Opposing the 7th day Sabbath of the Lord Thy God

[TCGreek]

Two statements from TCGreek -





There are a number of ways to spin this --

My point is that when you stated (in the case of your first statement above) that someone holding your POV really only has one primary purpose in attending and speaking at a Sabbath worship service - and that it to get as many as desire to accept the message of the Gospel and hear more about -- to join you in worship "tomorrow" (being week-day-one in that case).

I am simply agreeing with you and then showing that this is precisely what does NOT happen in Acts 13 EVEN though "almost the entire city" of gentiles is anxious to hear more and turns out "the next Sabbath".

in Christ,

Bob

You're correct in saying, "There are a number of ways to spin this." You've given one, and I've given another.

What saith the Scriptures?

 

[BobRyan]

Recall my list of "we all can agree on this" --

Originally Posted by BobRyan
If we keep this "sola scriptura" then we all agree on the following -- that the following statements are not found in scripture.

A.We all agree we are not going to ever find (IN SCRIPTURE) that

1, "week-day-one" is ever called "the Lord's day"
2. "week day one " is never called "Day of the Lord"
3. nor any text saying "Christ is Lord of Week Day one"
4. NOR that "God sanctified week-day one"
5. Nor that "God made week-day one holy"
6. Nor that Christ said "meet on week-day one in rememberance of My resurrection"
7. Nor that any NT writer ever said "we meet on week-day one in rememberance of our Lord's resurrection".

B. We ALSO all agree on the obvious fact that the following texts ARE found in the Bible.

1. Isaiah 58 -- the "Sabbath is the Holy Day OF the LORD".
2. Mark 2:28 "The Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath".
3. Isaiah 66 regarding the New earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to Worship"
4. In Gen 2:3 God said that "He rested on 7th day THEREFORE HE blessed IT and made IT Holy" - Sanctified it on the 7th day of Creation week itself.

C. We also will probably agree that even though the above list of facts are obvious to all - you will never hear this list of facts from the pulpit.

Where we DIFFER is on "WHY" these clear yet "inconvenient" Bible facts are never mentioned in modern pulpits.

But if we go back to "D.L.MOODY" we WILL see some pretty strong statements on the "Sabbath commandment" -- as we all agree.

So it is interesting - the inconvenient facts that we can all agree to - while also finding room to differ.

In this whole discussion, we need to differentiate between Judaism and Christianity.

Jews still met on the sabbath but Christians on Sunday, the day Christ was raised.

You are making an assertion - you are not making a "sola scriptura" Bible statement of fact.

The whole point here is to take whatever assertions the various points of view would like to promote and then to show that they actually have some "substance in scripture".

In My list of "we all agree that" -- I simply point to "some" of the "substance in scripture" that in fact we "all agree to".

The idea is to get that tiny bit out in the oppen so that we are not left thnking "well I guess we really don't agree on anything when it comes to this topic".

Having said what I said about the Judaism, then you can plug in all those Scriptures into that schema of Judaism.

That is a circular argument. You are saying "given my assumption as the starting point of proofs -- then we can take the bible and try to work it into my assumption".

I don't know that Exegesis really works that way. You are reasong "from conclusion to a retro-fit of scripture".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You're correct in saying, "There are a number of ways to spin this." You've given one, and I've given another.

What saith the Scriptures?

See - that is the point.

IF we want a "sola scriptura" discussion we can not "start with conclusion" and then "Reason from there to a point of retro-fitting scripture into our starting conclusions".

Rather we have to "Start with Scripture".

I was simply suggesting a start on "things that we will all agree with" then move out from there to less agreed upon points to "FIND" the right conclusoin.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBuick

I think you left one or two out, we also all agree the disciples met for communion on the first day of the week.

Ac 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Bob said
Yes - - we find one occassion in the NT where they are gathered for a farewell preaching service - and they "break bread" (a term that could easily refer to the Communion supper) -- calling that day "week day one" instead of "The Lord's Day" - and omitting anything like "as was our custom we met on week-day one - the day we call the Lord's Day, to break bread" -- This was the PERFECT place in the NT to say "week-day one IS the day we call the Lord's Day friends" - so that we could have at least ONE text that actually says it IN scripture thus helping us make an actual "sola scriptura" argument that "The Lord's Day is week-day one". The fact that there no "custom of meeting on week-day one" mentioned here AND the fact that they choose not to call this meeting a "Lord's Day meeting" -- speaks volumes to some of the Bible students reading that text.

One can hardly deny that almost every Christian will hear at least once a month "we meet this Lord's Day" or "see you next Lord's Day" or "we will meet this coming Lord's Day" etc etc.

Nothing new there for a group that actually BELIEVES that week-day one IS the Lord's day to see this common frequent often expressed idea JUST as we see it today.

In the same way the the RCC continually speaks of Mary as sinless and of the immaculate heart, immaculate conceptoin, the phrase "Mary Mother of God" ubiquitous in all RC documents that reference her --

And yet not ONE MENTION of either of these concepts in actual scripture. The point is that WHEN those who clearly TEACH a certain doctrine give expression to it often and frequently in a certain "predictable way" such that the salient points of their doctrine is in fact "stated" then we are being reasonable to note IF it turns out that bible authors coming to that SAME point of discussion make no mention AT ALL of the salient points being "assumed" in modern times.

In the case of "week day one" a Sabbath keeping Christian such as myself will "on occassion" attend a Church service "on week day one". Since I do not consider it "the Lord's Day" I would never say "I met on week day one -- the Lord's day" and since a church meeting that is "weekly" on "week day one" is ALSO not part of my practice I would not mention "meeting on week-day one week after week in memorial of Christ's resurrection".

So my practice TODAY is STILL consistent with the way that you see this day "week day one" always referenced in the NT. Whereas those who today believe that "week day one" is the "Lord's day" almost NEVER say "we are meeting next Week-day-one" but rather "Next Lord's Day" or "we are gathered here once again on this Lord's Day to ..."

I.e. it all makes perfect sense in the way we use the terms -- given a belief one way or the other on this topic.

Yet "curiously" the Bible writers are just using the ONE WAY of reference that a "Sabbath observant" Christian would use... How odd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBuick
I disagree, had they declared this to to be anything but the first day of the week, Christian's would worship and give more importance to the Day

So they could not say the same thing of "The Lord's Day" (if one is to consider that week-day-one IS the Lord's Day) that Christians say today ALL the time???

LeBuick

and not the reason for the day. I think you know what I mean since you seem to do just that with the Sabbath.

I don't follow your argument there.

BOTH the Sabbath Keeping Christians AND the week-day-one Keeping Christians are referencing it the SAME way today.

BOTH groups have monthly if not weekly reminders that "we are gathered here this Sabbath day to ..." (if the group is Sabbath keeping) or "we are gathere here this Lord's Day" (if the group is week-day-one keeping).

Even in the NT we see Sabbath meeting mentioned as Sabbath meetings in Acts 13 and Acts 17 NOT as "Week-day-7 meetings".

You appear to argue that giving the day a title of honor like "The Lord's Day" would convey inappropriate honor or meaning for the day.

I don't find that to be true among Christians today - no reluctance at all to refer to Sunday as "The Lord's Day".

Tell me if you find that Christians are not inclined to use that term in your area of the country.

I simply see no reluctance at all in that regard among Sunday Churches.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
We can all agree that "Lay by him (himself) in store" is never used anwheree in the Bible to mean "take up a collection in a public meeting" so EVEN IF some propose that this referenct is the one case where it does have that "public meeting" interpretation -- then at least all can agree this would be the FIRST time in all of scripture that the phrase has ever been used to mean "take up a collection in a public meeting".

LeBuick
Not all of us, I certianly do not agree.

Fine - then feel free to go ahead and point to even one other instance of that greek phrase in a context where it is agreed to mean "take up a collection in a public meeting" if you are going to make the case that this meaning is not limited to the Acts 20 case to get your POV to work.

Read the first verse, "Now concerning the collection for the saints..." Did the subject change? What else would they be talking about since Paul began the discussion with "as for the collection of the Saints"?

As I said -- the Sunday Keeping Bible theologian Albert Barnes makes a great linguistic case that this means "By himself at home".

Thus showing that "EVEN among Sunday keeping Christians" -- there is not agreement on the point you are trying to make from Acts 20. Therefore as a "Sabbath keeping Christian" it is very likely that I would take up "at least the level of objecting" to the strained interpretation that "by himself" is to be interpreted as "go to a public meeting and take up a collection" as a Sunday Keeping Bible teacher is taking to that solution.

My stated on "all agree" has to do with the fact that EVEN given your argument - you have found no place other than Acts 20 where this meaning could possibly be given to these words.

It also lends similarity to Mal 3:10.

Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

Yet Mal 3 is not an example of the greek phrase (not repeated here for the sake of brevity) in Acts 20 being used to mean "engage in a public meeting and take up a collection".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Alcott]

I am not arguing that you are not saved if you do not keep Christ's memorial of HIS work in Creation. Rather I argue that it is "more consistent" to keep the Ten Commandments as though they are the "Commandments of God" and contained in the Word of God -- "The Law of God".

Scripture (I John 2) does not say keeping the commandments is a matter of "consistency." It says he who does not keep the commandments does not know God and the truth is not in him.

Is scripture lying, or are you?

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
Hence - I did not bring up the areas where I thought there would be many differeing POV even among Sunday keepers in my list of "we all agree that...".

I am trying to keep the "all agree" list to something that "at least" all Sunday keeping authorities would agree to.

LeBuick
I think this was my point, we don't all agree with your all agree list. Your words may be factual but the implications and conclusions are not.

In my "we can all agree" posts -- I am sticking with the facts in the text and leaving the "interpretation/explanation/word-smithing/spin-doctoring" for other parts of the discussion as various people have interest.

The point was to come out with the "undisputed facts" and I think (given your lack of dispute on any one of those actual facts" that you are in agreement even if "reluctantly so". Correct me if I am wrong - but I believe you have yet to point to a single fact in the "all agree" list that you don't actuall agree with.

Example, Gen 2:3 says the Sabbath was made so man would have a day of rest.

Actually My Gen 2:3 "we all agree that" statement was simply what we find in that text -- that on the actual 7th day of Creation week "the event" that take place on THAT day is the Act of God in making the day Holy, Set aside, Sanctified.

One can easily add to that - as you appear to do above -- from the Exodus 20 statement spoken by God that this day was made in Gen 2 for mankind as a day of rest and as a blessing. I think that is a valid point.

I was not making it because I know that some would not agree to take it to that next logical step and I was trying to stick with a bare minimum "we all agree with" list as a data point to get out on the table.

Man put the value of this day even above the needs of their fellow man. God made the Sabbath for man and not man for the Sabbath yet Man made himself slave to a day.

True. And so the conclusion "bad man" not "bad Bible" , not "Bad memorial"

We can not negate the Word of God by saying "yes but bad-man later did this".

For example in the dark ages the RCC enjoyed the idea of persecuting Jews who refused the Gospel -- or who yielded to pressure to convert to Christianity then returned to Judiasm -- under the Bible guise that "Christ is the only way of salvation" --

So even though we argue AGAINST their errors in the dark ages we STILL agree with scripture that Christ is STILL the only way of salvation.

Simply arguing "Yes but the RCC did bad things using that idea" -- does not change the truth of the original Bible doctrine.

Persecution arose over "forms of Baptism" over refusal to baptize infants, refusal to pray to Mary, the correct teaching on the bread during communion

Yet EVEN though wrong use was made of these various underlying Bible doctrines - the RCC spin on it --did not negate the truth of the underlying doctrine any more than the Jewish spin negated the underlying Bible truths that they were using as disquise for their man-made traditions.

in Christ,

Bob

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Scripture (I John 2) does not say keeping the commandments is a matter of "consistency." It says he who does not keep the commandments does not know God and the truth is not in him.

Is scripture lying, or are you?

I realize you are kind of married to the "lying" argument in your posts --

But "the obvious" point is that I am free to argue that "it is at the very least CONSISTENT" to accept TCGreek's statement that Christ obeyed that actual Sabbath of the actual 4th commandment while He was here on earth and to say that when I follow Christ in that regard that shows a level of consistency with the point John makes in 1John 2 that Christians "should WALK as Jesus walked" --

Your following along saying "that is a lie" is neither logical nor well reasoned.

The point remains -- it is at least "a consistent" position to observe as TCGreek did that Christ KEPT the Sabbath and so if I also happen to choose to "walk as Jesus Walked" in regard to that one specific aspect of the Law of God -- it is not a bit "inconsistent".

Nor can we argue that it is out of step with Paul's instruction to the Corinthian church in 1Cor 7. "But what matters is keeping the commandments of God"

Some find it shocking that Paul might say to the church at Corinth –
1Cor 7:19
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God.

 

[Bethelassoc]

Would a safe assumption to where the worship day change came from was due to the temples destruction in AD 70, that temple worship ceased (of course) and probably the emphasis on the Sabbath had a physical end after already having a spiritual end?

Why wouldn't Paul and the other apostles continue preaching on the Sabbath, everybody was going to be there, right? It makes sense seeing that the custom hadn't changed yet if the temple was still there.

David

 

[TCGreek]

Recall my list of "we all can agree on this" --

[/I]





You are making an assertion - you are not making a "sola scriptura" Bible statement of fact.

The whole point here is to take whatever assertions the various points of view would like to promote and then to show that they actually have some "substance in scripture".

In My list of "we all agree that" -- I simply point to "some" of the "substance in scripture" that in fact we "all agree to".

The idea is to get that tiny bit out in the oppen so that we are not left thnking "well I guess we really don't agree on anything when it comes to this topic".



That is a circular argument. You are saying "given my assumption as the starting point of proofs -- then we can take the bible and try to work it into my assumption".

I don't know that Exegesis really works that way. You are reasong "from conclusion to a retro-fit of scripture".

in Christ,

Bob

So, Paul went to the synagogue on the Sabbath to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Messiah.

Some left Judaism and became Christians:

"Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women" (Acts 17:4, TNIV).

While some weren't persuaded:

"But other Jews were jealous" (v. 5).

Jews worshiped on Sabbath, while Christians worshiped on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:1, 2).

 

[LeBuick]

So, Paul went to the synagogue on the Sabbath to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Messiah.

Some left Judaism and became Christians:

I guess they could have gone on Sunday but they would have had a considerable reduction in the number of converts. :laugh: :laugh: :thumbs:

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

TCGreek:
"So, Paul went to the synagogue on the Sabbath to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Messiah."

GE
Now tell me one thing: If that was not PREACHING AND PROCLAIMING THE GOSPEL, THEN WHAT COULD BE?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

This grandiose 'argument' against the Seventh Day Sabbath, that the Apostles 'simply argued with the Jews' on it, is the most self-destructive and laughable of VAIN 'Sunday-protagonism', because the VERY word so belittled as to its meaning, 'just argued', 'cavilled' etc when occurring with the Seventh Day Sabbath - that VERY word ONCE only used for 'on Sunday' - constitutes the WHOLE arsenal of Sunday-protagonism 'Scripture', Act 20:7. (dialegomai)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:
"6. Nor that Christ said "meet on week-day one in rememberance of My resurrection" "

GE

'Opposing', "the Seventh Day, Sabbath of the LORD your God" - you have given the best way to, BR.

"Answered / gave reason for / explained ('apokritheis') the angel to the women", Mt28:5, on Sunday morning -- what, "In Sabbath's-time fullness when after noon daylight inclined towards the First Day of the week ..." happened: to the 'remembrance', of God's works of rest of the Sabbath Day. Denying this, you deny any and all Christian reason for a keeping of the Sabbath Day.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:
"4. In Gen 2:3 God said that "He rested on 7th day THEREFORE HE blessed IT and made IT Holy" - Sanctified it on the 7th day of Creation week itself."

GE
BobRyan, I applaud you! I say, thank you! Truly, this is encouraging to see from your pen! Because this is the FIRST time I have read you referring to this Scripture, giving it to us to read, in this way. Correctly! I am constrained to say in all honesty, God bless you, in having taking this step; to have made this decision, for the sake of HIS, Sabbath-truth. I thank God for you having done this, for having made this change.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:
"Where we DIFFER is on "WHY" these clear yet "inconvenient" Bible facts are never mentioned in modern pulpits."

GE
A valid observation - but valid also for the pulpits from Seventh Day Adventist churches, especially with regard to your point B.4, God RESTED on the Seventh Day. Seventh Day Adventists have not begun yet, to try to get to the meaning of the fact God on the Sabbath 'rested', 'blessed' it, 'sanctified' it, and on it, 'finished' all his works. I say you have not made a beginning yet. And by now you must know what I'm playing at - and it is not the fool!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally Posted by TCGreek
In this whole discussion, we need to differentiate between Judaism and Christianity.

Jews still met on the sabbath but Christians on Sunday, the day Christ was raised.


BobRyan
You are making an assertion - you are not making a "sola scriptura" Bible statement of fact.

GE
Your reply to TC is euphemistic, to say the least.

TC, if Jews still met on the sabbath but not Christians, what were the many many, who many many times, on the Sabbath worshipped? And, Who, the 'Jesus', you know, that man from Nazareth? What was He? He went to church every Sabbath, did He not? Sure, he was a Jew; does that mean he was not -- The Christian of all Christians, The Christ?

Then which 'Christians' "... met on Sunday, the day Christ was raised"? Which 'Christians' met on the day Christ was raised? Oh yes! I remember - vividly - Jesus, on Sunday after sunset - found them, quote:"thronged together in the upper room STILL" -- apparently in the very room they were "crowded in together out of fear for the Jews", from the day that Jesus had been crucified, that is, from before the Sabbath Day, so that during all of that Sabbath Day, they already would have been 'gathered together' -- at least in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THEY WERE during Sunday and through Sunday into the First Day of the week, Monday!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:
"You are reasong "from conclusion to a retro-fit of scripture"."

GE
This has been well said!
Correct method is 'from retro-fit of scripture, to conclusion'!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"meeting ... in memorial of Christ's resurrection".

GE
Rather, meet BECAUSE OF Christ's resurrection, on the Lord's Day. That reduces - or rather, concentrates, the issue to its very basics. If anyone could agree to this, then one might - no, then one is forced, to consistently go back to the Fourth Commandment, and ask, Is it not BECAUSE of God's REST and COMPLETION and BLESSING and SANCTIFICATION of the Sabbath Day, that we - the People of that God, must 'remember' the Sabbath Day?

FROM this but only the honest to honesty question, should FOLLOW the consequential question of, WHAT IT IS THAT CONSTITUTES the 'Rest, Finishing, Blessing, Sanctification, Reviving, of God on the Seventh Day Sabbath? --- while this question can, and must, be answered from the point of view ONLY, of all the works of God in and through and for the sake of Jesus Christ? ... or it won't have anything in it for the Christian Faith.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

... which 'Christians' "... met on Sunday, the day Christ was raised"? Which 'Christians' met on the day Christ was raised? Oh yes! I remember - vividly - Jesus, on Sunday after sunset - found them, quote:"thronged together in the upper room STILL" -- apparently in the very room they were "crowded in together out of fear for the Jews", from the day that Jesus had been crucified, that is, from before the Sabbath Day, so that during all of that Sabbath Day, they already would have been 'gathered together' -- at least in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THEY WERE during Sunday and through Sunday into the First Day of the week, Monday!

GE
But you know, the editors, they are no fools! They saw this, and they realised its consequences for Sunday sacredness. And how do I know, they knew? Well, read them - I mean now, read these later fundis, and their newer and ostentasciously more learned renderings. Therefore, read them, but read them together with the old - much older - versions.