
shalt not join thyself to men who resemble swine." For when they live in
pleasure, they forget their Lord; but when they come to want, they
acknowledge the Lord. And [in like manner] the swine, when it has eaten,
does not recognize its master; but when hungry it cries out, and on
receiving food is quiet again. "Neither shalt thou eat," says he "the eagle,
nor the hawk, nor the kite, nor the raven." "Thou shalt not join thyself,"
he means, "to such men as know not how to procure food for themselves
by labor and sweat, but seize on that of others in their iniquity, and
although wearing an aspect of simplicity, are on the watch to plunder
others." So these birds, while they sit idle, inquire how they may devour
the flesh of others, proving themselves pests [to all] by their wickedness.
"And thou shalt not eat," he says, "the lamprey, or the polypus, or the
cuttlefish." He means, "Thou shalt not join thyself or be like to such men
as are ungodly to the end, and are condemned to death." In like manner as
those fishes, above accursed, float in the deep, not swimming [on the
surface] like the rest, but make their abode in the mud which lies at the
bottom. Moreover, "Thou shalt not," he says, "eat the hare." Wherefore?
"Thou shalt not be a corrupter of boys, nor like unto such." Because the
hare multiplies, year by year, the places of its conception; for as many
years as it lives so many it has. Moreover, "Thou shalt not eat the hyena."
He means, "Thou shalt not be an adulterer, nor a corrupter, nor be like to
them that are such." Wherefore? Because that animal annually changes its
sex, and is at one time male, and at another female. Moreover, he has
rightly detested the weasel. For he means, "Thou shalt not be like to those
whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth, on account of
265
their uncleanness; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who
commit iniquity with the mouth. For this animal conceives by the mouth."
Moses then issued three doctrines concerning meats with a spiritual
significance; but they received them according to fleshly desire, as if he had
merely spoken of [literal] meats. David, however, comprehends the
knowledge of the three doctrines, and speaks in like manner: "Blessed is
the man who hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly," even as the
fishes [referred to] go in darkness to the depths [of the sea]; "and hath not
stood in the way of sinners," even as those who profess to fear the Lord,
but go astray like swine; "and hath not sat in the seat of scorners," even as
those birds that lie in wait for prey. Take a full and firm grasp of this
spiritual knowledge. But Moses says still further, "Ye shall eat every
animal that is cloven-footed and ruminant." What does he mean? [The
ruminant animal denotes him] who, on receiving food, recognizes Him that
nourishes him, and being satisfied by Him, is visibly made glad. Well spake
[Moses], having respect to the commandment. What, then, does he mean?
That we ought to join ourselves to those that fear the Lord, those who
meditate in their heart on the commandment which they have received,
those who both utter the judgments of the Lord and observe them, those
who know that meditation is a work of gladness, and who ruminate upon
the word of the Lord. But what means the cloven-footed? That the
righteous man also walks in this world, yet looks forward to the holy state
[to come]. Behold how well Moses legislated. But how was it possible for
them to understand or comprehend these things? We then, rightly
understanding his commandments, explain them as the Lord intended. For
this purpose He circumcised our ears and our hearts, that we might
understand these things.

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.

Further, also, it is written concerning the Sabbath in the Decalogue which
[the Lord] spoke, face to face, to Moses on Mount Sinai, "And sanctify
ye the Sabbath of the Lord with clean hands and a pure heart." And He
says in another place, "If my sons keep the Sabbath, then will I cause my
mercy to rest upon them." The Sabbath is mentioned at the beginning of
the creation [thus]: "And God made in six days the works of His hands,
and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it."
Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, "He finished in six
days." This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand
years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifieth,
saying, "Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years." Therefore, my
children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be
271
finished. "And He rested on the seventh day." This meaneth: when His
Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge
the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He
truly rest on the seventh day.

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.

Moreover, He says, "Thou shalt sanctify it
with pure hands and a pure heart." If, therefore, any one can now sanctify
the day which God hath sanctified, except he is pure in heart in all things,
we are deceived. Behold, therefore: certainly then one properly resting
sanctifies it, when we ourselves, having received the promise, wickedness
no longer existing, and all things having been made new by the Lord, shall
be able to work righteousness. Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having
been first sanctified ourselves. Further, He says to them, "Your new
moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure." Ye perceive how He speaks:
Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have
made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning
of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we
keep the eighth day with joyfullness, the day also on which Jesus rose
again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended
into the heavens.

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.

 

[Debi1967]

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

 

[tall73]

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.

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.

 

[PaleHorse]

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.

 

[PaleHorse]

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.

 

[tall73]

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 ....

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.

 

[lmnop9876]

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?

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.

 

[tall73]

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.

 

[tall73]

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.

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.

 

[tall73]

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.

 

[lmnop9876]

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.

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.

 

[tall73]

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.

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.

 

[lmnop9876]

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.

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.

 

[PaleHorse]

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.

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.

 

[TrustAndObey]

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.