Why Did D. M. Canright leave the Seventh-Day Adventists?

[klutedavid]

Been there done this already, haven't we? - One of the most controversial issues, is the DAY OF WORSHIP

Latin:

"... Similiter et feriae a fando dicuntur, ob quam causam Silvester papa primus apud Romanos constituit ut dierum nomina quae antea secundum nomina deorum suorum vocabant, id est, Solis, Lunae, Martis, Mercurii, Veneris, Saturni, feria deinceps vocarent, id est, prima feria, secunda feria, tertia feria, quarta feria, quinta feria, sexta feria, quia in principio Genesis scriptum est quod Deus per singulos dies dixerit : prima, Fiat Lux; secunda, Fiat firmamentum; tertia, Producat terra herbam virentem, similiter, etc. Sabbatum autem antiquo legis vocabulo vocare praecepit, et primam feriam diem Dominicam, eo quod Dominus in illa resurrexit. Statuit autem idem papa ut otium sabbati magis in diem Dominicam transferretur, ut ea die a terrenis operibus ad laudandum Deum vacaremus, justa illud quod scriptum est : Vacate et videte, quoniam ego sum Deus (Psal. XLV). ..." - Beati Rabani Mauri, Fuldensis Abbatis et Moguntini Archiepiscopi, de Clericorum Institutione, ad Heistulphum Archiepiscopum; Libri Tres. (Anno 819.) Ad Fratres Fuldenses Epigramma Ejusdem; Liber Secundus, Caput XLVI. Column 361 (Left; PDF page 35) - http://www.documentacatholicaomnia....eistulphum_Archiepiscopum_Libri_Tres,_MLT.pdf

"... The decree by Pope Sylvester I to call the days of the week feria was issued in the year 316 A.D. according to Medii ævi Kalendarium Or, Dates, Charters, and Customs of the Middle Ages, Volume Two, by Robert Thomas Hampson, published in London by H. K. Causten, 1841, entry on Day, page 66, and Feria, pages 137, 138. ..." - Exactly Which Pope Changed The Sabbath To Sunday?

"... Pope Sylvester I (also Silvester, died 31 December 335), was Pope of the Catholic Church from 314 to his death in 335. ..." - Pope Sylvester I - Wikipedia

Translated English (of the Latin above):

"... Pope Sylvester first among the Romans ordered that the names of the days [of the week], which they previously called after the name of their gods, that is, [the day] of the Sun, [the day] of the Moon, [the day] of Mars, [the day] of Mercury, [the day] of Jupiter, [the day] of Venus, [the day] of Saturn, they should call feriae thereafter, that is the first feria, the second feria, the third feria, the fourth feria, the fifth feria, the sixth feria, because that in the beginning of Genesis it is written that God said concerning each day: on the first, "Let there be light:; on the second, "Let there be a firmament"; on the third, "Let the earth bring forth verdure"; etc. But he [Sylvester] ordered [them] to call the Sabbath by the ancient term of the law, [to call] the first feria the "Lord's day," because on it the Lord rose [from the dead], Moreover, the same pope decreed that the rest of the Sabbath should be transferred rather to the Lord's day [Sunday], in order that on that day we should rest from worldly works for the praise of God.7 ..." - Exactly Which Pope Changed The Sabbath To Sunday?

Further:

“...yet we find St. Cæsarius of Arles in the sixth century teaching that the holy Doctors of the Church had decreed that the whole glory of the Jewish Sabbath had been transferred to the Sunday, and that Christians must keep the Sunday holy in the same way as the Jews had been commanded to keep holy the Sabbath Day. … From the eight century the law began to be formulated as it exists at the present day, and the local councils forbade servile work, public buying and selling, pleading in the law courts, and the public and solemn taking of oaths. There is a large body of civil legislation on the Sunday rest side by side with the ecclesiastical. ...” [Roman Catholic Online Encyclopedia; Sunday] - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Sunday

“... Jesus exercised his sovereign power to abrogate the sabbath law in at least some way. … The sabbath command is the only one of the Ten Commandments which can be altered in any way, because only it is a part of the ceremonial law. This is taught by the Roman Catechism issued after the Council of Trent:

The other commandments of the Decalogue are precepts of the natural law, obligatory at all times and unalterable. Hence, after the abrogation of the Law of Moses, all the Commandments contained in the two tables are observed by Christians, not indeed because their observance is commanded by Moses, but because they are in conformity with nature which dictates obedience to them.

This Commandment about the observance of the sabbath, on the other hand, considered as to the time appointed for its fulfillment, is not fixed and unalterable, but susceptible of change and belongs not to the moral, but the ceremonial law. Neither is it a principle of the natural law; we are not instructed by nature to give external worship to God on that day, rather than on any other. And in fact the sabbath was kept holy only from the time of Israel from the bondage of Pharaoh.

The observance of the sabbath was to be abrogated at the same time as the other Hebrew rites and ceremonies, that is, at the death of Christ. . . .” [Roman Catholic Online Library; Quick Questions (1994)] - CATHOLIC LIBRARY: Quick Questions (1994)

“... Today Jews and other groups who keep the sabbath, such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, continue to celebrate it from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. This way of reckoning time was not the only one in the ancient world. For example, the Romans reckoned days from midnight to midnight--the system we use today. … Sunday is often spoken of as "the Christian sabbath," but this is not a technical description. Sunday is not a strict replacement for the sabbath (which has been abolished), but a day the Church instituted to fulfill a parallel function. ...” [Roman Catholic Online Library; Quick Questions (1994)] - CATHOLIC LIBRARY: Quick Questions (1994)

“...With regard to the exposition of this commandment, the faithful are to be carefully taught in what it accords with, and in what it differs from the others, in order that they may understand why Christians observe not the Sabbath, but the Lord's day. … all the commandments contained in the two tables are observed by Christians … whereas this commandment, if considered as to the time of its fulfillment, is not fixed and unalterable, but is susceptible of change, and belongs not to the moral but ceremonial Law. … ” [The Catechism of the Council of Trent published by command of Pope Pius The Fifth, translated into English by the Rev. J. Donovon, Professor, &c Royal College, Maynooth; Baltimore: Published by Lucas Brothers. No. 170 Market Street; Printed By James Young, Baltimore; On The Third Commandment; pg 264] - The catechism of the Council of Trent

“...But the Church of God [Roman Catholic church] has in her wisdom ordained that the celebration of the Sabbath should be transferred to “the Lord's day:” …” [The Catechism of the Council of Trent; On The Third Commandment; pg 267] - The catechism of the Council of Trent

The catechism of the Council of Trent : Catholic Church : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

“...Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify. ...” [The Faith Of Our Fathers “Being a Plain Exposition and Vindication of the Church Founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ” By James Cardinal Gibbons; Archbishop of Baltimore, Ninety-third Carefully Revised and Enlarged Edition; John Murphy Company; Publishers; Baltimore, MD. New York; R. & T. Washbourne, Ltd.; 10 Paternoster Row, London, and at Manchester.; Birmingham and Glascow; 1917; Chapter VIII [8]. The Church And The Bible; Online Pg 97, also side notation pagination as [089]] - http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27435/27435-pdf.pdf



That is only one record, of a specific 'catholic' 'synod' in the mid 300's (circa 363, the 4th Cent.).

"... The Laodicea at which the Synod met is Laodicea in Phrygia Pacatiana, also called Laodicea ad Lycum, and to be carefully distinguished from the Laodicea in Syria. ..." - CHURCH FATHERS: Synod of Laodicea (4th Century)

"... The Council of Laodicea was a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor that assembled about 363–364 AD in Laodicea, Phrygia Pacatiana. ..." - Council of Laodicea - Wikipedia

It was in 'turkey'. True, yet if you consider the material in those 'canons', you will see that their decisions were based upon things that already existed previously.



Do you know why 'canon XXIX' was made?

Canon 16 'XVI' (Laodicea):

"The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures.

... Neander (Kirchengesch., 2d ed., vol. iij., p. 565 et seq.) suggests ... that it was the custom in many parts of the ancient Church to keep every Saturday as a feast in commemoration of the Creation. ...

... Among the Greeks the Sabbath was kept ..." - CHURCH FATHERS: Synod of Laodicea (4th Century)

The 'pope' of Rome (there were other 'popes'), didn't have to be at Laodicea as Sylvester I had already issued a statement on the thing before this 'synod'.



True. So?



You just stretched the evidence you gave beyond what it gives.



I saw how the source you used was stretched to support your a priori.

Yet, see the evidence I provided is against your stretching?

I have a number of questions regarding the content of your post.

You referred to the bishop of Rome, Sylvester I, as a pope. This is in direct conflict with what the prophet, Ellen Gould White, stated about the papacy.

"The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate on 1798.” (Great Controversy, p266, 1888 edition.)

“This period, as stated in the preceding chapters, began with the establishment of the papacy, A. D. 538, and terminated in 1798. At that time, when the papacy was abolished and the pope was made captive by the French army, the papal power received its deadly wound, and the prediction was fulfilled, ‘He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity.” (Great Controversy, p439, 1888 edition)

Bishop Sylvester I (314-335 AD), cannot be called a pope. Because the papacy itself did not begin until 538 AD.

We have a problem Houston.

 

[BobRyan]

I have a number of questions regarding the content of your post.

You referred to the bishop of Rome, Sylvester I, as a pope. This is in direct conflict with what the prophet, Ellen Gould White, stated about the papacy.

"The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate on 1798.” (Great Controversy, p266, 1888 edition.)

“This period, as stated in the preceding chapters, began with the establishment of the papacy, A. D. 538, and terminated in 1798. At that time, when the papacy was abolished and the pope was made captive by the French army, the papal power received its deadly wound, and the prediction was fulfilled, ‘He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity.” (Great Controversy, p439, 1888 edition)

Your quote refutes your claim David.

The quote did not say 'no Popes existed' before 538 (as if in 538 a Pope suddenly appeared). It also says the papacy is abolished in 1798 -- and the same author argue that there existed popes after 1798. But the Holy Roman Empire and world domination of the "papacy" ended in 1798.

Pope - is an office.
Papacy deals with the authority of the Pope -- and whether it was covering Europe (Holy Roman Empire) or not.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

If the Jews were keeping week-day-1 each week because of Spring festivals -- it is news to me... and them.

If they did not regard Lev 23 that defines spring festivals to be stating a weekly week-day-1 service as a "Sabbath" devoted to God - then it would be surprising that they or we should suddenly do that over a thousand years later - and argue that Lev 23 told us to do it... or created some doctrine for it.

Sir 1. what day did Jesus enter Jerusalem on a colt? The first day of the week or Palm sunday(Also called Lamb selection Sunday, for it was the day the lamb was choosen for slaughter). 2. What day did Jesus raise from the dead? The first day of the week or First fruits, or the 8th day of the Passover. 3. What day was the Holy Spirit fall on the Chruch, the first-day of the week or Pentacost. So there you have it 3 witness of scripture that show the the first day of the week had Spiritual meaning and Prophetic signifance.

 

[klutedavid]

Your quote refutes your claim David.

The quote did not say 'no Popes existed' before 538 (as if in 538 a Pope suddenly appeared). It also says the papacy is abolished in 1798 -- and the same author argue that there existed popes after 1798. But the Holy Roman Empire and world domination of the "papacy" ended in 1798.

Pope - is an office.
Papacy deals with the authority of the Pope -- and whether it was covering Europe (Holy Roman Empire) or not.

I thought I said; 'I have a number of questions regarding the content of your post.'

A question is not a claim.

So why did you say, 'Your quote refutes your claim David.'

The word 'papacy' has a definition and we must use the same definitions. Otherwise communication is impossible between us and everyone else.

Papacy definition, Cambridge Dictionary.
The position of the pope (i.e., leader of the Roman Catholic Church)

So what does Ellen mean when she states.

The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538

What was established regarding the papacy in 538 AD?

 

[klutedavid]

Your quote refutes your claim David.

The quote did not say 'no Popes existed' before 538 (as if in 538 a Pope suddenly appeared). It also says the papacy is abolished in 1798 -- and the same author argue that there existed popes after 1798. But the Holy Roman Empire and world domination of the "papacy" ended in 1798.

Pope - is an office.
Papacy deals with the authority of the Pope -- and whether it was covering Europe (Holy Roman Empire) or not.

Ongoing questions.

The SDA stated the following.

"... Pope Sylvester first among the Romans ordered that the names of the days [of the week], which they previously called after the name of their gods, that is, [the day] of the Sun, [the day] of the Moon, [the day] of Mars, [the day] of Mercury, [the day] of Jupiter, [the day] of Venus, [the day] of Saturn, they should call feriaethereafter, that is the first feria, the second feria, the third feria, the fourth feria, the fifth feria, the sixth feria, because that in the beginning of Genesis it is written that God said concerning each day: on the first, "Let there be light:; on the second, "Let there be a firmament"; on the third, "Let the earth bring forth verdure"; etc. But he [Sylvester] ordered [them] to call the Sabbath by the ancient term of the law, [to call] the first feriathe "Lord's day," because on it the Lord rose [from the dead], Moreover, the same pope decreed that the rest of the Sabbath should be transferred rather to the Lord's day [Sunday], in order that on that day we should rest from worldly works for the praise of God.7 ..." - Exactly Which Pope Changed The Sabbath To Sunday?

I have highlighted the paragraph above. Pope Sylvester apparently decreed a transfer of the rest day (Sabbath) to the Lord's Day. Where is the historical citation to support that statement.

 

[liberty of conscience]

You forgot one.
Oh wait, never mind.
Looks like the Ten Commandments were transitory. (temporary)

2 Corinthians 3:6-11
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

You have misread 2 Corinthians 3, confusing the "glory" that was "done away". The "glory" (of the Law as seen through/) of Moses face was done away, not the "glory" of the Law itself which shone from the face of Jesus Christ. Even the Koine Greek disagrees with how you have wrested the text, though Peter warned you (2 Peter 3:16):

But if the ministration of death, written [and] engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which [glory] was to be done away: 2 Corinthians 3:7

What was the "glory" that was to be done away?

Why? For a greater glory than the glory of Moses face, which was merely reflection of the Glory of God from Christ Jesus upon Mt. Sinai, as He spake forth the Character of God (Exodus 20:5-6; 33:12-23; 34:1-9), which is what was written upon the two stone tables, known as the Ten Commandments, and thus was to be seen directly in the face of Jesus Christ, God's glory and His Law directly seen in the Life lived perfectly, the Law as it is to be in the heart, from love to God, Divinity clothed in humanity, the likeness of sinful flesh, the same flesh we have, victorious over all temptation, condemned sin in the flesh...

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:6

Here are some of the major translations of 2 Corinthians 3:7, 99%ish [I hope that is enough witnesses] rendering it "his" [masculine], including the Major Reformers and Bible Scholars of reknown:

"Young's Literal Translation
and if the ministration of the death, in letters, engraved in stones, came in glory, so that the sons of Israel were not able to look stedfastly to the face of Moses, because of the glory of his face -- which was being made useless,

World English Bible
But if the service of death, written engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly on the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which was passing away:

Weymouth New Testament
If, however, the service that proclaims death--its code being engraved in writing upon stones--came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily on the face of Moses because of the brightness of his face--a vanishing brightness;

Webster's Bible Translation
But if the ministration of death, written and engraven on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away;

English Revised Version
But if the ministration of death, written, and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look stedfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory was passing away:

Darby Bible Translation
(But if the ministry of death, in letters, graven in stones, began with glory, so that the children of Israel could not fix their eyes on the face of Moses, on account of the glory of his face, a glory which is annulled;

Douay-Rheims Bible
Now if the ministration of death, engraven with letters upon stones, was glorious; so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance, which is made void:

American Standard Version
But if the ministration of death, written, and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look stedfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory was passing away:

American King James Version
But if the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
But if the ministry of death, written and engraved in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
The ministry that brought death was inscribed on stone. Yet, it came with such glory that the people of Israel couldn't look at Moses' face. His face was shining with glory, even though that glory was fading.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
But if the ministry of death in The Scripture carved in stone was with glory, so that the children of Israel were not able to gaze at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face ( that which has been canceled ),

NET Bible (©2006)
But if the ministry that produced death--carved in letters on stone tablets--came with glory, so that the Israelites could not keep their eyes fixed on the face of Moses because of the glory of his face (a glory which was made ineffective),

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was,

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
Now if the ministry of death, chiseled in letters on stones, came with glory, so that the Israelites were not able to look directly at Moses' face because of the glory from his face--a fading glory--

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

...[others, only 2 from this site, are still referring to Moses' face though with slightly altered renderings]...

English Standard Version (©2001)
Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,

International Standard Version (©2012)
Now if the ministry of death that was inscribed in letters of stone came with such glory that the people of Israel could not gaze on Moses' face (because the glory was fading away from it), " - [quoted, not in particular order from] 2 Corinthians 3:7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was,

 

[liberty of conscience]

You forgot one.
Oh wait, never mind.
Looks like the Ten Commandments were transitory. (temporary)

2 Corinthians 3:6-11
He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

You have misread 2 Corinthians 3 ... more.

Now even from the Latin, it is rendered Masculine:

"3:7 quod si ministratio mortis litteris deformata in lapidibus fuit in gloria ita ut non possent intendere filii Israhel in faciem Mosi propter gloriam vultus eius quae evacuatur" - 2nd Corinthians 3 - 2nd Corinthians 3 - Parallel Greek New Testament - HTML Bible by johnhurt.com

Now from the Spanish Reina Valera Antigua, renders in the Masculine:

"7 Y si el ministerio de muerte en la letra grabado en piedras, fué con gloria, tanto que los hijos de Israel no pudiesen poner los ojos en la faz de Moisés á causa de la gloria de su rostro, la cual había de perecer," - 2 Corintios 3 RVA - Bible Gateway passage: 2 Corintios 3 - Reina-Valera Antigua

Now also the Luther German Bible, rendering it in the Masculine:

"[3.7] Wenn aber schon das Amt, das den Tod bringt und das mit Buchstaben in Stein gehauen war, Herrlichkeit hatte, so daß die Israeliten das Angesicht des Mose nicht ansehen konnten wegen der Herrlichkeit auf seinem Angesicht, die doch aufhörte," - Bible, Luther Translation

Now the Wycliffe Bible, renders in the Masculine:

"7 And if the mynystracioun of deth write bi lettris in stoonys was in glorie, so that the children of Israel myyten not biholde in to the face of Moises, for the glorie of his cheer, which is auoidid," - http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/biblical_studies/wycliffe/2co.txt

Now the William Tyndale Bible, renders in the Masculine:

"7 Yf the ministracion of deeth thorow the letters figured in stones was glorious so yt the chyldren of Israel coulde not beholde the face of Moses for the glory of his countenauce (which glory neverthelesse is done awaye)" - http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/tyndale/2co.txt

Now the Miles Coverdale Bible, renders in the Masculine [Right Hand Page, Top Left Paragraph, Line 3-4]:

"...for y clearnesse of his countenassce..." - Coverdale Bible, 1535 - Coverdale Bible, 1535

http://ia600704.us.archive.org/Book...35_0533.jp2&scale=2.1310344827586207&rotate=0

Now for the Geneva Bible, renders in the Masculine:

"7 If then the ministration of death written with letters and engraven in stones, was [j]glorious, so that the children of Israel could not behold the face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance (which glory is gone away.)" - 2 Corinthians 3 GNV - Bible Gateway passage: 2 Corinthians 3 - 1599 Geneva Bible

The Greek Interlinears each translate it in the Masculine, here are 4 major witnesses to testify:

“2Co 3:7 ειG1487 COND δεG1161 CONJ ηG3588 T-NSF διακονιαG1248 N-NSF τουG3588 T-GSM θανατουG2288 N-GSM ενG1722 PREP γραμμασινG1121 N-DPN εντετυπωμενηG1795 V-RPP-NSF ενG1722 PREP λιθοιςG3037 N-DPM εγενηθηG1096 V-AOI-3S ενG1722 PREP δοξηG1391 N-DSF ωστεG5620 CONJ μηG3361 PRT-N δυνασθαιG1410 V-PNN ατενισαιG816 V-AAN τουςG3588 T-APM υιουςG5207 N-APM ισραηλG2474 N-PRI ειςG1519 PREP τοG3588 T-ASN προσωπονG4383 N-ASN μωσεωςG3475 N-GSM διαG1223 PREP τηνG3588 T-ASF δοξανG1391 N-ASF τουG3588 T-GSN προσωπουG4383 N-GSN αυτουG846 P-GSM τηνG3588 T-ASF καταργουμενηνG2673 V-PPP-ASF ” - E-Sword app GNT-TR+ [Greek New Testament of the Textus Receptus with Strong's Numbers and Robinson's Morphological Analysis codes]

“ But if the ministration of death, written [and] engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which [glory] was to be done away:
...

proswpon
prosOpon
G4383
n_ Acc Sg n
face

mwsews
mOseOs
G3475
n_ Gen Sg m
OF-MOSES

dia
dia
G1223
Prep
THRU
because-of

thn
tEn
G3588
t_ Acc Sg f
THE

doxan
doxan
G1391
n_ Acc Sg f
esteem
glory

tou
tou
G3588
t_ Gen Sg n
OF-THE

proswpou
prosOpou
G4383
n_ Gen Sg n
face

autou
autou
G846
pp Gen Sg m
OF-him

thn
tEn
G3588
t_ Acc Sg f
THE

katargoumenhn
katargoumenEn
G2673
vp Pres Pas Acc Sg f
one
-
be
ING-DOWN-UN-ACTED
vanishing
:83 “ - http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/2co3.pdf

Now see also:

Greek New Testament Interlinear, which reads, “...into the face of Moses, on account of the glory of his face, which is being annulled;...” - The interlinear literal translation of the Greek New Testament

Another:

“ ...
προσώπου
prosōpou •
face

αὐτοῦ
autou •
his

τὴν
tēn •
which

καταργουμένην,
katargoumenēn •
fading
” - 2 Corinthians 3 Interlinear Bible

And finally:

“7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away :

Eij {COND} de; {CONJ} hJ {T-NSF} diakoniva {N-NSF} tou' {T-GSN} qanavtou {N-GSM} ejn {PREP} gravmmasin {N-DPN} ejntetupwmevnh {V-RPP-NSF} livqoi? {N-DPM} ejgenhvqh {V-AOI-3S} ejn {PREP} dovxh/, w&ste {CONJ} mh; {PRT} duvnasqai {V-PNN} ajtenivsai {V-AAN} tou;? {T-APM} uiJou;? {N-APM} #Israh;l {N-PRI} eij? {PREP} to; {T-ASN} provswpon {N-ASN} Mwu>sevw? {N-GSM} dia; {PREP} th;n {T-ASF} dovxan tou' {T-GSN} proswvpou {N-GSN} aujtou' {P-GSM} th;n {T-ASF} katargoumevnhn, {V-PPP-ASF}
” - 2 Corinthians 3:7 KJV - Interlinear Bible - Online Bible Study Tools

...now even beyond all of that evidence of the mere translations of the greek scholars and some of the greatest and finest minds of the reformation itself, which actually translated under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we see that the very context itself dictates the Masculine, for notice:

But if the ministration of death, written [and] engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which [glory] was to be done away: 2 Corinthians 3:7

How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 2 Corinthians 3:8

What we have here is structurally built:

"But if.... so that..." [vs 7]

"How shall... be rather..." [vs 8]

The "if" is realized in vs 8, not in vs 7. Even moreso, when looking at the text, we can see further parallels, in that the word for "face" ["the face of Moses"] is repeated again in the Masculine, "his countenance".

Thus "face" and "countenance" are pointing to the same thing, and sharing, in other words they both speak of Moses face. Both glories in the latter portion of the text speak of Moses face which the Children of Israel could not behold, and which was to be done away, having the veil removed, no longer needing type. Thus the first portion of vs 7 and the whole of vs 8 are related speaking of "ministration". Thus we have a true A1 B1 B2 A2 pattern in vs 7-8. Ministration, glory of Moses face, glory of Moses face, Ministration... It is as sealed in the Masculine, "his [Moses] face", as it is going to get.

The immediate context of "which [glory] was to be done away" is already the text just before it, which is, "the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses..."; Why? "...for the glory of his [masculine pronoun pointing back to the masculine proper Noun-Moses, not the feminine noun "ministration"] countenance...". It is speaking about that which was given by Moses, through a veil, even a covering, a shrouded mystery of types and shadows, speaking of the ceremonial law, handwritten by Moses. The type was glorious, even behind the veil, but it was only temporary, even as the reality [Jesus] of those shadows [ceremonies, sacrifices, etc] was far more glorious shedding His light upon the Ten Commandments, upholding them even unto Death, the Death of the cross.

The typological shed glory upon the Law of God, the Ten Commandments, but were temporary, while the Law of God, the Ten Commandments, as seen in the face of Christ Jesus is much more glorious, since Christ Jesus paid with His life to uphold, honour, and magnify them. The very context speaks of this which remaineth is far more glorious, even the Ten Commandments:

For if that which is done away [was] glorious, much more that which remaineth [is] glorious. 2 Corinthians 3:11

[1] For it is obvious there were two major portions seen in the past, the one, the ceremonials/sacrifices/shadows/types under the veil of Moses, so to speak as Paul, which had a temporary glory pointing unto the sacredness of the Ten Commandments and of the Character of God in it, pointing to a yet future reality [Jesus],

[2] and the latter, the Ten Commandments in Christ, blazing with the full light of the Gospel, which remains forever.

Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed [each other]. Psalms 85:10

Thy Law is the Truth, all thy Commandments are Truth, etc, and all thy commandments are righteouness... etc.

Law and Grace. No need for Grace without a transgressed Law.

Here is the passage again, from E-Sword, module GNT-TR+:

2Co 3:7 ειG1487 COND δεG1161 CONJ ηG3588 T-NSF διακονιαG1248 N-NSF τουG3588 T-GSM θανατουG2288 N-GSM ενG1722 PREP γραμμασινG1121 N-DPN εντετυπωμενηG1795 V-RPP-NSF ενG1722 PREP λιθοιςG3037 N-DPM εγενηθηG1096 V-AOI-3S ενG1722 PREP δοξηG1391 N-DSF ωστεG5620 CONJ μηG3361 PRT-N δυνασθαιG1410 V-PNN ατενισαιG816 V-AAN τουςG3588 T-APM υιουςG5207 N-APM ισραηλG2474 N-PRI ειςG1519 PREP τοG3588 T-ASN προσωπονG4383 N-ASN μωσεωςG3475 N-GSM διαG1223 PREP τηνG3588 T-ASF δοξανG1391 N-ASF τουG3588 T-GSN προσωπουG4383 N-GSN αυτουG846 P-GSM τηνG3588 T-ASF καταργουμενηνG2673 V-PPP-ASF

The word for "his" αυτουG846 P-GSM, in "his countenance", is from Robinson's Morphological Analysis codes:

Part of Speech: Personal pronoun
Case: Genitive
Number: Singular
Gender: Masculine

This cannot be referring to the "διακονιαG1248" or "ministration" as it is N-NSF", but we see directly that "μωσεωςG3475 N-GSM" or Moses it does refer to, since Moses is the "Noun", "Genetive", "Singular" "Masculine" to which the "αυτουG846 P-GSM" is now referring to, since it is the "personal pronoun" of such.

Therefore it is the "glory of his [Moses] countenance" "which ... was to be done away", not the glory of the Law as seen in the face of Jesus Christ, since as it is written, that which was not to pass away, remains, "For if that which is done away [was] glorious, much more that which remaineth [is] glorious." 2 Corinthians 3:11

That is to say the Ten Commandments are more "glorious" and "remaineth" because as they are seen in the face/chracter/life of Christ Jesus, who even came to "magnify" and "make honourable " the Law. Jesus fully demonstrated how to live them in the likeness of sinful (fallen) flesh as we have by and through the Holy Ghost.

 

[Saint Steven]

What Law? "Do not take God's name in vain"??
Or "keep Passover"??

Which commandment is the "first commandment with a promise"??

When was the law set aside from your perspective?

I am

defining ​

the law as:
The law God gave to the Israelites through Moses.

 

[Saint Steven]

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God"

Are you claiming to do that?

 

[Saint Steven]

You have misread 2 Corinthians 3 ... more.

Seems as though someone you know quite well has misread the entire Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism.

And of course 7th day groups

Seventh-day Baptists
Seventh-day Adventists
(and 100's of others)

You forgot one.
Oh wait, never mind.

Indeed I left out a bunch that I could have included in that list.

Looks like the Ten Commandments were transitory. (temporary)

Not to those denominations.

Which is why they think the 5th commandment "is the first commandment with a promise"

2 Corinthians 3:7-11
7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.


Is not a statement saying "do not take God's name in vain" has been 'deleted' or "faded away"

And that is why Paul continues to hammer away at the need of the saints of the NT to obey God's commandments ... for example the 5th commandment

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God"
Eph 6:2 the 5th commandment "is the first Commandment with a promise"

Are you claiming to do that?

Are you claiming to oppose those scriptures? How curious.

Or are you just being cagey trying not to answer the point?

 

[BobRyan]

When was the law set aside from your perspective?

What Law? "Do not take God's name in vain"??
Or "keep Passover"??

Which commandment is the "first commandment with a promise"??

When was the law set aside from your perspective?

I am

defining ​

the law as:
The law God gave to the Israelites through Moses.

I see - so then
Exodus 20 "Do not take God's name in vain"??

You want to know when that ceased to be a Commandment of God??

 

[Saint Steven]

Are you claiming to oppose those scriptures? How curious.

You are not claiming to keep the Commandments of God?
What will become of you?

 

[Saint Steven]

@klutedavid Can I borrow some ointment. This thread has a bad rash.

 

[eleos1954]

"How could Sunday worship have come from paganism,
when Sunday was never a pagan holiday?" — RALPH WOODROW

Source link

D. M. Canright, a Seventh-Day Adventist minister.
Contacted the experts listed below to gather conclusive
evidence about pagan sun worship. He set out to prove
the SDA point on this once and for all.

Why Did D. M. Canright leave the Seventh-Day Adventists?

Here's an overview of the key findings and sources.
Questions were put to these experts in Bible times history.

- F. N. Pryce of the British Museum in London, England,
Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities

- R. Rathborn of the Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.

- George F.Moore, Professor of Ancient Roman and Greek History,
at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

- Professor W. H. Westerman of the
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.

- J. W. Moncrieff, Professor at the University of Chicago.

All these experts in ancient history answered in chorus, "No."
The pagans did not gather on Sunday to worship the sun.
They did not gather on any day of the week to worship or
have a festival or day of rest. Worship gathering was annual for them.
Nor did they even follow a seven day week until after Christian times.
The significance of the week day names was astrological, not religious.
Their week was an eight day cycle based on their "weekly" market day.

Back in 1913-1914 the questions were put to these experts by
D. M. Canright, a Seventh-Day Adventist minister.
Who set out to prove the SDA point on this once and for all.
He left the SDA church as a result.

Source link

We are called to be imitators of Christ ... He kept the Sabbath.

1 Corinthians 11:1
Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

Ephesians 5:1
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.

1 Peter 2:21
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.

1 John 2:6
Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Philippians 3:17
Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.

1 Corinthians 4:16
I urge you, then, be imitators of me.

Ephesians 5:1-2
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

God Bless.

 

[BobRyan]

Notice how Paul continues to hammer away at the need of the saints of the NT to obey God's commandments ... for example the 5th commandment

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God"
Eph 6:2 the 5th commandment "is the first Commandment with a promise"

Are you claiming to do that?

Are you claiming to oppose those scriptures? How curious.

Or are you just being cagey trying not to answer the point?

You are not claiming to keep the Commandments of God?
What will become of you?

I find your logic "illusive" just then. Or is it just your efforts not to address the point raised from scripture?

 

[BobRyan]

@klutedavid Can I borrow some ointment. This thread has a bad rash.

Klute has ointment? you have a rash?

I tell you -- we learn something new every day on this board.

 

[liberty of conscience]

When was the law set aside from your perspective?

I am

defining ​

the law as:
The law God gave to the Israelites through Moses.

What about the "Law of God" as spoken by God, from Heaven, directly to all people then present (Exodus 20:1-17), which were not only Israelites, but a mixed multitude (Egyptians, (Gentiles), etc; Exodus 12:38, 20:18), without Moses mediating it (Exodus 20:19)?

 

[liberty of conscience]

Seems as though someone you know quite well has misread the entire Bible.

That's not actually a valid reason to disagree with what was presented on 2 Corinthians 3 [[1] [2]], in regards the "glory" of "his (Moses) face" being done away rather than the Ten Commandments (which are eternal as God is; see Psalms 119:89-96,97, notice the declaration of God's "faithfulness" which was seen in Exodus 20:5-6, Exodus 33:12-23; Exodus 34:1-9), since you presented 0 (zero, nada, ziltch, bubkiss, nothing) evidence for the claim.

I presented the facts of context and even of linguistics and translation. You have?

 

[Saint Steven]

What about the "Law of God" as spoken by God, from Heaven, directly to all people then present (Exodus 20:1-17), which were not only Israelites, but a mixed multitude (Egyptians, (Gentiles), etc; Exodus 12:38, 20:18), without Moses mediating it (Exodus 20:19)?

On what do you base these claims?