Why the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) is the Lord's Day, in the Bible

[GDL]

There are way to many issues here to start down this rabbit whole. The only thing I wish to know and can't find out is what of the other texts? I can see WH and the Byzan. do not agree but what of the other texts? And have you considered the fact that they agree in the other two witnesses of this account? Take a look at 10:28 and 11:8. Especially 11:8 where Peter gets really specific.

It was just a mention not meant to be a rabbit hole. Yes, I did see the other 2 verses and know you would also. The comparable "or" is enough for me given the context and the logic.

It seems NET notes failed to consider that. And the fact that anything that touched an unclean thing was ritually unclean, Koinos. See Leviticus 5 and 11. However Koinos was not used there to translate from the Hebrew miaino was. The only occurrences of koinos in the LXX are in Proverbs 15:23, 21:9 and 25:24 for the Hebrew words
koinos H259 * אֶחָד ('eḥāḏ) echad
koinos H2267 * חֶבֶר (ḥeḇer) chever

Good catch on the Proverbs verses. My software wasn't picking them up for some reason. Going there and searching from Proverbs, it picks those up up and also Prov1:14 and something in Esther5 it looks like, but the indexing is off.

It simply looks like they are using the basic meaning of shared - having something in common.

There's an interesting use in 1 Macc 1:47 & 62 that Greek to English is translating koinos as unclean. In 2 Macc9:26 same Greek to English is translating koinos as "public" vs. private. I'd have to look at these further but have to go out soon.

Looking at Philo, and the Epistle of Aristeas in respect to the time they were written there is a possibility the koinos was not commonly used when the Pentateuch was written. Which would could explain why it is so silent in all the books except proverbs. But I can't be certain. But what I am certain of is how it is used within the NT and How most Lexicons including see the word being used in antiquity.

I'm not sure what you are concluding here that you are sure of. Lexically it has the sense of shared / in common, being common, ordinary, of little value, and being ritually impure (which may be a theologically derived definition by those who see it as I see it - comparable to unclean).

And in respect to Kai the connection to what is being said can also be in relation to what Peter saw. He seen common and unclean animals. As the NET notes admit "Possibly there is a subtle distinction in meaning between κοινός (koinos) and ἀκάθαρτος (akathartos) here" Apparently they had not considered the other instances of the account and Lev. 5 and 11. Thinking also there might a bit of bias due to preconceived notions in respect to doctrine.

NET refers to the Louw-Nida Lexicon. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't consider other uses - speculative as you periodically point out - many of which basically just mean shared in common which may be the best way to take it the most simply. Something unclean was not sanctified. Not being set apart, it was common. But this also ties the unclean and the common together as unsanctified, which 1Tim4:5 may address although I know we will have to discuss context.

 

[BobRyan]

A scripture which was incorporated into a traditional saying.

"what traditional saying" did you find Jesus quoting instead of Lev 19:18 "Honor your father and your mother"??

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

He is comparing former pagan Christians to Jewish Christians in 1 Cor 8 and in Gal 4 we see that same reference to formerly pagan gentile Christians.

We should remain in Galatians to discuss Galatians until it is understood.

Exegesis demands that we consider the Author, the book, and the same topic in other books by the same author.

I posted Gal4 Scripture. Paul is clearly including himself as being under the elementary principles of the world.

And I already posted that this is because it is a reference to the lost state - as Paul notes in Col 2 and in Rom 3:19-20 where 'under the law" applies to "The whole world"... "every mouth".

The basics of the Gospel as Paul references in Heb 6:1-2 cannot be conflated with the "elementary principles of the world" - they are two entirely different things.

The issue for the Galatian Gentiles is not that they were being led back into paganism

It is that they were "returning once again" to some of their former pagan practices. Observing some of the pagan days.

Gal 4:
8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored [i]over you in vain.8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless [h]elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored [over you in vain.

Paul is condemning even one observance of a pagan day - the days they used to keep as pagan. When they worshiped that which is not a god at all.

, but into OC Judaism

former pagan gentiles are not former Jews. How is this not obvious??

The Jews of the OC were enslaved under the law

No text says that worship to the God of the Bible and affirmation of God's Word is 'enslavement'
Moses and Elijah stand with Christ in glory in Matt 17 on the mount of transfiguration.
Gal 3:8 "The gospel was preached to Abraham"
Heb 4:2 the "Gospel was preached to us just as it was to them also"

There is no condemnation at all of the Word of God in OT or NT. Again how is this not obvious??

I've addressed this Rom3:19 verse several times. It does not say "under the law."

Yes it does -

Rom 3:
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

The point remains.

To understand Rom3:19 we need to understand Rom2:12 where Paul uses "in law" the first time.

Context determines meaning. In Rom 2:12 "under the Law" is not in the context of "All the world under the Law"
In Rom 3:19 it is...

The rest of humanity is said to be "in law" and will be judged as such - as hearers only or as doers who show the law written in hearts.

The Law written on the heart is the New Covenant experience of Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:6-12 under the "one and only gospel" of Gal 1:6-9 - active in both OT and NT.

All of humanity is condemned as sinners (sin IS transgression of the LAW) for "ALL have sinned" Rom 3:23.

I do agree at this point that the Ex20:7 verse is part of judgment. I'd see it as part of the Love for God that is being written into our hearts.

The actual New Covenant does not say "I will write Love for God on their heart and mind" it says "I will write My LAW on their heart and mind' in both Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8. This means that the meaning that Jeremiah and his readers would have for the moral law of God which included that which is spoken at Sinai - is the context.

This point is pretty obvious so far.

I do not see food or Sabbath as part of this

Then you are not familiar with the meaning of the term for Jeremiah and his readers in Jer 31:31-34 apparently.

What is more - Deut 5:22 says God spoke and wrote the TEN words and "added no more". So Jeremiah and his readers had to have had the TEN (at the very least) in the Law of God as what they had in mind when speaking of the term.

And they would know that in Is 56:6-8 the Sabbath was specifically to include gentiles - so no wonder we see gentiles in Acts 13 asking for "more gospel preaching" to be given to them on 'the NEXT Sabbath" rather than "tomorrow... week-day-1".

My comments and the Scripture I posted had to do with Paul being under the elementary principles of the world

Which in every case is the lost condition not a description of the saints in Heb 11, not a description of Moses and Elijah in Matt 17 before the cross.

while being under Mosaic Law as one of the children of Israel.

No such statement is found in all of scripture as "Mosaic Law is one of the weak and beggerly principles of this world".

He was enslaved to sin and to the elementary principles of the world in that era until Christ

No text says that.

. As Paul goes into Rom8 his language is like an epiphany as He sees Christ as the solution to being a child, to being enslaved under the elementary principles, to being under Law.

No text says that scripture is the "weak and beggarly principle" found in the world. Paul calls the OT text - "Scripture"

Christ is the gospel that we find in both OT and NT and as Paul points out in Heb 8 - it is Christ speaking at Sinai.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Obviously Paul considered all humans to be in a fallen sinful state under the condemnation of the perfect law of God that Paul says "He agrees with" in Rom 7. --
The Law that according to Paul includes the TEN having "Honor your father and mother as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2

Again, you are referencing a Commandment that is repeated in the NC and part of the Love Commandments in the Law of Christ.

Paul says that in the TEN it is the "first commandment with a promise" which is only true of the unit of TEN. There is a "reason" why almost all Bible scholarship on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic - admit to this basic feature of the ten included in the NEW Covenant law written on the heart as Jeremiah states.

Paul is explaining how the Mosaic era was for children.

No he is not.

He is explaining how the lost condition is for children and that condemnation of the lost by the perfect law of God that Paul says is "spiritual , holy, just and good" Rom 7 and includes commands like "do not covet" (Rom 7) -- is the condition of the lost. The role of the law for the lost is to inform them of their need of the gospel according to Paul. The role of the law for the saved... is to be written on the heart under the New Covenant according to Paul in Heb 8:6-12. Paul is not condemning the Word of God that Christ identifies in Mark 7:6-13.

How is this point the least bit controversial. No wonder almost all denominations get this point when it comes to the TEN..

He most certainly is.

In Heb 11 the saints are the giants of faith held up as examples to be followed by NT saints.

You are missing what is clearly stated in Gal4. The Mosaic Law as a unit was for the old era.

It does not say that.

It's clear in the Scriptures I posted. The Mosaic Law was a tutor until Christ.

It does not say "tutor until Christ" -- in Gal 3. It says 'tutor until faith came" -- which is the point when each lost person becomes saved. You are conflating two different things. The physical coming of Christ to Earth cannot be conflated with the point where each individual accepts the gospel -- they are different events.

What is more Rom 3:19-20 makes it clear all lost people remain in that same lost condition even after the cross - condemned under the law - and for that reason they need to accept the gospel.

Now we're no longer under a tutor

Only because we are born again and that very same Law of God is now written on the heart. True of Moses and Elijah in Matt 17 before the cross - true of us today after the cross.

Again, the Mosaic Law was a child-trainer until Christ.

you need a text

The way I see it, God's Law was pre-Moses, part of Mosaic Law, and is in the Law of Christ.

No doubt but Jeremiah and his readers would know that the TEN were included in that moral law of God written on the heart under the NEW Covenant.

Your argument seems to have a big problem at that point.

The Law being written on hearts does not include all Mosaic Law, not even close.

There is no way to insert that idea into Jer 31:31-34 and we probably both know it.

Your appeals to democracy are not the arbiter of Truth and FWIW mean nothing to me. It's actually pointless reasoning that may work for some, but only some. If we want to use such reasoning SDA and Messianics lose the argument about 7th day observance.

Then you have missed the point entirely.

The obvious point of the argument about Bible scholars on BOTH SIDES of the Sabbath discussion agreeing on certain Bible details that are so glaringly obvious that BOTH sides admit to it - is a point about "objectivity".

You are entirely missing the point.

IF you actually had an argument for objectivity that actually rose to that level I would suggest mentioning it. ( I can't emphasize this enough).

If you had such a comparison (as you seem to suggest above ) it would be great to show one - so we can all see it and then possibly have some kind of agreement with your suggestion that Bible Sabbath keeping Christians have that same level of lack-of-objectivity in some argument that they make.

This is key -- don't miss that point

 

[Leaf473]

"what traditional saying" did you find Jesus quoting instead of Lev 19:18 "Honor your father and your mother"??

No, he quotes Leviticus, which had been incorporated by the Pharisees or somebody into part of a traditional saying.

 

[GDL]

Lol did you see their paraphrase of these verses? For one the unclean animals are not ritually unclean. They are unclean physically and unfit for food. Two Koinos is the word that is used for something that would be ritually unclean not Akatharos in the NT. Akartharos is used in respect to things that are unclean. Like Spirits, frogs, birds, sinners and the unconverted in the NT.

I did see the interpretive translation and I'm not quick to judge their reasoning, especially since you & I are still putting effort into proving how koinos is being used and since you have only speculated that they (NET) may not know much about the word. They did reference the LN Lexicon as their note says and that Lexicon does in fact state that it's difficult to determine precise differences between common and unclean. It says more so I'll just post it - just this referred to section - for you (my highlights):

Louw-Nida 53.39 κοινός, ή, όν ; ἀκάθαρτος, ον: pertaining to being ritually unacceptable, either as the result of defilement or because of the very nature of the object itself (for example, ritually unacceptable animals) - 'defiled, ritually unclean.' οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ ἀκάθαρτον 'I have never eaten anything defiled and ritually unclean' Ac 10.14. It is possible that there is some subtle distinction in meaning, particularly on a connotative level, between κοινός and ἀκάθαρτος in Ac 10.14, but it is difficult to determine the precise differences of meaning on the basis of existing contexts. The two terms are probably used in Ac 10.14 primarily for the sake of emphasis.

So, it seems the NET relied to a large degree on LN for its reference and translation. You can ask them what they mean by "ritual." I've seen a few journal articles where the authors use the same terminology for this area of Acts. I also note that LN speaks of "defilement" and says "defiled" is an appropriate translation of kainos. LN is not the only Lexicon that states this. I don't know what you have access to, but I have several Lexicons in digital form and the TDNT for some more researching. If you like me to post any of this let me know.

Now, I said Heb9 was very telling re: kainos/kanioo IMO so I'm going to elaborate a bit:

YLT Hebrews 9:13 for if the blood of bulls, and goats, and ashes of an heifer, sprinkling those koinoō-defiled, doth hagiazō-sanctify to the katharotēs-purifying of the flesh.

• So, we have 2 very common words to deal with here: hagiazō-to sanctify, make holy, purify & katharotēs-purity, purification, (state or condition of being ritually cleansed (BDAG)) & related to the negative akathartos-unclean, impure used in Acts10:14, 28; 11:8 (which can be those unclean creatures you mention per Lev & Deut, and can also be moral impurity as you know).
• We also have 2 lessons from OC sacrificial sections: Lev16:14-16 & Num19 dealing with blood of bulls and goats & ashes of a heifer. These sacrifices dealt with the atonement for uncleanness (akatharsia - same base word in Acts10) and sins and mention of hagnizō-sanctify, purify, make holy & katharos-clean. Hebrews is connecting koinoō and thus kainos to all of this.
  • It's Scripture like this that IMO tie kainos and akathartos together with the "or" of comparison in Acts10.
  • What also ties them together is the logic I presented to you several posts back and you have left unanswered.
  • From what I'm seeing there's probably some more ties from kainos>Hebrew words that would likely tell us more, but I'm done doing the research for now.
  • There are also a few other very important things to consider in Heb9 re: the old order vs. the new order in Christ and the stoicheia we've depart from discussing.

Does this section of Acts mean God cleansed all foods? Not IMcurrentO. But protecting against this thinking by going against the comparable "or" in Acts10 doesn't work.

In addition, I can see why LN brought in the concept of ritual impurity which may have influenced the NET translation. IMO we see both the unclean foods issue and the moral impurity issue of akarthatos in Acts10. IT is fascinating how God made Peter work for the meaning of the vision which IMO tells us quite a bit about how God operates in us to get us to think.

 

[GDL]

Exegesis demands that we consider the Author, the book, and the same topic in other books by the same author.

Bob: I've glanced through this post very quickly to get the gist of it. I may visit it again later. Maybe not.

For now, there's not much point in showing you what Scripture actually says, because you have your overall theology firmly established. No matter how many times you're shown what words or verses like Rom2:12 & 3:19 actually say in the original Text, you simply fall back to English translations you favor for your favored theology and then try to school me on exegesis. If we carry our theology into Scripture this is called eisegesis and you are displaying it repeatedly.

I've also posted & highlighted for you that Paul says in Gal3-4 that the law was a child-trainer and that he as a Jew among the children of Israel was in slavery under law and under sin and under the elements of the world (BTW, these uses of "under" is where Paul actually does speak this terminology) which correlates to the period of the Mosaic Law and the fleshy Priesthood and other such physical concepts and practices. This doesn't destroy Law. It just gives it more proper perspective. Just like Paul does elsewhere in explaining the Holy Law was weak through the flesh and the Holy & Righteous & Good Commandment of God did what it was supposed to do - it made sin proliferate so Paul could see what was going on inside him & that he could not do Law apart from the Faith of Christ and Faith in Christ. That whole period of Law - the Law of Moses - was to do just that and thereby lead to Christ. That entire era was ultimately set up to accomplish this and pave the way for God's Son. Then Christ came and the new creation ultimately began.

It's very difficult to watch advocates of God's Law make such errors and dig in so strongly with them to protect their camp theology and suggest following some crowd is correct exegesis. Swinging the pendulum either way from center accuracy is just error and does nothing to advance the truth.

What's also difficult is reading this type of stuff and at the same time listening to a series on Biblical Theology that in my current early thinking may be one of the best things I've heard for quite some time about how the Church (which you should know does not mean Rome nor any denomination to me) is missing the real message of just who we are in Christ in Spirit. I've been studying and looking for and seeking to clarify the essence of what he's explaining for years because it's been easy for me to see that what we're wrapped up in among ourselves is basically a joke compared to what we are truly involved in, in Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

For now, there's not much point in showing you what Scripture actually says

I am posting actual scripture as everyone reading this thread can see. You can reject whatever you wish - you have free will.

, because you have your overall theology firmly established.

We all have our theology firmly established - but that does not mean we cannot be further informed by a fresh look at scripture.

No matter how many times you're shown what words or verses like Rom2:12 & 3:19 actually say

The Bible translators got it right as it turns out. So many times your argument is that the Bible has it wrong in English but right in some other language or that over a dozen translations that don't render it as you would prefer must all be wrong. I think you miss the fact that context determines meaning and that is what so many Bible translations give the version I keep posting.

I have an entire thread dedicated to this point that you keep challenging so you can add your objections and we can stay focused on that specific topic -- Sin is Transgression of the Law - 1 John 3:4

in the original Text, you simply fall back to English translations

Indeed

you favor for your favored theology

I don't post any translations written by me or anyone in my denomination. I am asking you to be a bit more objective.

All squares are rectangles and in the case of 1 John 3:4 even your more general phrasing does not exclude the square from being one of those rectangles. (to use an analogy). I am going to start an entire thread on this one 1 John 3:4 topic so it does not get lost in the mix of other posts.

and then try to school me on exegesis.

Your the one that said we should not be looking at the way Paul uses certain concepts about former pagans that turned to be Christian in Gal 4 as compared to that topic in 1 Cor 8. As if the same topic addressed by the same author writing on the same subject in different books - should be ignored or is not part of that concept of exegesis. I don't know why you would go there if you were using that same system.

If we carry our theology into Scripture this is called eisegesis

Agreed which is why I don't do it.

I point to "objective metrics" like the fact that both side of the Sabbath debate agree on certain obvious Bible details. Your response was to not follow that point for some reason. I still don't understand why you took that path.

In addition showing the same author addressing the same subject of former pagans and their issues after becoming Christian in both Gal 4 and 1 Cor 8 -- is something you would think is out of place.

I've also posted & highlighted for you that Paul says in Gal3-4 that the law was a child-trainer

Which I have agreed to since it is the Law condemning the lost in all ages as Paul points out in Rom 3:19-20 where it is the Law that tells us what sin is (as we see in Rom 3:19, Rom 7 and 1 John 3:4).

Going "after me" does not solve that problem "in the text" for your proposals.

 

[BobRyan]

. Just like Paul does elsewhere in explaining the Holy Law was weak through the flesh and the Holy & Righteous & Good Commandment of God did what it was supposed to do

Rom 7 does not say "I used to agree with the Law" and then pointing out that only sin opposed it. Rom 7 says "I DO agree with the LAW". By not quoting the text you miss a lot of details.

The "law weak through the flesh" in Rom 8 is where Paul reminds us that it is only the lost that "do not submit to the Law of God neither indeed CAN They"

 

[HIM]

It was just a mention not meant to be a rabbit hole.

I am sorry I only meant the whole debate in regards to which text should be used is a rabbit hole. I am a TR guy and have my reasons. But admittedly both sides of the argument can be rather subjective.

Yes, I did see the other 2 verses and know you would also. The comparable "or" is enough for me given the context and the logic.

What? As if the logic and context in regards to how Peter would have seen that there where NO CLEAN animals due to the all manner (clean included) of four beasts intermingling with wild beasts (carnivorous animals, therefore unclean) and creeping things (reptiles, which are unclean) is not true and sound logic.
And once again None of the examples the BDAG offered to support this actually support it in respect to one word taking the place of another. NOR do they use the word COMPARABLE. I would not argue their logic in respect to supplication, but that is as far as it should be pushed. Matt. 5 for example. The Law and the Prophets supplement one another but is not comparable nor can one take the place of the other. Matt 10:11 states city or town. They are not the same nor can one take the place of the other. They are two different distinct things. As in 10:14 in respect to the house and city. And Verse 37 in relation to mother and father and son and daughter. They are distinct from one another. Supplication is not comparability as if one can take the place of another and still get the same meaning. I have been through all of their examples. The contrasts just get worse. Sad really.

β. related and similar terms, where one can take the place of the other or one supplements the other τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας Mt 5:17 (JosAs 2:11 ἀνὴρ … ἢ παιδίον ἄρρεν; Just., D. 93, 4 φιλίαν ἢ ἀγάπην; schol. on Soph., Oed. Col. 380 Papag. ἢ ἀντὶ τοῦ καὶ ἐστί) πόλιν ἢ κώμην 10:11. ἔξω τ. οἰκίας ἢ τ. πόλεως ἐκείνης vs. 14. πατέρα ἢ μητέρα vs. 37. τέλη ἢ κῆνσον 17:25. οὐ μὴ ἀποκριθῆτέ μοι ἢ ἀπολύσητε Lk 22:68 v.l. πρόσκομμα ἢ σκάνδαλον Ro 14:13; cp. vs. 21 v.l. εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρόν 1 Pt 1:11. νοῆσαι ἢ συνιέναι B 10:12. Cp. Mk 4:17; 10:40; Lk 14:12; J 2:6; Ac 4:34; 1 Cor 13:1; AcPlCor 2:26. In enumerations as many as six occurrences of ἤ are found: Mk 10:29; Ro 8:35; cp. Mt 25:44; Lk 18:29; 1 Cor 5:11; 1 Pt 4:15 (Just., A II, 1, 2).—ἤτε … ἤτε (Hom. et al.; PRossGeorg III, 2, 4 [IIIA.D.]) ἤτε ἄρσενα ἤτε θήλειαν whether it is a boy or a girl GJs 4:1 pap (εἴτε … εἴτε codd.).—ἢ καὶ or (even, also) (PLond III, 962, 5 p. 210 [254/61 A.D.]; EpJer 58) ἢ καὶ ὡς οὗτος ὁ τελώνης Lk 18:11; cp. 11:12; 12:41; Ro 2:15; 4:9; 14:10; 1 Cor 16:6; 2 Cor 1:13b.—ἤ for καί Mk 3:33 v.l.; Col 2:16 v.l.

Good catch on the Proverbs verses. My software wasn't picking them up for some reason. Going there and searching from Proverbs, it picks those up up and also Prov1:14 and something in Esther5 it looks like, but the indexing is off.

It simply looks like they are using the basic meaning of shared - having something in common.

There's an interesting use in 1 Macc 1:47 & 62 that Greek to English is translating koinos as unclean. In 2 Macc9:26 same Greek to English is translating koinos as "public" vs. private. I'd have to look at these further but have to go out soon.

No common not unclean. The text in 62 basically translates They have become strong and They were fortified In self of the not eating Common.

And 47 is in relation to livestock that was common. That which did not go through the purification process. Just because it mentions sacrificing swine's flesh doesn't mean the livestock that were mentioned were also of the unclean animals. They would have used ἀκάθαρτος as they did in Pentateuch. Besides as was shared unless the livestock was the best and went through the purification process they were defiled and unworthy as an unclean animal would have been.

I'm not sure what you are concluding here that you are sure of. Lexically it has the sense of shared / in common, being common, ordinary, of little value, and being ritually impure (which may be a theologically derived definition by those who see it as I see it - comparable to unclean).

Not the same. An unclean animal is unclean. The fact that John seen unclean animals in his revelation proves that they are still unclean. An impure one can become clean by purification. The unclean animal remains unclean and therefore unfit for food. That fact remains.

But this also ties the unclean and the common together as unsanctified, which 1Tim4:5 may address although I know we will have to discuss context.

Verse 3 states meats, broma which is food in general that God created to be received. Those created to be received as food is the context.

 

[HIM]

I don't post any translations written by me or anyone in my denomination. I am asking you to be a bit more objective.

All squares are rectangles and in the case of 1 John 3:4 even your more general phrasing does not exclude the square from being one of those rectangles. (to use an analogy). I am going to start an entire thread on this one 1 John 3:4 topic so it does not get lost in the mix of other posts.

I would be interested in that. Please let me know when you do so.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Obviously Paul considered all humans to be in a fallen sinful state under the condemnation of the perfect law of God that Paul says "He agrees with" in Rom 7. --
The Law that according to Paul includes the TEN having "Honor your father and mother as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2

Again, you are referencing a Commandment that is repeated in the NC and part of the Love Commandments in the Law of Christ.

Paul says that in the TEN it is the "first commandment with a promise" which is only true of the unit of TEN. There is a "reason" why almost all Bible scholarship on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic - admit to this basic feature of the ten included in the NEW Covenant law written on the heart as Jeremiah states.

He most certainly is. You are missing what is clearly stated in Gal4. The Mosaic Law as a unit was for the old era. It's clear in the Scriptures I posted. The Mosaic Law was a tutor until Christ.

"until faith came" in Gal 3 - not "until Christ" and what is more 2 Tim 3:16 points to scripture as a continuing source of doctrine.

Again, the Mosaic Law was a child-trainer until Christ.

text please.

 

[BobRyan]

I would be interested in that. Please let me know when you do so.

ok - here it is

Sin is Transgression of the Law - 1 John 3:4

I pointed to 1 John 3:4 stating "sin IS transgression of the LAW" KJV and we have over a dozen other translations that agree with KJV on that. Including EXB (Expanded Bible) stating that this is the same as "sin is lawlessness". 4 ·The person [L Everyone] who ·sins [commits sin] ·breaks God’s...

www.christianforums.com

 

[BobRyan]

It's very difficult to watch advocates of God's Law make such errors and dig in so strongly with them to protect their camp theology and suggest following some crowd is correct exegesis. Swinging the pendulum either way from center accuracy is just error and does nothing to advance the truth.

If you ignore enough of the scripture arguments made - then you can dismiss all posts in opposition to your preferences to be nothing more than "just so many errors" - but there is a more objective method you could choose.

One of them is to "notice" when a Bible detail is so glaringly obvious that all Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate admit to them. Not sure why you find this to be so surprising.

What's also difficult is reading this type of stuff and at the same time listening to a series on Biblical Theology that in my current early thinking may be one of the best things I've heard for quite some time about how the Church (which you should know does not mean Rome nor any denomination to me) is missing the real message of just who we are in Christ in Spirit. I've been studying and looking for and seeking to clarify the essence of what he's explaining for years because it's been easy for me to see that what we're wrapped up in among ourselves is basically a joke compared to what we are truly involved in, in Christ.

The New Birth, the New Covenant is indeed a wonderful thing. But sadly many today bandy about the term "New Covenant" having never read it. Jer 31:31-34 says "THIS IS the NEW Covenant" and Heb 8 quotes that exact statement. Yet how few talk about the New Covenant - and then quote the New Covenant verbatim.

Compare that to How many talk about the New Covenant and refuse to quote the actual New Covenant text when it so directly contradicts what they claim about the Law and the New Covenant.

My posts here can be summed up in one phrase "Bible details matter".

Simply skimming over them with "that does not fit my preference" responses - does no good at all -- as I would hope you can agree.

 

[HIM]

I did see the interpretive translation and I'm not quick to judge their reasoning, especially since you & I are still putting effort into proving how koinos is being used and since you have only speculated that they (NET) may not know much about the word. They did reference the LN Lexicon as their note says and that Lexicon does in fact state that it's difficult to determine precise differences between common and unclean. It says more so I'll just post it - just this referred to section - for you (my highlights):

Louw-Nida 53.39 κοινός, ή, όν ; ἀκάθαρτος, ον: pertaining to being ritually unacceptable, either as the result of defilement or because of the very nature of the object itself (for example, ritually unacceptable animals) - 'defiled, ritually unclean.' οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ ἀκάθαρτον 'I have never eaten anything defiled and ritually unclean' Ac 10.14. It is possible that there is some subtle distinction in meaning, particularly on a connotative level, between κοινός and ἀκάθαρτος in Ac 10.14, but it is difficult to determine the precise differences of meaning on the basis of existing contexts. The two terms are probably used in Ac 10.14 primarily for the sake of emphasis.

Admittedly they don't know. The post that you responded to shows how things need to be understood in relation to how Peter seen the animals that were unfolded to him. Refer to that please it tells you.

So, it seems the NET relied to a large degree on LN for its reference and translation. You can ask them what they mean by "ritual." I've seen a few journal articles where the authors use the same terminology for this area of Acts. I also note that LN speaks of "defilement" and says "defiled" is an appropriate translation of kainos.

Defiled would work.

As was said above they don't know in reference to Acts 10. Sadly in not knowing the translators went ahead anyway. Sad indeed. However I think they do know and bias hindered.

LN is not the only Lexicon that states this. I don't know what you have access to, but I have several Lexicons in digital form and the TDNT for some more researching. If you like me to post any of this let me know.

I don't rely on lexicons for commentary in respect to doctrine. As soon as they show bias I usually move on in respect to a given word I may be researching. I have several works. BDAG, Cambridge, Maurice Robinson's, Thayer's unabridged, Vine's... to name a few. If you feel moved to share do so please. Even if I have a work that you do I may have not seen something you have.

Now, I said Heb9 was very telling re: kainos/kanioo IMO so I'm going to elaborate a bit:

YLT Hebrews 9:13 for if the blood of bulls, and goats, and ashes of an heifer, sprinkling those koinoō-defiled, doth hagiazō-sanctify to the katharotēs-purifying of the flesh.

• So, we have 2 very common words to deal with here: hagiazō-to sanctify, make holy, purify & katharotēs-purity, purification, (state or condition of being ritually cleansed (BDAG)) & related to the negative akathartos-unclean, impure used in Acts10:14, 28; 11:8 (which can be those unclean creatures you mention per Lev & Deut, and can also be moral impurity as you know).
• We also have 2 lessons from OC sacrificial sections: Lev16:14-16 & Num19 dealing with blood of bulls and goats & ashes of a heifer. These sacrifices dealt with the atonement for uncleanness (akatharsia - same base word in Acts10) and sins and mention of hagnizō-sanctify, purify, make holy & katharos-clean. Hebrews is connecting koinoō and thus kainos to all of this.
  • It's Scripture like this that IMO tie kainos and akathartos together with the "or" of comparison in Acts10.
  • What also ties them together is the logic I presented to you several posts back and you have left unanswered.
  • From what I'm seeing there's probably some more ties from kainos>Hebrew words that would likely tell us more, but I'm done doing the research for now.
  • There are also a few other very important things to consider in Heb9 re: the old order vs. the new order in Christ and the stoicheia we've depart from discussing.

Hebrews is my favorite letter I think. Animals that are unclean remain so. Nothing ritually about it.

Does this section of Acts mean God cleansed all foods? Not IMcurrentO. But protecting against this thinking by going against the comparable "or" in Acts10 doesn't work.

Objectively the Greek word translated or is a disjunctive particle. Subjectively it is used as a comparable as if one entity can take the place of the other synonymously. Please see the last post here Link

In addition, I can see why LN brought in the concept of ritual impurity which may have influenced the NET translation. IMO we see both the unclean foods issue and the moral impurity issue of akarthatos in Acts10.

Only in respect to people not animals.

IT is fascinating how God made Peter work for the meaning of the vision which IMO tells us quite a bit about how God operates in us to get us to think.

I think so to.

 

[BobRyan]

I will start a new thread on the "New Covenant LAW written on the heart" in case someone is interested in that topic.

The New Covenant includes the TEN in the LAW it says is written on the heart

Many times you will find people claiming to be under the New Covenant or stating that it cannot be compatible with the LAW of God - yet they almost never quote the actual New Covenant when they do that. Jer 31:31-34 and Heb 8:6-12 are the only places where you find "I will make a NEW...

www.christianforums.com

 

[sparow]

In the Bible the weekly Sabbath is Saturday - the 7th day of the week. From Friday Evening to Saturday evening.

So it is no wonder that when the gospels say that Jesus was raised on the first day of the week - everyone knows that this means our Sunday. This is easy and obvious.

The Catholic Church document "the Faith Explained" asks the question about "changing the LORD's day from Saturday to Sunday" like this -

1965 -- first published 1959 (from "The Faith Explained" by Leo Trese page 243)

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day- which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...​

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"​

I fully agree with - "in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day- which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it."

I fully agree with - "nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday"

Some will say "I don't care what the Catholic position is" but this idea of a "Change" for the Bible Sabbath from Saturday (the 7th day) to the first day is also mentioned in the Baptist Confession of Faith and in other denominational documents across the board.

Why then are they so clear on the fact that the Sabbath is the Lord's Day - and that a change was made via some sort of tradition - but not mentioned in the Bible.?

Is 58:13
“If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath,
From doing your pleasure on My holy day,
And call the Sabbath a delight,
The holy day of the Lord honorable,
And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways,
Nor finding your own pleasure,
Nor speaking your own words,

Mark 2:27 "The Son of man is LORD of the Sabbath"

Is 66:23 says that for all eternity after the cross and in the New Earth - "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship"

So no wonder in Acts 18:4 EVERY Sabbath they gather for gospel preaching in the synagogue - as Paul preached to both gentiles and Jews
No wonder in Acts 13 the GENTILES ask for MORE Gospel preaching to be scheduled for "The NEXT Sabbath" and then the next Sabbath almost the entire town shows up to hear it.

All Bible scholars know the following -
1. There is no text saying 'the first day of the week is the Lord's day"
2. There is no text saying 'the first day of the week is the holy day of the Lord"
3. There is no text saying 'the first day of the week is My holy day"
4. There is no text saying "every week day one they gathered for gospel preaching"
5. There is no text saying "the Son of Man is LORD of week day 1"
6. There is no text saying "week day one is now the Sabbath of the LORD thy God" or "is now the Lord's day"
7. There is no text says "the gentiles asked that more Gospel preaching be given to them - on the next week day 1"

Some will say "well that just adds more weight to the Catholic Document quoted above stating that there is nothing in the Bible on that point". And of course that is true it does add weight to that part of their statement.

==========================================

"They [the Catholics] allege the Sabbath changed into Sunday, the Lord's day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it appears, neither is there any example more boasted of than the changing of the Sabbath day. Great, say they, is the power and authority of the church, since it dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments."

—Augsburg Confession of Faith, Art. 28, par. 9.


"They [Roman Catholics] allege the change of the Sabbath into the Lord's day, as it seemeth, to the Decalogue [the ten commandments]; and they have no example more in their mouths than they change of the Sabbath. They will needs have the Church's power to be very great, because it hath dispensed with the precept of the Decalogue."

—The Augsburg Confession, 1530 A.D. (Lutheran), part 2, art 7, in Philip Schaff, the Creeds of Christiandom, 4th Edition, vol 3, p64 [this important statement was made by the Lutherans and written by Melanchthon, only thirteen years after Luther nailed his theses to the door and began the Reformation].

I believe that ownership of the seventh day is a useless concept; it was made for man; you have walked into a trap.

In scripture, the seventh day is never referred to as the Lord's Day; the day of the Lord, the lords Day, refers to the day (not a literal day) of God's wrath; and yes, God does own that.

Saturday is where Pagan Rome worships the god Saturn; Sunday is when Pagan Rome worships the sun god. The seventh day is much more than a day of worship and a day of rest, it is like a cog in a wheel it has to be in the right place for the wheel to work.

 

[BobRyan]

I believe that ownership of the seventh day is a useless concept; it was made for man;

It was made by God - sanctified by God ... made as a blessing for mankind
"Sabbath was made for mankind not mankind made for the Sabbath" Mark 2:27

Mankind needed a break from the daily grind. God gave him the 7th day each week -- to drop all the daily grind distraction
Mankind needed a day of rest and fellowship, devotion and meditation, worship and reflection - God gave him the 7th set apart, sanctified
Mankind needed a weekly reminder of God - his creator - who loved and provided for him , a day to be freed from the daily grind.

you have walked into a trap.

seriously??

In scripture, the seventh day is never referred to as the Lord's Day;

Until you read Is 58:13 where it is "The Holy Day of the Lord"

What we don't find is ... "week day 1... the holy day of the Lord"
What we don't find is ..." week day 1 ... the lord's day"

What we don't find is ... "every weekday one they gathered for gospel preaching"
What we do find in Acts 18:4 is that "Every Sabbath" they were gathered for gospel preaching to both gentiles and Jews.

 

[sparow]

It was made by God - sanctified by God ... made as a blessing for mankind
"Sabbath was made for mankind not mankind made for the Sabbath" Mark 2:27

Mankind needed a break from the daily grind. God gave him the 7th day each week -- to drop all the daily grind distraction
Mankind needed a day of rest and fellowship, devotion and meditation, worship and reflection - God gave him the 7th set apart, sanctified
Mankind needed a weekly reminder of God - his creator - who loved and provided for him , a day to be freed from the daily grind.


seriously??

Until you read Is 58:13 where it is "The Holy Day of the Lord"

What we don't find is ... "week day 1... the holy day of the Lord"
What we don't find is ..." week day 1 ... the lord's day"

What we don't find is ... "every weekday one they gathered for gospel preaching"
What we do find in Acts 18:4 is that "Every Sabbath" they were gathered for gospel preaching to both gentiles and Jews.

<Until you read Is 58:13 where it is "The Holy Day of the Lord">

When I read scripture I try to understand what the Prophet or what God is saying; you seem to be concerned with what the WORDS of the translators say, interpreters who often insert their own beliefs.

Isaiah didn't speak English, so in Isa 58:13, he never said, “The Holy Day of the Lord.” So using Strong's concordance and a interlinear Bible. In strong 6944 means “sacred thing”; I wonder what the Jews would say it means. In the Interlinear Bible, which also lists Strong's number over the Hebrew word, translates the Hebrew word as, “My Holy”, Strong's number is split in half 69, and 44. 69 means building stone, 44 means principle; that word could easily refer to Christ; regardless of how we take Strong, God does not claim the day, nor does Isaiah suggest God does.

 

[trophy33]

"Sabbath was made for mankind not mankind made for the Sabbath" Mark 2:27

One of the most abused texts of the Bible by the Seventh day Adventists.

1. Its a very keyhole view of the text. The story is in three gospels (Mt, Mk, Lk) and only Mk has this sentence in it. The question "is the Sabbath given to Jews only or to all mankind" was not the context at all, but you focus only on this sentence, forcing your view into it.

2. No English translation uses the word "mankind" here. But you quote it in that way like some standard.