Indeed "possibly could be".
But why settle for "possibly could be" speculative views - when the text so clearly shows us WHEN Christ the Creator MADE the day Holy and HE Himself says HE made it "For mankind" Mark 2:27.
Because what you are doing is worse than even speculating. You are just adding something that is not there and chaging the meaning of the text to suport it.
More than this - it is impossible to escape the scope GOD puts on the day for in the New Earth b"From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship"
Your response has been to deny and obfuscate each part of God's statements on this subject.
"All mankind"? No (you say) I am not really sure it is all mankind.
"New Earth? No. (you say) I am not really sure it is the same new earth.
"Worship"? No. (you say) not really worship as we think of it today - perhaps some unknown idea that we will only understand in heaven. Nothing for us to "do in honoring the day" today.
Eric -- in every case your argument is from a "maybe possibly could be" and just when you want to claim "there is no commandment" oops - there is.
Just when you want to claim "Sabbath does NOT remain" --- oops - it does "remain" -- no change.
Just when you want to claim "10 commandment unit NOT referenced" - it turns out that both Paul and James do reference it.
Just when you want to claim "for Jews only" God says "ALL mankind".
Because you are so sure these four passage all total up to a sabbath command for all Christians TODAY, you don't see why those questions can be asked. Once again, you are not weighing evidence, but rather assuming these passages fused together in meaning instead of letting each speak for itself, prove your point. No matter how much wrangling you do, you cannot read a command for us today into this.
In Acts 13 it is "Sabbath after Sabbath" Bible study meetings EVEN in the case of Jews REJECTING the message -- still the gentiles urge that the message continue "on the next SABBATH" instead of "on week-day one" which would be readily available to them outside of the synagogue.
The most this proves is that they became accustopmed to meeting that day, or perhaps it was when they knew they could catch Paul who was traveling around. It says NOTHING about them "observing", "resting", making it a command for all, et. Once again, you read into the text. I used to buy this argument, but then had to admit to myself that is twas totally shallow.
As in the case of the Trinity - the complete doctrine consists of a number of texts "line upon line" rightly dividing the word of truth. But in fact the "word Trinity" is not found.
Much of the controversy of that doctrine was because of the misunderstood language of the creeds. Before those CATHOLIC creeds, it was even understood a bit differently. But that's a whole other issue. Funny, how I often see Calvinists bringing this point up when trying to justify some of their "inferential" teachings!
So also "substitutionary atonement".
So also many other foundational doctrines of the Bible. The fact that you have to "Read more than one text" and the fact that "God clearly makes this one of mankind's 10 commandments" and the fact that James and Paul quote from that UNIT of 10 showing that "we ARE to be judged by it" - is undeniable.
Still failing to see that the Ten Commandments were a summary of the 613 that included the universal commands, which thus could be cited, and not "the Top Ten" of the list which carry over. the Bible is much more clear on "substitutionary atonement" than the sabbath being kept in the NT. This is not about which "words and phrases" appear in the text or not.
You argue from "humanism" saying that you will accept a real commandment as long as you imagine mankind could think of it on his own.
You keep building your own verbal straw man, which I never said, nor implied. It's NOT "think up on his own", it's what was written in man's conscience (Rom.2:14,15)
But when it comes to Christ the creator's Holy day - you ignore the MAKING of it recorded AS the 7th day of mankind's seven day week. You ignore the explicit commandment God shows it to be - and claim "it is not clear to me".
"
Commandment"? You have yet to show where it was a "commandment" at its making. You take later events-- Israel and the New Earth, plus Christ saying it was mad for man as opposed to manbeing made for it, and read all of that into this. So, no, one is not sure from that. You are forcing this together that do not fit together to form your view. You are not letting each passage speak for itself. Yeah, what dedication to an unbiblical system of eisegesis!
In "no case" does Jesus show the "spirit of the law" violating the actuall text of the LAW. RATHER all His examples show INCREASED scope and INCREASED obligation - going BEYOND the written text. (read the text of Matt 5-6 for examples).
His examples right there didn't, but He later shows gathering ears of grain to feed immediate hunger, and David eating the Showbread, and of course, His sacrifice ending our obligation to bring animal offerings. You point up "man's additions" to the Sabbath, but if you really want to go by the strict letter, plucking grains to eat on the sabbath, did technically violate the letter of the Law. But as He referred to the ox in the ditch, they knew that there were exeptions for the sake of mercy. That is one reason right there why the letter "kills" and "was against us" and was never God's final will.
You struggled at first to deny that the Sabbath would be kept by all mankind in the New Earth - and then at times seem to yield to the clear statements in God's Word on that point.
Your own argument has crumbled as it has been held up to the light to "see if" it really held up.
No, you keep thinking that, but I still maintain what I said before that this might be a conditional view under an eternal Ol Covenant, and never abandoned that possibility. I just allowed you the benefit of the doubt to prove that that still would not prove it is mandatory for today. But give you a benefit, and you try to conclude I have abandoned the argument because it crumbled! You never proved it was not an Old covenent condition.
No question that the more the system transformed itself into the errors of Catholicism - the practice of Honoring Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 Holy day began to fall off. I agree.
But note - that INSTEAD of it being a dotrinal initiative coming out of the Acts 15 Jerusalem headquarters - it is the Jewish Apostles and Christians that are "most noted" in history as still keeping Christ's Holy day. The evolution of the error was from the pagan Christian churches moving INTO the Jewish center of the Christian faith in the NT.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric said -- There was no mass conspiracy that forced a strictly sabbatarian church to become strictly Sunday within a century.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignoring the persecution of the Jews by the Romans - and the confusion in Rome of Christianity as being "A sect of Judaism" just as is claimed in the book of ACTs - fully explains what you claim is not found in history.
I remembered afterward your statement on another thread with the Catholics about the Eucharist and baptism that you mentioned "persecuation" as to why the sabbath changed. So to answer that, yes, there may have been persecution over it, but the Church willingly suffered persecuation over so many other issues; so why would they suddenly wholesale do an about face on that one? What we would have had, is some compromise and give in, but many more would still hold on to it.
Indeed you have cast doubt on many direct statements - I fully agree. I also don't claim to know where the Holy Spirit is convicting on one point vs another in your case. But I think that the tactics you have had to use in a number of cases should be sufficient to at least raise a flag of question in your mind. Something to think about.
No, you're the one using tactics in interpreting scripture, and answering my posts. I'm just taking the scriptures for what they say.
You freely admit that it is in the 10 commandments, that Christ said (pre-cross) If you love Me keep My commandments (quoting from the 2nd commandment) and that ALL MANKIND is going to be honoring the "From Sabbath to Sabbath" cycle with some kind of worship (as much as you will allow yourself to accept the idea of worship in such a cycle).
So when you argue "Against the commandments" as "The Law abolished" --- you find yourself deep into "double-speak" saying "Well I mean ESTABLISHED but in an ABOLISHED kind of way
I admit what the Scriptures SAY, not what you read into them, all mixed together. There is a big difference. You are arguing against Paul, but of course, you reinterpret him to.
There is no way to "delete the Sabbath" of Christ the Creator from His 10 commandments.
Nobody is. It's the universal commandments and NT practice, in which it is in question.
