The Decline of the Sabbath

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Why do you keep pretending not to follow the discussion?

TWO points were shown from anti-Sabbath pro-sunday commentaries.

#1. That the CONTEXT in Romans 14 DOES apply to the Lev 16 list of Holy Days.

#2. That the LAW only demanded a mandatory observance of THREE of those annual Holy Days -- the others were optional.

you keep going to the quotes about the SECOND point and pretending that these are the quotes that showed the FIRST point.

Why do you resort to such antics?

Eric
1) The commentaries you gave DO NOT EVEN MENTION ROM.14

At some point you have to post at least one fact that is actually true.

Adam Clark’s commentary

Chapter 14
In things indifferent, Christians should not condemn each other, 1. Particularly with respect to different kinds of food, 2-4. And the observation of certain days, 5,6. None of us should live unto himself, but unto Christ, who lived and died for us, 7-9. We must not judge each other; for all judgment belongs to God,

Verse 5. One man esteemeth one day above another
Perhaps the word ημεραν, day, is here taken for time, festival, and such like, in which sense it is frequently used. Reference is made here to the Jewish institutions, and especially their festivals; such as the passover, pentecost, feast of tabernacles, new moons, jubilee, Jew still thought these of moral obligation;.
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=014

[/quote]

JFB
http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=014

5. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day--The supplement "alike" should be omitted, as injuring the sense.
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind--be guided in such matters by conscientious conviction.


“Krino” – Regards – esteems.

1. to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose
2. to approve, esteem, to prefer
3. to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion
4. to determine, resolve, decree
5. to judge
6. to rule, govern
7. to contend together, of warriors and combatants

Rom 14
6 He who

observes the day, observes

it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

Notice there is no "HE who does not observe a day - is not doing so For the Lord".

And the term “Observe” is used to show “in accord with the command of God”. In Matt 28:20 Christ the Creator tells His followers to “Go into all the World and make disciples of ALL nations…teaching them to Observe All that I Commanded you”.

Some will argue that to value and “esteem” one day above another in vs 5 – results in OBSERVING the day in vs 6. But to Value and Esteem ALL days (of the Lev 23 list) results in OBSERVING NONE!


Krino in vs 5 shows a selection or preference "to approve, esteem, to prefer " to OBSERVE ("Preference to OBSERVE") as we can see in vs 6. IT is ALL the same chapter the same letter the same author the same subject. Some people have tried to splice, mince and parse these verses apart when in fact they go together IN Context.

Vs 5 "One esteems one day ABOVE another while another esteems ALL" vs 6 "SO The one who OBSERVES the day OBSERVES it for the Lord"!!

We can not split these verses into separate topics. It is all one point.

 

[BobRyan]

I think John Gill has been quoted here - but in case it is forgotten -

BibleClassics.com
http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/romans/gill/romans14.htm

Romans 14
The apostle, having finished his exhortations to duties of a moral and civil kind, proceeds to the consideration of things indifferent, about eating some sorts of meats, and keeping days; to which he might be led by the last clause of the preceding chapter, lest that should be interpreted as referring to those who used their Christian liberty in eating every sort of food; in the use of which it was requisite to exercise that love which is the fulfilling of the law, he had so much pressed and recommended in the foregoing chapters. The church at Rome consisted both of Jews and Gentiles: and the former, though they believed in Christ, were not clear about the abrogation of the ceremonial law, and thought they ought still to observe the distinction of meats and days, which were made in it

 

[BobRyan]

2) and you just continue to rewrite the scripture, when it tells us that every person had to observe all seven annual days as "sabbaths", in addition to the three with the pilgrimmages?
Don't you realize what you're saying? So on Nisan 14th, everyone could SKIP the Passover, and the males only have to go to Jerusalem the following week. The Passover Sacrifice and Seder is OPTIONAL (not mandatory); only the pilgrimmage! They could SKIP the Day of Atonement; just as long as the males go Jerusalem on the feast of Tabernacles. The Day of Atonement is OPTIONAL (not mandatory); only the Tabernacles pilgrimmage.

Wrong again. You blindly skip from one error to another. When I insist on admitting to the 3 MANDATORY feasts - you say "if you are are right the mandatory feasts are optional".

Simply leaping from error to error Eric - why do you use that form of logic??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here we see "again" that anti-Sabbath PRO-Sunday sources CONTINUE to admit to some of the glaringly obvious points in Rom 14 that Eric insists on denying!

John Gill

http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/romans/gill/romans14.htm
Rom 14
Verse 5. One man esteemeth one day above another,.... This is another instance of the difference of sentiments in this church, about the observation of rituals; and is not to be understood of days appointed by the Christian churches for fasting, or abstinence from certain meats, either once a year, as the "Quadragesima," or Lent; or twice a week, as Wednesdays and Fridays; for these are things of much later observation, and which had never been introduced into the church of Rome in the apostle's time; nor were there any disputes about them: [b]much less of days of Heathenish observation,[/B] as lucky or unlucky, or festivals in honour of their gods; for the apostle would never say, that a man who regarded such a day, regarded it to the Lord; nor would have advised to a coalition and Christian conversation with such a man, but rather to exclude him from all society and communion: it remains, therefore, that it must be understood of Jewish days, or of such as were appointed to be observed by the Jews under the former dispensation, and which some thought were still to be regarded; wherefore they esteemed some days in the year above others, as the days of unleavened bread, or the passover; particularly the first night, which was a night to be observed throughout their generations; and in their service for it to this day, use these words, twlylh lkm hzh hlylh hntvn hm, "how different is this night from every other night" {n}? and the feast of tabernacles, especially the last and great day of the feast, and the day of Pentecost;

I am confident that the objective unbiased reader will see this and will not be a befuddled as Eric supposes on these points admitted to by BOTH sides!!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Though JFB is certainly pro-Sunday they are not as opposed to Christ the Creator's Holy day given as HIS memorial of HIS creative acts in making the world -- as some others are ( I have already given this reference for vs 5 repeatedly - but now to add for vs 6)

Jamieson Fausset, Brown – on Romans 14

the Church here, in spite of thy censures.
5. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day--The supplement "alike" should be omitted, as injuring the sense.
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind--be guided in such matters by conscientious conviction.
6. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord--the Lord CHRIST, as before.
and he . . . not, to the Lord he doth not--each doing what he believes to be the Lord's will.
He that earth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks--The one gave thanks to God for the flesh which the other scrupled to use; the other did the same for the herbs to which, for conscience' sake, he restricted himself. From this passage about the observance of days, ALFORD unhappily infers that such language could not have been used if the sabbath law had been in force under the Gospel in any form. Certainly it could not, if the sabbath were merely one of the Jewish festival days; but it will not do to take this for granted merely because it was observed under the Mosaic economy. And certainly, if the sabbath was more ancient than Judaism; if, even under Judaism, it was enshrined among the eternal sanctities of the Decalogue, uttered, as no other parts of Judaism were, amidst the terrors of Sinai; and if the Lawgiver Himself said of it when on earth, "The Son of man is LORD EVEN OF THE SABBATH DAY" (see Mr 2:28) --it will be hard to show that the apostle must have meant it to be ranked by his readers among those vanished Jewish festival days, which only "weakness" could imagine to be still in force--a weakness which those who had more light ought, out of love, merely to bear with.
http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/romans/jfb/romans14.htm

 

[Eric B]

#1. Paul says nothing about "Old Covenant" or "Just assigned to Israel" in Rom 14. Your argument that this is the "major point" of the chapter has the "major point not mentioned even ONCE".

Well, aren't they "Old Covenant" days "Assigned to Israel"? Are they New Covenant days? Do you observe the ["mandatory"] pilgrimmages? What are you arguing here?

#2. You admit that these ARE Biblical days after trying to imagine that they had nothing to do with what the Christian church was reading in scripture regarding a list of days to be OBSERVED and ESTEEMED.

I never disputed whether they were biblical days. That was a given. You are attributing "imaginations" to me that I have never expressed. More obfuscation and red herrings! However, of you argue that these days were to be "observed and esteemed", AND that they do not include the weekly sabbath, then do YOU keep any of them? If not, why?

#3. The LIST given in the SCRIPTURES that the NT saints were reading is found in Lev 16. Those annual holy days included the THREE mandatory days as pointed out EVEN by the pro-sunday anti-Sabbath commentaries quoted on this thread.

#4. The point remains as quoted by GE that this chapter SHOWS that it is THAT list of days that is being esteemed -- and OBSERVED in Rom 14 where some highly regard ALL of the days (EVERY DAY in the list) and some regard/esteem ONE ABOVE the other days in the list.
This is a point you have been trying to ignore this entire thread!

Your "If Eric is wrong" test fails to deal with these glaring facts.

Where is this "LIST" mentioned in the passage? Why can't the passage be allowed to speak for itself? It just mentions "DAYS", and the reader is left to think of special days. How can it "SHOW" this "list", when it is not even mentiuoned?

IN NO case does Romans 14 address the group that ESTEEMS NO days or "DISREGARDS ALL days" in the list.

Again, youlre in a bind, because on one hand, you argue that this "list" does not include the weekly sabbath. But if that's true, and you keep ONLY the weekly sabbath, and NONE of the annual sabbaths or pilgrimmages, then YOU are one who "disregards ALL of the days". Why would you argue against that if you fall into that camp?

Because you are using a double-barrel approach, where both barrels contradict one another. You argue that these are a "list" of annual days and pilgrimmages to get the weekly sabbath out of it. And then you try to "doubly reinforce" the argument dy denying that it allows one to "disregard all days". But that wipes out the first argument, because you do not keep any of the annual days or pilgrimmages, so if "disregarding all days of the list" is not allowed, then you are placing yourself under obligation to keep those "mandatory" days on the list.
You have just heaped up whatever arguments you can find, without checking to see if they are even consistent. Again, this would not be necessary if you would just be willing to do what the passage says, instead of reinterpreting it any which way.

 

[Eric B]

At some point you have to post at least one fact that is actually true.

Adam Clark’s commentary

Chapter 14
In things indifferent, Christians should not condemn each other, 1. Particularly with respect to different kinds of food, 2-4. And the observation of certain days, 5,6. None of us should live unto himself, but unto Christ, who lived and died for us, 7-9. We must not judge each other; for all judgment belongs to God,

Verse 5. One man esteemeth one day above another
Perhaps the word ημεραν, day, is here taken for time, festival, and such like, in which sense it is frequently used. Reference is made here to the Jewish institutions, and especially their festivals; such as the passover, pentecost, feast of tabernacles, new moons, jubilee, Jew still thought these of moral obligation;.
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=014

And that's exactly what I say. I never excluded the annual days. But by extension, it would include the weekly days, which the Jews also thought was still obligatory. Notice, "...especially their festivals...". That means that it is not JUST the festivals, but a special emphasis is being made on them, for they were "high" days.

JFB

http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=014

5. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day--The supplement "alike" should be omitted, as injuring the sense.
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind--be guided in such matters by conscientious conviction.

“Krino” – Regards – esteems.
to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, choose

1. to approve, esteem, to prefer
2. to be of opinion, deem, think, to be of opinion
3. to determine, resolve, decree
4. to judge
5. to rule, govern
6. to contend together, of warriors and combatants

Look at ALL of the definitions in that list. "prefer" and "approve" are POSSIBLE meanings, but then so is the sense of a neutral "deciding" as we see there. That makes more sense.

You still have never explained what this "choosing one day OVER another" even means. So some person keeps mandatory pilgrimmages ONLY, and another keeps all seven annual days? Who is keeping "one day" OVER another? If some are mandatory and some aren't, then it is God who has "esteemed" one day over another, not man. And that's granting you that much, which is a lot. You still have never resolved the issue even of whether pilgrimmages were mandatory in the NT, and if not, what it would have to do with choosing one day "over" another, and the fact God did actually call all the other days
(such as the PAscha and Day of Atonement) "mandatory", ("holy convocation", "a sabbath") and that this "list" of days is not even mentioned by the text.

So the "alike" was added because the translators realized the true meaning of "krino" as a neutral DECISION process, not a completed "preference".

All you're doing, basically, is pitting one set of scholars against another. Go whow the KJV translators this, then. I don't see why yuou expect anyone to drop everything and just accept your scholars over ours.

Notice there is no "HE who does not observe a day - is not doing so For the Lord".

Yeah, I see you and GE using these translations that omit that statement. I don't know which text that is coming from, but I do not trust these other texts newer versions are based on. (Many of them are "Alexandrian", and that place was a nesting ground of pagan influence int he Church. You should know, because the Bacchiochi and the SDA's are always pointing out thay they were among the first to ban the sabbath and enforce Sunday).
So if the Received Text has the phrase; I see no reason to question it. It does not even havethe footnote like 1 John 5:7 is.

And the term “Observe” is used to show “in accord with the command of God”. In Matt 28:20 Christ the Creator tells His followers to “Go into all the World and make disciples of ALL nations…teaching them to Observe All that I Commanded you”.

Some will argue that to value and “esteem” one day above another in vs 5 – results in OBSERVING the day in vs 6. But to Value and Esteem ALL days (of the Lev 23 list) results in OBSERVING NONE!

Yes, again, because that word ABOVE is what is giving you your "preference", and hence value of the day in comparison. Without it, "esteem" is a neutral relator.

Krino in vs 5 shows a selection or preference "to approve, esteem, to prefer " to OBSERVE ("Preference to OBSERVE") as we can see in vs 6. IT is ALL the same chapter the same letter the same author the same subject. Some people have tried to splice, mince and parse these verses apart when in fact they go together IN Context.

Vs 5 "One esteems one day ABOVE another while another esteems ALL" vs 6 "SO The one who OBSERVES the day OBSERVES it for the Lord"!!

We can not split these verses into separate topics. It is all one point.

It is not separate topic. Again, this RIDICULOUS argument that two separate words in the same passage must mean the same thing because it's the same passage. So then when he uses "krino" in v3, 10 and 13 "do not judge", does that mean "observe" ("phroneo") as well? It's the same passage, same topic, same author. (Why did he even bother to use a different word?)

Quote:
2) and you just continue to rewrite the scripture, when it tells us that every person had to observe all seven annual days as "sabbaths", in addition to the three with the pilgrimmages?
Don't you realize what you're saying? So on Nisan 14th, everyone could SKIP the Passover, and the males only have to go to Jerusalem the following week. The Passover Sacrifice and Seder is OPTIONAL (not mandatory); only the pilgrimmage! They could SKIP the Day of Atonement; just as long as the males go Jerusalem on the feast of Tabernacles. The Day of Atonement is OPTIONAL (not mandatory); only the Tabernacles pilgrimmage.

Wrong again. You blindly skip from one error to another. When I insist on admitting to the 3 MANDATORY feasts - you say "if you are are right the mandatory feasts are optional".

Simply leaping from error to error Eric - why do you use that form of logic??

Trying to confound the issue again? You're the one saying all but the the three pilgrimamges are optional. I show from the OT that they were not. And then you do not keep the three "mandatory" ones either, so you must believe they were optional in the NT, so I ask why you keep using that argument.

 

[Eric B]

I think John Gill has been quoted here - but in case it is forgotten -

BibleClassics.com
http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/romans/gill/romans14.htm

Romans 14
The apostle, having finished his exhortations to duties of a moral and civil kind, proceeds to the consideration of things indifferent, about eating some sorts of meats, and keeping days; to which he might be led by the last clause of the preceding chapter, lest that should be interpreted as referring to those who used their Christian liberty in eating every sort of food; in the use of which it was requisite to exercise that love which is the fulfilling of the law, he had so much pressed and recommended in the foregoing chapters. The church at Rome consisted both of Jews and Gentiles: and the former, though they believed in Christ, were not clear about the abrogation of the ceremonial law, and thought they ought still to observe the distinction of meats and days, which were made in it

Here we see "again" that anti-Sabbath PRO-Sunday sources CONTINUE to admit to some of the glaringly obvious points in Rom 14 that Eric insists on denying!


Quote:
John Gill

http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/romans/gill/romans14.htm
Rom 14
Verse 5. One man esteemeth one day above another,.... This is another instance of the difference of sentiments in this church, about the observation of rituals; and is not to be understood of days appointed by the Christian churches for fasting, or abstinence from certain meats, either once a year, as the "Quadragesima," or Lent; or twice a week, as Wednesdays and Fridays; for these are things of much later observation, and which had never been introduced into the church of Rome in the apostle's time; nor were there any disputes about them: [b]much less of days of Heathenish observation,[/b] as lucky or unlucky, or festivals in honour of their gods; for the apostle would never say, that a man who regarded such a day, regarded it to the Lord; nor would have advised to a coalition and Christian conversation with such a man, but rather to exclude him from all society and communion: it remains, therefore, that it must be understood of Jewish days, or of such as were appointed to be observed by the Jews under the former dispensation, and which some thought were still to be regarded; wherefore they esteemed some days in the year above others, as the days of unleavened bread, or the passover; particularly the first night, which was a night to be observed throughout their generations; and in their service for it to this day, use these words, twlylh lkm hzhhlylh hntvn hm, "how different is this night from every other night" {n}? and the feast of tabernacles, especially the last and great day of the feast, and the day of Pentecost;

I am confident that the objective unbiased reader will see this and will not be a befuddled as Eric supposes on these points admitted to by BOTH sides!!

Again, all of that agrees with what I have said. They are emphasizing the "high" holy days. But it does not exlude the weekly day. And it's those "highest" ones which "some thought to be still regarded". Nothing there about "Some observe pilgrimmages only OVER other days, and some OBSERVE ALL days; Do not judge one another, just as long as you are keeping SOME days (not keeping NONE)".

Though JFB is certainly pro-Sunday they are not as opposed to Christ the Creator's Holy day given as HIS memorial of HIS creative acts in making the world -- as some others are ( I have already given this reference for vs 5 repeatedly - but now to add for vs 6)



Quote:
Jamieson Fausset, Brown – on Romans 14
Quote:
the Church here, in spite of thy censures.
5. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day--The supplement "alike" should be omitted, as injuring the sense.
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind--be guided in such matters by conscientious conviction.
6. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord--the Lord CHRIST, as before.
and he . . . not, to the Lord he doth not--each doing what he believes to be the Lord's will.
He that earth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks--The one gave thanks to God for the flesh which the other scrupled to use; the other did the same for the herbs to which, for conscience' sake, he restricted himself. From this passage about the observance of days, ALFORD unhappily infers that such language could not have been used if the sabbath law had been in force under the Gospel in any form. Certainly it could not, if the sabbath were merely one of the Jewish festival days; but it will not do to take this for granted merely because it was observed under the Mosaic economy. And certainly, if the sabbath was more ancient than Judaism; if, even under Judaism, it was enshrined among the eternal sanctities of the Decalogue, uttered, as no other parts of Judaism were, amidst the terrors of Sinai; and if the Lawgiver Himself said of it when on earth, "The Son of man is LORD EVEN OF THE SABBATH DAY" (see Mr 2:28) --it will be hard to show that the apostle must have meant it to be ranked by his readers among those vanished Jewish festival days, which only "weakness" could imagine to be still in force--a weakness which those who had more light ought, out of love, merely to bear with.

Finally, the ONE QUOTE that denies that the weekly sabbath is apart of the "days" of Romans 14. No distracting rabbit trails about "pilgrimmages" and lists of days. I don't even remember seeing this one, as you kept citing Clarke and Gill who say nothing of it.
(Right off the bat, circumcision and sacrifices altogether were "more ancient than Judaism")
Anyway, you like to cite Sunday keepers to prove your point, but they are interpreting "the sabbath" to be Sunday. And this is just ONE group of commentartors. Why should I believe just them over everyone else? First, if they are wrong on the day of the week they interpret as the Sabbath of scripture, couldn't they be wrong in their intepretation of this passage?
Second, and I have asked this before (regarding Moody); If I am to accept their argument, should I keep Sunday?

 

[BobRyan]

All of these anti-Sabbath pro-Sunday sources freely admit that the days of Romans 14 are those of Lev 16.

The point remains.

 

[BobRyan]

[/color]
Anyway, you like to cite Sunday keepers to prove your point, but they are interpreting "the sabbath" to be Sunday. And this is just ONE group of commentartors. Why should I believe just them over everyone else? First, if they are wrong on the day of the week they interpret as the Sabbath of scripture, couldn't they be wrong in their intepretation of this passage?
Second, and I have asked this before (regarding Moody); If I am to accept their argument, should I keep Sunday?

Your deny-all approach to Romans 14 is being debunked EVEN by the pro-Sunday anti-Sabbath commentaries and this is all you have to say about it??

Amazing!

Not only do you NOT show that SAME level of objectivity by quoting PRO-Sabbath anti-Sunday sources that agree with one of YOUR points or that debunk one of MY points -- but you even reject THESE pro-Sunday anti-Sabbath sources as THEY point to the REALITY of the fact that Romans 14 list of "DAYS" is in fact that Lev 16 list of Holy days AND CAN NOT be twisted around to apply to all other forms of pagan days or normal work days as you have tried to do! Further they point to the fact that the term "ALIKE" is a bad "INSERT" done by some translators and that the days OBSERVED are in fact ESTEEMED to be alike "SACRED".

What we have is you - in division AGAINSt pro-Sunday anti-Sabbath commentaries and then asking ME if my point is to join the anti-Sabbath pro-Sunday group!!??

How much more "deny-all" could you get on this subject?!!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Jamieson Fausset Brown deny that the Romas 14 text does ANYTHING to defuse/defer/delay/downgrade the Sabbath -- FJB has been quoted repeatedly on this thread regarding Romans 14:5 showing that the term "alike" should be omitted which leaves the original meaning that ALL the days were being ESTEEMED and NO option at all allowed for the very bogus and highly dubious "ESTEEM as in DISREGARD"

See posts 48, 52 and 71 where Adam Clarke, JFB, John Gill were all quoted "before" - and all 3 posts provide quotes addressing Romans 14!!


Post 48
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1036150&postcount=48
Post 52
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1037552&postcount=52
Post 71
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1041048&postcount=71


However JFB actually takes a PRO-Sabbath position like D.L. Moody while also taking a PRO-SUNDAY position.

Quote:
Jamieson Fausset, Brown – on Romans 14
Quote:
the Church here, in spite of thy censures.
5. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day--The supplement "alike" should be omitted, as injuring the sense.
Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind--be guided in such matters by conscientious conviction.
6. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord--the Lord CHRIST, as before.
and he . . . not, to the Lord he doth not--each doing what he believes to be the Lord's will.
He that earth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks--The one gave thanks to God for the flesh which the other scrupled to use; the other did the same for the herbs to which, for conscience' sake, he restricted himself. From this passage about the observance of days, ALFORD unhappily infers that such language could not have been used if the sabbath law had been in force under the Gospel in any form. Certainly it could not, if the sabbath were merely one of the Jewish festival days; but it will not do to take this for granted merely because it was observed under the Mosaic economy. And certainly, if the sabbath was more ancient than Judaism; if, even under Judaism, it was enshrined among the eternal sanctities of the Decalogue, uttered, as no other parts of Judaism were, amidst the terrors of Sinai; and if the Lawgiver Himself said of it when on earth, "The Son of man is LORD EVEN OF THE SABBATH DAY" (see Mr 2:28) --it will be hard to show that the apostle must have meant it to be ranked by his readers among those vanished Jewish festival days, which only "weakness" could imagine to be still in force--a weakness which those who had more light ought, out of love, merely to bear with.
http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/romans/jfb/romans14.htm

 

[BobRyan]

[/color]

(Right off the bat, circumcision and sacrifices altogether were "more ancient than Judaism")

True enough and Romans 2 and Heb 10 explicitly show where they end.

Isaiah 66 has "ALL MANKIND" coming before God to "worship from SABBATH to SABBATH" in the New heavens and New earth -- so "no END".

Anyway, you like to cite Sunday keepers to prove your point

Try to focus now Eric-- "why would I do that" when I have my own pro-Sabbath sources to choose from? Hmmm can you say "o-b-j-e-c-t-i-v-i-t-y"??

WHY would I go to the trouble to show that EVEN YOUR own pro-Sunday group DEBUNKs your "deny-all" approach to Romans 14 as you insist that "Esteem as in disregard" is intended in Romans 14 and as you insist that the DAYS spoken of in Rom 14 ARE NOT in reference to the annual Holy Days listed in the BIBLE that was being read by the Christians. (Lev 16)

, but they are interpreting "the sabbath" to be Sunday. And this is just ONE group of commentartors. Why should I believe just them over everyone else? First, if they are wrong on the day of the week they interpret as the Sabbath of scripture, couldn't they be wrong in their intepretation of this passage?

Again you miss the point entirely.

DHK says he is a "9 commandment" Christian.

the RCC members are in fact "8 commandment Christians" denying both the Sabbath commandment AND the commandment against using idols in worhship service.

Mormans are down to 7 Commandments when they promote polygammy.

SURELY when the Morman seeks to embrace poligammy AND admit that the commandment against adultery is still applicable - he is in fact undermining his polygammy.

Surely when the RC member seeks to embrace his idols in worship service AND hold on to the Ten Commandments saying that doing that is wrong - it only servce to undermine his use of idols - it is not a PROOF that idolatry must be ok.

How is this point lost on you Eric?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

When the overriding goal is to oppose Christ our Creator's OWN Holy Day (The "Holy Day of the LORD") that was "MADE FOR MANKIND" and given as a MEMORIAL of God the Son's Creative act in MAKING our plannet -- then you need a "Scorched earth policy" when it comes to scripture. Eric's "deny all at any costs" policy when it comes to Bible texts that debunk such opposition to the Ten Commandments and particularly to the 4th commandment illustrates that piont perfectly from Romans 14 where he claims that the list of days are NOT the list given IN THE BIBLE and to "ESTEEM" the day does not lead to "OBSERVING" the day but rather "COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE DAY" in Eric's story telling replacement for exegesis in Romans 14.

The problem I am highlighting by quoting pro-Sunday (and even anti-Sabbath) sources that can not bring themselves to go to such Bible-denying extremes in their rejection of the 4th commandment is that some of the tactics used here to oppose the Sabbath are soooo extreme that even these sources can not go that far.

But as Eric points out - his methods are needed to cling to a Sabbath-denying position without allowing any Bible text to remain unbent that might oppose you.

The contrast between the two pro-Sunday groups becomes very "instructive" for the discerning objective unbiased reader.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

Your deny-all approach to Romans 14 is being debunked EVEN by the pro-Sunday anti-Sabbath commentaries and this is all you have to say about it??

Amazing!

Not only do you NOT show that SAME level of objectivity by quoting PRO-Sabbath anti-Sunday sources that agree with one of YOUR points or that debunk one of MY points

Citing "the other side" does not prove one's point, and I don't see how you come to rely on that tactic as if it is the ultimate, infallible Of course, no pro-sabbath sources are going to admit this, because they need to twist as many passages to eliminate the instruction against their judging as possible.

-- but you even reject THESE pro-Sunday anti-Sabbath sources as THEY point to the REALITY of the fact that Romans 14 list of "DAYS" is in fact that Lev 16 list of Holy days

How could they be saying that when there is no "list" in Romans 14 at all. It just presumes "days". And only one of your sources denies that the "days" could include the weekly sabbath.

AND CAN NOT be twisted around to apply to all other forms of pagan days

Where did I ever say anything about pagan days?

or normal work days as you have tried to do!

Norman work days are the ones "Esteemed [alike]", or the ones that the other days are esteemed "OVER".

Further they point to the fact that the term "ALIKE" is a bad "INSERT" done by some translators and that the days OBSERVED are in fact ESTEEMED to be alike "SACRED".

And that is the opinion of the one source you cited on that, and some of the modern translations. It is not universally agreed on. So I don't know why you are putting so much stock in these commentators and alternative translations. The "alike" was added because "esteem all days" by itself makes no sense, because the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT does not specify which "days" are being spoken of. There is no "LIST" or mention in any way of the annual holy days, let alone any three pilgrimmages. So neither you, nor any commentator have any warrant to just plug that in without any scriptural evidence, as "it must be referring to that". It makes perfect sense for it to be a general comparison of days, which some either observe as special, or regard as just an ordinary day, like others. That is the battle that has sometimes raged in the Church, including now. I have never heard anywhere in Church history of conctroversies about people judging others for not keeping mandatory pilgrimmages to Jerusalem ONLY. sabbaths, yes, pilgrimmages (which no Christian or even Messianic group even keeps), no.

What we have is you - in division AGAINSt pro-Sunday anti-Sabbath commentaries and then asking ME if my point is to join the anti-Sabbath pro-Sunday group!!??

How much more "deny-all" could you get on this subject?!!

My allegiance is not to those "commentaries", Sunday or not, especially since I am not even "pro-Sunday" to begin with. They are all to be judged according to their faithfulness to the Bible, and they can be wrong. Each group has its own commentators, and sometimes even translators, and since all the groups disagree, and there is only one true interpretation, then a lot of scholars are wrong, just as all other types of men are wrong about things.

You're arguing everything here excpt showing that Romans 14 actually contains a "list" of certain (exclusive) days it was referring to.

Jamieson Fausset Brown deny that the Romas 14 text does ANYTHING to defuse/defer/delay/downgrade the Sabbath -- FJB has been quoted repeatedly on this thread regarding Romans 14:5 showing that the term "alike" should be omitted which leaves the original meaning that ALL the days were being ESTEEMED and NO option at all allowed for the very bogus and highly dubious "ESTEEM as in DISREGARD"

No it doesn't necessarily mean that. Leaving the passage "esteem all days" does not say they were all "observed", it just makes it more difficult to understand in the translation to English, because no list of "days" is given, and even if you argue that they "would know" from the OT, the OT mentions both the weekly and annuual days, and Paul still does not distinguish between weekly and annual; let alone pilgrimmages. If Paul says to them "some esteem all days", how will they know "that is the annual sabbaths only", when he doesn't even mention it?
Your whole method of exegesis consists almost entirely of "clues and riddles" (like Is. 66 or even Rev.14 supposedly "proving" the sabbath for today, because certain words are used). We get everything but clear instruction or at least reiteration; NT Christians are just "supposed to know" from little scarps of clues, or smething God tells someone else in another time. That is no way to build doctrine and set practice. Stuff like that is precisely why this chapter leaves such issues up to our own personal devotion, but you refuse to listen to that, and instead justify your judging others with unclear "inferences".

True enough and Romans 2 and Heb 10 explicitly show where they end.

Isaiah 66 has "ALL MANKIND" coming before God to "worship from SABBATH to SABBATH" in the New heavens and New earth -- so "no END".

And that includes New Moons and priest and Levites.
But in no way can we use this passage to infuse annual days and pilgrimmages into Romans 14, because "that's all it can refer to". You take one passage and misuse it, and then use to to misinterpret another passage. I refute one misuse over here, and then you go and bring up another misuse, and then I address that one, and you dig up another. That is why these discussions drag out so long. You have constructed you doctrine and its system of arguments like a slippery snake that wiggles out of your hand wherever you grab it. And you think just the number of proof-texts that can fill in for one that is being debunked proves your position.

Try to focus now Eric-- "why would I do that" when I have my own pro-Sabbath sources to choose from? Hmmm can you say "o-b-j-e-c-t-i-v-i-t-y"??

So all you have proven is that there are Sunday-keepers who are "objective" enough to interpret a text in a way that weakens their argument. Good for them! Too bad there are no Sabbath-sources that objective! (that certainly doesn't speak in your side's favor!) Still, what does this have to do with me? Just because they may be "objective" doesn't mean they are RIGHT! It is so easy to make mistakes in translation, so "even they said it, that means it must be true" is not a valid proof, but rather a fallacy.

WHY would I go to the trouble to show that EVEN YOUR own pro-Sunday group DEBUNKs your "deny-all" approach to Romans 14 as you insist that "Esteem as in disregard" is intended in Romans 14 and as you insist that the DAYS spoken of in Rom 14 ARE NOT in reference to the annual Holy Days listed in the BIBLE that was being read by the Christians. (Lev 16)

Because you're scratching up any argument you can find, even if it doesn't really prove your point. One or two scholars do not necessarily "debunk" anything. That is their own theory, and it is not even widely accepted.

Again you miss the point entirely.

DHK says he is a "9 commandment" Christian.

the RCC members are in fact "8 commandment Christians" denying both the Sabbath commandment AND the commandment against using idols in worhship service.

Mormans are down to 7 Commandments when they promote polygammy.

SURELY when the Morman seeks to embrace poligammy AND admit that the commandment against adultery is still applicable - he is in fact undermining his polygammy.

Surely when the RC member seeks to embrace his idols in worship service AND hold on to the Ten Commandments saying that doing that is wrong - it only servce to undermine his use of idols - it is not a PROOF that idolatry must be ok.

How is this point lost on you Eric?

The problem I am highlighting by quoting pro-Sunday (and even anti-Sabbath) sources that can not bring themselves to go to such Bible-denying extremes in their rejection of the 4th commandment is that some of the tactics used here to oppose the Sabbath are soooo extreme that even these sources can not go that far.

But as Eric points out - his methods are needed to cling to a Sabbath-denying position without allowing any Bible text to remain unbent that might oppose you.

The contrast between the two pro-Sunday groups becomes very "instructive" for the discerning objective unbiased reader.

Again, so they are so self-contradictory to "undermine" their own arguments, yet you want to use this as an example of "objectivity" and hence "truth", and I'm supposed to just drop everything and believe what they say. That is all the more reason to not trust them. They are obviously wrong somewhere! All of their "credentials" did not prevent that. That is my point!

 

[Eric B]

When the overriding goal is to oppose Christ our Creator's OWN Holy Day (The "Holy Day of the LORD") that was "MADE FOR MANKIND" and given as a MEMORIAL of God the Son's Creative act in MAKING our plannet -- then you need a "Scorched earth policy" when it comes to scripture. Eric's "deny all at any costs" policy when it comes to Bible texts that debunk such opposition to the Ten Commandments and particularly to the 4th commandment

I'm not opposing it, because I'm not saying it's wrong for anyone to keep it; I'm opposing it being imposed on everyone else, when this passage and others say we are not to judge each other over days. Again, if you would listen to it and be willing to do what it says, instead of rewiting it to get around its instruction, you would see this. But how much easier for you to claim "opposition", when you are the only one trying to impose something on someone, and opposing their practice as "disobedient".

illustrates that point perfectly from Romans 14 where he claims that the list of days are NOT the list given IN THE BIBLE

I never said the "list of days" (from the OT) is not given in the Bible. What I said is that that "list" is NOT reiterated in this passage, so that one should assume it was exclusively the "days" being discussed. Rom.14 is including "the list" and more. ANY days, one esteems over others are not to be used to judge the others. Again, you have to make this so much more complicated than it is.

and to "ESTEEM" the day does not lead to "OBSERVING" the day but rather "COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE DAY" in Eric's story telling replacement for exegesis in Romans 14.

It's not "disregarding" the day if there is nothing special about the day to the person in question to regard. If ine man esteems all days alike, then that includes today. Is he "disregrading" today? No, because today is not a holiday on anyone's calendar, so there is "nothing" to disregard. So in a couple of months will be the Feat of Tabernacles, and this person does not keep it, nor is he obligated to. So again, it is nothing to him to even "disregard". He is only "disregarding" it from the perspective of the person who keeps it, but precisely Paul's point here, none of us have the right to force our perspective on others in issues like that, "for none of us lives unto himself and none of us dies to himself" (v.7). Again, if you would just read it objectively (without trying to explain away something), you would see this.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not opposing it, because I'm not saying it's wrong for anyone to keep it; I'm opposing it being imposed on everyone else, when this passage and others say we are not to judge each other over days.

Is this the part where you quote me doing that in this thread and then show how you opposed me when I posted that? (Or might you be quoting D.L.Moody?? Someone who was in fact pro-Sunday??)

Or are you simply imagining a scenario-debate where your methods would be the appropriate response?

Please show that in this review of Romans 14 you have done this.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

From page 16

Eric -
Quote:
Eric said
...and then the utter irony is that these commentaries do not even say what you claim they say! You cited all of them, but they were discussing other passages such as Exodus, Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

Bob said
Why do you keep pretending not to follow the discussion?

TWO points were shown from anti-Sabbath pro-sunday commentaries.

#1. That the CONTEXT in Romans 14 DOES apply to the Lev 16 list of Holy Days.

#2. That the LAW only demanded a mandatory observance of THREE of those annual Holy Days -- the others were optional.

you keep going to the quotes about the SECOND point and pretending that these are the quotes that showed the FIRST point.

Why do you resort to such antics?

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
and to "ESTEEM" the day does not lead to "OBSERVING" the day but rather "COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE DAY" in Eric's story telling replacement for exegesis in Romans 14.

Eric
It's not "disregarding" the day if there is nothing special about the day to the person in question to regard. If ine man esteems all days alike, then that includes today.

As the anti-Sabbath pro-Sunday commentaries pointed out - this list of days DOES NOT INCLUDE non-biblical days as you imagine above NOR did Jews have a practice of "OBSERVING ALL days of the year as Sabbath rest days" -- there was NO "360 days per year" issue for "OBSERVANCE" for Jews - you simply imagine it so sustain your even more extreme positions. There is NO Bible context for "EVERY day of the year" as the CONTEXT for either observing or not observing,,,, esteeming or failure to ESTEEM to OBSERVE.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Your deny-all approach to Romans 14 is being debunked EVEN by the pro-Sunday anti-Sabbath commentaries and this is all you have to say about it??

Amazing!

Not only do you NOT show that SAME level of objectivity by quoting PRO-Sabbath anti-Sunday sources that agree with one of YOUR points or that debunk one of MY points

Eric
Citing "the other side" does not prove one's point, and I don't see how you come to rely on that tactic as if it is the ultimate, infallible Of course, no pro-sabbath sources are going to admit this, because they need to twist as many passages to eliminate the instruction against their judging as possible.

To equivocate between your method of only quoting yourself and your own imagination as proof for your position ... vs My ACTUALLY quoting "pro-Sunday Anti-Sabbath" sources that DO NOT go to your wild extremes in Bible interpretation ( and you appear to do this AS IF the reader will notice nothing OBJECTIVE
about my approach here vs yours) is to assume an almost superstitous reader lacking the basic ability to appreaciate logic and objective methods.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1063661#post1063661
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1064330&postcount=171

Why do you do that in spite of these sources above?

Surely you can not think that will compell them to ignore this glaring gap in your approach vs mine??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
Quote:
The problem I am highlighting by quoting pro-Sunday (and even anti-Sabbath) sources that can not bring themselves to go to such Bible-denying extremes in their rejection of the 4th commandment is that some of the tactics used here to oppose the Sabbath are soooo extreme that even these sources can not go that far.

But as Eric points out - his methods are needed to cling to a Sabbath-denying position without allowing any Bible text to remain unbent that might oppose you.

The contrast between the two pro-Sunday groups becomes very "instructive" for the discerning objective unbiased reader.

Eric said
Again, so they are so self-contradictory to "undermine" their own arguments, yet you want to use this as an example of "objectivity" and hence "truth", and I'm supposed to just drop everything and believe what they say. That is all the more reason to not trust them. They are obviously wrong somewhere! All of their "credentials" did not prevent that. That is my point!

The glaringly obvious point here is that your scortched-earth deny-all wrenching of the text that you admit above IS NEEDED to create a consistent "Story" for the anti-Sabbath positions you hold -- are scripture-abusive tactics that these anti-Sabbath pro-Sunday Bible commentary sources can NOT bring themselves to engage in -- and thus join you in your sacrifice-all deny-all solution in favor of man-made-traditions.

I on the other hand - can objectively agree with you that in fact your wild extremes in the deny-all model that you use are exactly what is needed to "cling" to your position no matter what scripture says to the contrary. But these well respected sources refuse to go to the "level" of your methods.

So while they have every motive, every incentive from a natural-inclination POV to join in your "deny-Sabbath-at ALL costs" tactics - yet their objectivity and faithfulness to Bible interpretation does NOT allow them to completely ignore the CONTEXT and exegetical attributes for the chapter as you have done.

I simply point out that even those who AGREE with your pro-Sunday positions can NOT bring themselves to join you in your wild extremes of bending the text --- and you claim this is "a bad thing for me to do"????

How odd.

in Christ,

Bob