Where oh where is the Sabbath?

[Eric B]

have not looked in on the board since June 30, and when I do, this discussion is still going on!!

It occurs to me that when so many people try and disprove the Sabbath that God set up for all mankind, (not just the Jews) there must be a good reason.

I believe the reason is that Satan is afraid that the people will begin to have the scales pulled from their eyes and reilize that the Sabbath (Sat) is the day to worship and then all would be lost to the devil and his demons.

Think about it folks, why fight so hard against it if it is just a silly thing someone came up with.

For those who are kicking against it, time to take a break and think it over.

I have! And from the other side! You all make up your minds what we think, and have decided, without asking us, that we are all just trying to justify some Sunday "tradition". But I have no Sunday tradition. When I first became a Christisn; it was as a sabbathkeeper! and I walked around like you all, arguing with other Christians that they were just keeping traditions, and neglecting one of the commandments. But one brother showed me from Rom. Col. Gal. and other places where this was wrong, and the whole system of arguments melted down. I saw how it was all based on inference (see 2 posts above), and not clear, NT TEACHing. And it was all one-upmanship. So already keeping the sabbath, and already leaving one job over it, and then losing the second; I have been through the whole routine, and have no reason to "kick against" or "fight so hard against" your teaching other than that it is a false distraction. And I am charged to "always be ready to give an answer for the hope [faith] that is in us". You expect us to just drop down and say you're right just because of the volume of arguments (all inferences), or you get to continue shaking your head at our "blindness". But not with the flimsy arguments you all have given here. It is to be kept "unto the Lord" not used to hit other Christians over the head with, and accuse of having the Mark of the Beast in the future or scales on their eyes.

No, what there's an even better reason for is why people would fight so hard against the Liberty we are given on days, (or some "silly little tradition men have come up with") when the NT leaves it up to a person's own conviction. (we even see the issue in the NT!) It is divisive to the Body of Christ, and based on pride, where people think they are better than other Christians. Right here, this is made into the main issue that the devil and all the demons are fighting over. All is lost to the demons if more people keep the sabbath! Never mind all the billions of people lost without Christ at all, and the gospel being carried out to them! It's just these stubborn blind Christians who neglect this one "forgotten" command, and will one day enact some national Sunday Law and persecute SDA's who are the problem in the world!

No, but the devil does try to trap people with their own works-righteousness, and "believers" judging each other more than carrying the true gospel of Christ intot he world. So this basically becomes another gospel! And all while you continue to point at everyone else as blind!

 

[prophecynut]

NO, NO keep this thread going, 120 posts is a record for me. Don't stop now.

 

[tamborine lady]

Just a note to let you all know that keeping the Sabbath (IMOHO) doesn't have anything at all to do with the mark of the beast!

But my challange still stands. If it doesn't matter if you worship on Sat (Sabbath) or Sunday, and we are free to choose, then why is this still going on??

Peace,

Tam

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People" also argue for praying to the dead and purgatory.

How does this help your case? (To point out that "Some Christians" ignore the impact Heb 10 and the ceasation of animal sacrifices would have on animal-sacrifice-based annual feasts listed in Lev 23)

BTW - Paul HIMSELF continued to observe passover and the other feasts. I am not arguing that they CAN NOT do it - I am arguing that the BASIS for the feasts is removed. As Romans 14 points out - they are certainly free to "OBSERVE" all those annual Feastival days or they may choose to observe "ONE" of them over another.

I am not trying to "disprove" that some people continue to do as they please.

I am also not trying to "disprove" that they are ALLOWED to "OBSERVE" ALL those annual feast days if they wish.

My only point is the obvious one that the ANIMAL sacrifice IS THE CORE in each of them as we SEE in Lev 23. And so as Paul said "CHRIST OUR PASSOVER IS SLAIN" showing how the SHADOW with its animal sacrifice points to the SLAYING of the Messiah.

Just pointing out the obvious.

I can show
#1. Heb 10 deletes the animal sacrifice
#2 The annual sabbaths don't have an "observance" specifice WITHOUT animal sacrifices.
#3. Paul is CORRECT in the case of Passover when he says "CHrist our PASSOVER" is slain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric
But nobody was keeping only one of them.

Obfuscation - it misses the point of the response above "entirely".

Eric
And it says nothing about feast days,

As the note above "already says" the annual feasts ONLY had a SERVICE in the form of animal sacrifices. once the Heb 10 instruction about their being ended is accepted - there is no more "basis" for those shadow annual Sabbaths that POINT to Christ being SLAIN.

OF course they are still free to KEEP them as they please - but the BASIS is removed.

Eric
but rather just a distinction of some days being special, or all days being "alike".

The Romans 14 texts does not say "to NOT observe ALL days as if all days are ALIKE".

The word ALIKE is not actually IN the text!

The word for OBSERVE is.

So the contrast is between "OBSERVING" one of those days ABOVE another or OBSERVING ALL of them.

Period.

How it helps my case is that the same arguments you are using can be used by those insisting we must keep the annual days.

I have yet to see ANYONE argue FOR keeping the annual animal-sacrifice Sabbaths BASED on the argument that those animal sacrifices ARE ENDED in Heb 10.

Did you miss my argument entirely??

The sacrifice may be over, but if ceasing fom physical work on a day called a "sabbath" is still in effect..

Equivocation and obfuscation.

NOTHING in Lev 23 says that JUST because there EXISTS the concept of a Sabbath rest (for any reason of any type) THEN PAssover must exist!!

You simply "make that up" because you need to equivocate here.

But such a fallacy could never withstand careful review. You can't possibly be serious.

I make the clear, obvious and unquestioned point that God EXPLICITLY ENDS the animal sacrifices in Heb 10. You then take that ONE clearly undeniable point and bend it around as many ways as possible AS IF to say "if we do not use that to abolish ALL LAW and Sabbaths then we will be confused about those animal sacrifice Sabbaths".

The argument fails.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1. The quote says nothing about judging others -- except to the extent that PAUL is judging others for NOT keeping the 5th commandment.

#2. The quote SHOWS that the Jewish NT author would be SEEING THE UNIT when HE says "THIS IS THE FIRST commandment WITH a promise". This is obviously true of the UNIT OF TEN but is not true of the 613.

#3. The text of Eph 6 SHOWS that Paul does NOT simply say "HEY! I am a pretty important guy and so I SAY Honor your father and mother and THAT should be enough for you to do it". Rather Paul "consistently" reaches out "TO SCRIPTURE" as his authorotative source and so we see him doing it AGAIN in Eph 6 with the UNIT of TEN EVEN pointing out the "relationship" of the 5th commandment WITHIN the ENTIRE UNIT!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said -
It still does not prove that only the unit of ten were eternal, while the other might not be. They were familiar, and could still be cited.

As I have stated maybe a dozen times already - I have not been arguing AGAINST the "rest of scripture".

The points above remain - and are clear.

The UNIT of TEN IS referenced IN The NT. AS A UNIT with a SEQUENCE and the fact that the FIFTH commandment is the FIRST IN that sequence WITH A prommise. This can not be denied.

THAT CONTINUED unit - is established by THAT REFERENCE because the DETALS in Eph 6:1-3 SHOW that Paul is using scripture "authortativel" rather than as "expired text".

Your either-or fallacy is to claim that you can EITHER have the Ten Commandment UNIT of Eph 6 OR you can have Lev 19:18 "Love your Neighbor" but not BOTH.

I have never argued that - and I have no idea why you keep circling back to that same failed point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Again" you suppose that to HONOR God's TEN commandment UNIT one must IGNORE the rest of scripture and ABOLISH all other Law.

This has never been my argument.

You keep dragging it out out of the dust -- but you are the author of that argument not me. So when you repeatedly knock it down - it is your own argument you are defeating not mine.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric
Then why did this whole argument come up then? You are the pone who started arguing that only the ten were in stone and in the ark when confronted with the annual sabbaths. That is the argument SDA's always use for that.

Again you keep circling back to your failed argument. I never argue that the command to Love God in Deut 6:5 comes to an "end" as soon as we see that the Ten Commandments UNIT is in stone.

As "already stated" IF such an argument WERE made then Deut 6:5 would have been void AS SOON as it was given since AT THAT time the UNIT of TEN was ALREADY in STONE!

My argument has been "consistently" that God was make a UNIQUE statement with the UNIT OF TEN rather than just a fuzzy amorphus segement of law to be arbitrarily identified by SDAs as "Something that exists".

RATHER - My point is to ADMIT to the FACTS of history where God HIMSELF draws a distinction between the UNIT of TEN and the REST of scripture!

This does NOT argue that the REST of scripture is void. It argues that the UNIT of TEN is distinct, known, primary, labeled, unique and is often quoted in the NT.

I certainly claim that ALL of scripture is INSPIRED and is AUTHOROTATIVE for doctrine correction and reproof 1Tim 3:16!! - As does the SDA doctrinal argument.

Why you keep wanting to circle back "As if" this argument for the special UNIT OF LAW called the Ten Commandments is in fact an argument to abolish the OT text of scripture - is beyond me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is true - but they would at a minimum have to INCLUDE the Ten. This is particularly true in the case of Matt 5.

Psalms 111 - must also include this supreme UNIT of TEN at the very least. Whatever ELSE you want to include in that - is fine.
No games. I think you would have to agree that Matt 5 and Psalms 111 DO reference the LAW and the COMMANDMENTS - and that the UNIT OF TEN being the supreme Spoken,written-by-God, isolated and NAMED unit must at the very least be INCLUDED.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric
True, nbut if it's not excluding the others, then you shouldn;t use it in your argument as to why you don;t have to keep some of the others.

I never use the UNIQUE and DISTINCT fact of the UNIT of TEN ("And He added No More" Deut 5) as the a "reason to exclude the rest of the OT" for NT saints.

In fact I claim that the OT TEXT IS THE SCRIPTURE of NT saints in the first century! Every time you see a reference to "scripture" and then a quote - in the NT - it is ALWAYS the OT and it is ALWAYS authorotative and binding!

The argument that I AM making above is to admit to the uniqueness, the identity, the primary role, the special isolation of the UNIT of TEN that GOD specified - (as a matter of historic record). And then to show that this unit of TEN was consistently endorsed and quoted in the NT.

In other words "the point" I am making is the continued USE of that UNIT of TEN - NOT the DISCONTINUATION of the OT.

When I want to point to the DISCONTINUATION of something I go to something "explicit" like the Heb 10 reference to the DISCONTINUATION of animal sacrifices.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

Obfuscation - it misses the point of the response above "entirely".

What are you talking about? ou throw in this insinuation that soimne people kept some of the days and the others kept others, and Oaul was telling them not to judge each other over that. That was fabricated by you. Nobody (who JUDGED others) kept only SOME of the days (though they were now at liberty to. Still, the ones judging were those who kept ALL of the days!) So I do not know what all of this "obfuscation" you keep throwing out is.

As the note above "already says" the annual feasts ONLY had a SERVICE in the form of animal sacrifices. once the Heb 10 instruction about their being ended is accepted - there is no more "basis" for those shadow annual Sabbaths that POINT to Christ being SLAIN.

OF course they are still free to KEEP them as they please - but the BASIS is removed.

I know that. But if you want to be consistent with your arguments on the sabbath, and your reasoning on what is "eternal", it could be extended to the annual sabbaths as still being mandatory "memorials".

The Romans 14 texts does not say "to NOT observe ALL days as if all days are ALIKE".

The word ALIKE is not actually IN the text!

The word for OBSERVE is.

So the contrast is between "OBSERVING" one of those days ABOVE another or OBSERVING ALL of them.

It's not "observe"; it's closer to "ESTEEM" (as translated in the KJV). So you can't say the "all days" were just a set of days being "observed", now lets plug in which: it's the annual days, so some must have been observing some annual days OVER others, and it has nothing to do with the weekly sabbath. The set of "all days" is ALL days of the year. Some people esteemed them alike, some had special days (weekly and annual) that they held OVER the rest of the days. That's the only thing we can gain from history and scripture.

I have yet to see ANYONE argue FOR keeping the annual animal-sacrifice Sabbaths BASED on the argument that those animal sacrifices ARE ENDED in Heb 10.

Did you miss my argument entirely??

No, they point out that the DAYS were oordained "forever", and only the application of them changes with the end of sacrifices.

Equivocation and obfuscation.

NOTHING in Lev 23 says that JUST because there EXISTS the concept of a Sabbath rest (for any reason of any type) THEN PAssover must exist!!

You simply "make that up" because you need to equivocate here.

But such a fallacy could never withstand careful review. You can't possibly be serious.

I make the clear, obvious and unquestioned point that God EXPLICITLY ENDS the animal sacrifices in Heb 10. You then take that ONE clearly undeniable point and bend it around as many ways as possible AS IF to say "if we do not use that to abolish ALL LAW and Sabbaths then we will be confused about those animal sacrifice Sabbaths".

Once again; it is not my argument! I am only showing your argument taken to the next step, as other Sabbathkeeping groups do.

As I have stated maybe a dozen times already - I have not been arguing AGAINST the "rest of scripture".

The points above remain - and are clear.

The UNIT of TEN IS referenced IN The NT. AS A UNIT with a SEQUENCE and the fact that the FIFTH commandment is the FIRST IN that sequence WITH A prommise. This can not be denied.

THAT CONTINUED unit - is established by THAT REFERENCE because the DETALS in Eph 6:1-3 SHOW that Paul is using scripture "authortativel" rather than as "expired text".

Your either-or fallacy is to claim that you can EITHER have the Ten Commandment UNIT of Eph 6 OR you can have Lev 19:18 "Love your Neighbor" but not BOTH.

I have never argued that - and I have no idea why you keep circling back to that same failed point.

Again you keep circling back to your failed argument. I never argue that the command to Love God in Deut 6:5 comes to an "end" as soon as we see that the Ten Commandments UNIT is in stone.

As "already stated" IF such an argument WERE made then Deut 6:5 would have been void AS SOON as it was given since AT THAT time the UNIT of TEN was ALREADY in STONE!

My argument has been "consistently" that God was make a UNIQUE statement with the UNIT OF TEN rather than just a fuzzy amorphus segement of law to be arbitrarily identified by SDAs as "Something that exists".

RATHER - My point is to ADMIT to the FACTS of history where God HIMSELF draws a distinction between the UNIT of TEN and the REST of scripture!

This does NOT argue that the REST of scripture is void. It argues that the UNIT of TEN is distinct, known, primary, labeled, unique and is often quoted in the NT.

I certainly claim that ALL of scripture is INSPIRED and is AUTHOROTATIVE for doctrine correction and reproof 1Tim 3:16!! - As does the SDA doctrinal argument.

Why you keep wanting to circle back "As if" this argument for the special UNIT OF LAW called the Ten Commandments is in fact an argument to abolish the OT text of scripture - is beyond me.

I never use the UNIQUE and DISTINCT fact of the UNIT of TEN ("And He added No More" Deut 5) as the a "reason to exclude the rest of the OT" for NT saints.

In fact I claim that the OT TEXT IS THE SCRIPTURE of NT saints in the first century! Every time you see a reference to "scripture" and then a quote - in the NT - it is ALWAYS the OT and it is ALWAYS authorotative and binding!

The argument that I AM making above is to admit to the uniqueness, the identity, the primary role, the special isolation of the UNIT of TEN that GOD specified - (as a matter of historic record). And then to show that this unit of TEN was consistently endorsed and quoted in the NT.

In other words "the point" I am making is the continued USE of that UNIT of TEN - NOT the DISCONTINUATION of the OT.

When I want to point to the DISCONTINUATION of something I go to something "explicit" like the Heb 10 reference to the DISCONTINUATION of animal sacrifices.

What is your point then, with the "unique unit"? Why did you waste time bringing this up, if you are not using that to try to justify not keeping annual sabbaths while you insist the weekly sabbath is still mandatory? (that's the only thing I have accused you of). Proving that the Ten is a special unit over the others still does not prove that all ten are still to be kept in the letter today. Clearly the Two is the unit emphasized now.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People" also argue for praying to the dead and purgatory.

How does this help your case? (To point out that "Some Christians" ignore the impact Heb 10 and the ceasation of animal sacrifices would have on animal-sacrifice-based annual feasts listed in Lev 23)

BTW - Paul HIMSELF continued to observe passover and the other feasts. I am not arguing that they CAN NOT do it - I am arguing that the BASIS for the feasts is removed. As Romans 14 points out - they are certainly free to "OBSERVE" all those annual Feastival days or they may choose to observe "ONE" of them over another.

I am not trying to "disprove" that some people continue to do as they please.

I am also not trying to "disprove" that they are ALLOWED to "OBSERVE" ALL those annual feast days if they wish.

My only point is the obvious one that the ANIMAL sacrifice IS THE CORE in each of them as we SEE in Lev 23. And so as Paul said "CHRIST OUR PASSOVER IS SLAIN" showing how the SHADOW with its animal sacrifice points to the SLAYING of the Messiah.

Just pointing out the obvious.

I can show
#1. Heb 10 deletes the animal sacrifice
#2 The annual sabbaths don't have an "observance" specifice WITHOUT animal sacrifices.
#3. Paul is CORRECT in the case of Passover when he says "CHrist our PASSOVER" is slain.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric
But nobody was keeping only one of them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obfuscation - it misses the point of the response above "entirely".

Eric said --
What are you talking about? you throw in this insinuation that some people kept some of the days and the others kept others, and Paul was telling them not to judge each other over that.

If you are talking about Romans 14 - then it DOES clearly say "one OBSERVES ONE day ABOVE another while another man OBSERVES every day".

Do you not "like" that reference to "OBSERVING" the days of Lev 23?

Do you not 'see' it list BOTH kinds of "observing" defending them as "individual choices"?

As "pointed out above" the requirement to "observe all" (or even ANY of them) is removed when the ANIMAL sacrifices that the observance CONSISTS of is removed - but that does not PROHIBIT them from choosing to OBSERVE one of them ABOVE another OR to OBSERVE ALL.

That was fabricated by you.

What part is fabricated. EVEN in the OT only THREE of the Lev 23 feasts were actually mandatory for Jews.

In any case - in Romans 14 Paul condemns judging others for their OBSERVANCE of these "Days".

Eric said
Nobody (who JUDGED others) kept only SOME of the days (though they were now at liberty to. Still, the ones judging were those who kept ALL of the days!)

The details given in both Romans 14 and Col 2 say NOTHING about how they were judged, or what the dispute was.

So you "make it up". But I don't see how this helps your case.

The point remains - they had the option of OBSERVING ALL the days (Rom 14) if they chose to or of simply OBSERVING ONE over another when it came to those Lev 23 Annual Sabbath DAYS to be OBSERVED. Optional - since the animal SACRIFICEs are at an end according to Paul in Heb 10.

But judging others is condemned in Matt 7, in Col 2 and in Romans 14.

However there is NO place in either of those references where the author claims that the LACK of OBSERVANCE of a particular feast day is the disputed issue. Even if it were the case - only THREE were required of Jews in the OT, and NONE were "required" of believing gentiles in the OT.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the note above "already says" the annual feasts ONLY had a SERVICE in the form of animal sacrifices. once the Heb 10 instruction about their being ended is accepted - there is no more "basis" for those shadow annual Sabbaths that POINT to Christ being SLAIN.

OF course they are still free to KEEP them as they please - but the BASIS is removed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric
I know that. But if you want to be consistent with your arguments on the sabbath, and your reasoning on what is "eternal", it could be extended to the annual sabbaths as still being mandatory "memorials".

#1. You have yet to show that I ever made such a claim about "What is eternal" based on "what is in stone". I only show "What is UNIQUE and IDENTIFIABLE as the UNIT OF TEN" based on what is in Stone tablets.

#2. My argument for Christ the Creator's Seventh Day Holy Day was purely based on the fact of its inclusion in Gen 2:3 AND in the UNIT of TEN. It was there BEFORE sin, BEFORE Lev 23 and it is there (in Is 66) AFTER sin is abolished and AFTER the New Earth.

#3. My argument about the Lev 23 annual Sabbaths has ONLY been from Heb 10 SHOWING that the animal SACRIFICES that constitutes them ENDED as Heb 10 explicitly states.

The obvious case is being made here - nothing more.

If you want to claim I am making some "other argument" please show it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Romans 14 texts does not say "to NOT observe ALL days as if all days are ALIKE".

The word ALIKE is not actually IN the text!

The word for OBSERVE is.

So the contrast is between "OBSERVING" one of those days ABOVE another or OBSERVING ALL of them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric
It's not "observe"; it's closer to "ESTEEM" (as translated in the KJV).

I see. You are going to make a point about "esteeming but not quite OBSERVING"????

This should be good. (So far every commentary I have seen admits that these are days OBSERVED)

In the mean time --

The translators even get this right. --

NKJV vs 6
6He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

NASB vs 6
6He 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.

Amplified Bible vs 6
6He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

English Standard Bible – vs 6
6The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Eric -

So you can't say the "all days" were just a set of days being "observed", now lets plug in which: it's the annual days, so some must have been observing some annual days OVER others,

True enough. In fact even for Jews - only THREE of the Lev 23 feastivals were mandatory.

Eric --
The set of "all days" is ALL days of the year.

I could not find any commentator saying that the one who "OBSERVES ALL days" was in fact observing 365 days each year.

However a number of commentators ignore the fact that "alike" is an "inserted" word - inserted by translators and not in the actual text.

Some people esteemed them alike,

Indeed - if one were to "insert" words into the text - one might choose that word "alike" to get to a meaning far different than a normal reading of the text would otherwise support.

There are some good translations that point this "inserted word" out to the reader.

Darby vs 5
5One man esteems day more than day; another esteems every day [alike]. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Young’s Literal Trans vs 5
5One doth judge one day above another, and another doth judge every day [alike]; let each in his own mind be fully assured.

But all commentators agree that the day is being "OBSERVED".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

If you are talking about Romans 14 - then it DOES clearly say "one OBSERVES ONE day ABOVE another while another man OBSERVES every day".

Do you not "like" that reference to "OBSERVING" the days of Lev 23?

Do you not 'see' it list BOTH kinds of "observing" defending them as "individual choices"?

As "pointed out above" the requirement to "observe all" (or even ANY of them) is removed when the ANIMAL sacrifices that the observance CONSISTS of is removed - but that does not PROHIBIT them from choosing to OBSERVE one of them ABOVE another OR to OBSERVE ALL.

In any case - in Romans 14 Paul condemns judging others for their OBSERVANCE of these "Days".

The details given in both Romans 14 and Col 2 say NOTHING about how they were judged, or what the dispute was.

So you "make it up". But I don't see how this helps your case.

The point remains - they had the option of OBSERVING ALL the days (Rom 14) if they chose to or of simply OBSERVING ONE over another when it came to those Lev 23 Annual Sabbath DAYS to be OBSERVED. Optional - since the animal SACRIFICEs are at an end according to Paul in Heb 10.

I see. You are going to make a point about "esteeming but not quite OBSERVING"????

This should be good. (So far every commentary I have seen admits that these are days OBSERVED)

In the mean time --

The translators even get this right. --

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NKJV vs 6
6He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

NASB vs 6
6He 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amplified Bible vs 6
6He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

English Standard Bible – vs 6
6The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I could not find any commentator saying that the one who "OBSERVES ALL days" was in fact observing 365 days each year.

- if one were to "insert" words into the text - one might choose that word "alike" to get to a meaning far different than a normal reading of the text would otherwise support.

There are some good translations that point this "inserted word" out to the reader.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Darby vs 5
5One man esteems day more than day; another esteems every day [alike]. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Young’s Literal Trans vs 5
5One doth judge one day above another, and another doth judge every day [alike]; let each in his own mind be fully assured.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But all commentators agree that the day is being "OBSERVED".

Because it is not "observe", whether the alike is there or not. Once again, the people JUDGING were not keeping SOME of the days, but it was those who kept ALL of the days who judged those who did NOT keep the days, and thus ESTEEMS or JUDGES (as it says above) all days. The alike is added because those traslators knew that was implied. Sometinmes, the modern translators go too far in changing things toi what they think the meaning was. That is one reason the KJV is said to be a superior translation.

But judging others is condemned in Matt 7

Before the Cross, when the days were all mandatory, peope were to be "judged" for breaking a sabbath (annual as well as weekly). I di not see how you could use Matt.7. There is a difference between general judging people for sin, when all sin (Christ's point there) and judging people for breaking mandatory days.

What part is fabricated. EVEN in the OT only THREE of the Lev 23 feasts were actually mandatory for Jews.

However there is NO place in either of those references where the author claims that the LACK of OBSERVANCE of a particular feast day is the disputed issue. Even if it were the case - only THREE were required of Jews in the OT,

You have to show me this. What days were optional to them?

#1. You have yet to show that I ever made such a claim about "What is eternal" based on "what is in stone". I only show "What is UNIQUE and IDENTIFIABLE as the UNIT OF TEN" based on what is in Stone tablets...
If you want to claim I am making some "other argument" please show it.

I'll let your own statement show you:

#2. My argument for Christ the Creator's Seventh Day Holy Day was purely based on the fact of its inclusion in Gen 2:3 AND in the UNIT of TEN. It was there BEFORE sin, BEFORE Lev 23 and it is there (in Is 66) AFTER sin is abolished and AFTER the New Earth.

#3. My argument about the Lev 23 annual Sabbaths has ONLY been from Heb 10 SHOWING that the animal SACRIFICES that constitutes them ENDED as Heb 10 explicitly states.

The obvious case is being made here - nothing more.

You are suggesting that because the weekly sabbath was in the "unit" of ten, then that is why it is eternal, and because the other days were not, they can be abolished. Why deny this in the same breath as stating it? Your premise does not follow here, so you must take us on this wild goose chase as to what you mean.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2. My argument for Christ the Creator's Seventh Day Holy Day was purely based on the fact of its inclusion in Gen 2:3 AND in the UNIT of TEN. It was there BEFORE sin, BEFORE Lev 23 and it is there (in Is 66) AFTER sin is abolished and AFTER the New Earth.

#3. My argument about the Lev 23 annual Sabbaths has ONLY been from Heb 10 SHOWING that the animal SACRIFICES that constitutes them ENDED as Heb 10 explicitly states.

The obvious case is being made here - nothing more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
You are suggesting that because the weekly sabbath was in the "unit" of ten, then that is why it is eternal, and because the other days were not, they can be abolished.

Nope. I do not have even one statement making that claim - but you "keep saying it". If you have a quote from me saying that - it is about time we see it.

My claim from the UNIT OF TEN about the Sabbath is that based on its inclusion in the unit WHEN we SEE that UNIT continued in quotes in the NT then we know that the things IN THE UNIT are still upheld by the NT saints. (Just making an obvious point).

That is NOT how we know that the Annual Sacrifices are ended. Rather for THAT we need Heb 10!

(Lets see - I think that is 14 times saying the same thing so far).

Why deny this in the same breath as stating it?

Well - if you see that argument of YOURS stated by me - then show a quote with ME saying it!

(We are going to get to 20 times going around and around on this point soon).

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1. You have yet to show that I ever made such a claim about "What is eternal" based on "what is in stone". I only show "What is UNIQUE and IDENTIFIABLE as the UNIT OF TEN" based on what is in Stone tablets...
If you want to claim I am making some "other argument" please show it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric
I'll let your own statement show you:

Excellent! Please do.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2. My argument for Christ the Creator's Seventh Day Holy Day was purely based on the fact of its inclusion in Gen 2:3 AND in the UNIT of TEN. It was there BEFORE sin, BEFORE Lev 23 and it is there (in Is 66) AFTER sin is abolished and AFTER the New Earth.

#3. My argument about the Lev 23 annual Sabbaths has ONLY been from Heb 10 SHOWING that the animal SACRIFICES that constitutes them ENDED as Heb 10 explicitly states.

The obvious case is being made here - nothing more.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Notice - there is NO claim in the above that the INCLUSION of Sabbath in the UNIT of TEN and EXCLUSION of the Annual Sabbaths from that unit - means the annual Sabbaths have ended!!

In fact I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that IF THAT were the way to delete the annual Sabbaths - they would have been deleted IN LEV 23!!

(OK - so that is more than 4 times making that same point - eh?).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What part is fabricated. EVEN in the OT only THREE of the Lev 23 feasts were actually mandatory for Jews.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However there is NO place in either of those references where the author claims that the LACK of OBSERVANCE of a particular feast day is the disputed issue. Even if it were the case - only THREE were required of Jews in the OT,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
You have to show me this. What days were optional to them?

See Exodus 23 for a list of the THREE required feasts each year.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But judging others is condemned in Matt 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
Before the Cross, when the days were all mandatory, peope were to be "judged" for breaking a sabbath (annual as well as weekly). I di not see how you could use Matt.7. There is a difference between general judging people for sin, when all sin (Christ's point there) and judging people for breaking mandatory days.

Read Matt 7 carefully - it does not say "judging others is a sin UNLESS you are judging them regarding their observance of a Sabbath day".

NOR does it say "avoid judging others ONLY in cases where what they are doing is not wrong".

That kind of "instruction" would have been pointless - agreed?

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The translators even get this right. --

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NKJV vs 6
6He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

NASB vs 6
6He 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amplified Bible vs 6
6He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

English Standard Bible – vs 6
6The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I could not find any commentator saying that the one who "OBSERVES ALL days" was in fact observing 365 days each year.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Darby vs 5
5One man esteems day more than day; another esteems every day [alike]. Let each be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Young’s Literal Trans vs 5
5One doth judge one day above another, and another doth judge every day [alike]; let each in his own mind be fully assured.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All commentators agree that the day is being "OBSERVED".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said
Because it is not "observe", whether the alike is there or not.

Here it is "Again" as "observe"

NKJV vs 6
6He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

NASB vs 6
6He 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amplified Bible vs 6
6He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

English Standard Bible – vs 6
6The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
[/quote]

And has already noted almost every translation SHOWS the word "alike" to be in italics - "inserted".

The point remains. They were OBSERVING either one day ABOVE the others in the LEv 23 list or they were OBSERVING all of them.

And my point is simply that they were ALLOWED to do that even though the ANIMAL sacrifices AND offerings that constituted those days had ended as explicitly stated in Heb 10.

The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

Nope. I do not have even one statement making that claim - but you "keep saying it". If you have a quote from me saying that - it is about time we see it.

My claim from the UNIT OF TEN about the Sabbath is that based on its inclusion in the unit WHEN we SEE that UNIT continued in quotes in the NT then we know that the things IN THE UNIT are still upheld by the NT saints. (Just making an obvious point).

That is NOT how we know that the Annual Sacrifices are ended. Rather for THAT we need Heb 10!

(Lets see - I think that is 14 times saying the same thing so far).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why deny this in the same breath as stating it?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well - if you see that argument of YOURS stated by me - then show a quote with ME saying it!

(We are going to get to 20 times going around and around on this point soon).

Notice - there is NO claim in the above that the INCLUSION of Sabbath in the UNIT of TEN and EXCLUSION of the Annual Sabbaths from that unit - means the annual Sabbaths have ended!!

In fact I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that IF THAT were the way to delete the annual Sabbaths - they would have been deleted IN LEV 23!!

(OK - so that is more than 4 times making that same point - eh?).

Theis is all semantics now. The point was not whether it was the weekly sabbath's INCLUSION by itself that ended the annual sabbaths. I know you're not saying the inclusion of the weekly affected the annual. It is the inclusion of the weekly that you assume makes it eternal, and the exclusion of the annual that makes them NOT NECESSARILY eternal, and therefore ALLOWED to be ended. Then, you generalize the ending of the sacrifices to the annual days themselves, though what I have been showing, is that those who believe those days are still madatory will rightly accuse you of using the same logic as those of us who do not keep the weekly sabbath..

See Exodus 23 for a list of the THREE required feasts each year.

You're forgetting Leviticus 23. Just because 3 days are mentioned by themselves in one passage, doesn't negate the rest being commanded as mandatory elsewhere. Leviticus does not say the other four occasions are optional. The emphasis in Exodus, is that those 3 days are when the MALES had to make a special appearance before the Lord.

Read Matt 7 carefully - it does not say "judging others is a sin UNLESS you are judging them regarding their observance of a Sabbath day".

NOR does it say "avoid judging others ONLY in cases where what they are doing is not wrong".

That kind of "instruction" would have been pointless - agreed?

Look at the CONTEXT: "For with what judgment all of you judge, all of you shall be judged: and with what measure all of you mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why behold you the splinter that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in yours own eye?
Or how will you say to your brother, Let me pull out the splinter out of yours eye; and, behold, a beam is in yours own eye?
You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of yours own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the splinter out of your brother's eye". The "judging" that is wrong is nitpicking others' flaws while ignoring your own. This says nothing about pointing out when someone is living in sin. Elsewhere, church leaders are instructed to discipline erring believers. 1 Cor.2:15 says "But he that is spiritual judges all things" John 7:24, Jesus tells us "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. That was His point in Matt.7. Else what are you doing judging over the weekly sabbath? Your argument implicates your own self. And by "judging", I mean implying that all of us who do not keep it are living in sin, continuously breaking a command (That God still expects of us). If it was in effect, then it would be a righteous judgment. If not, then it's wrong.

And has already noted almost every translation SHOWS the word "alike" to be in italics - "inserted".

The point remains. They were OBSERVING either one day ABOVE the others in the LEv 23 list or they were OBSERVING all of them.

And my point is simply that they were ALLOWED to do that even though the ANIMAL sacrifices AND offerings that constituted those days had ended as explicitly stated in Heb 10.

The point remains.

I am not even arguing over the word "alike". For one thing, notice how "observe" in your quotes is only used in v.6. The key verse where "alike" was added was verse 5, which uses a different word (translated "judge" or "esteem", from v.6, translated "observe". In v6, the choice is only between "observe" and "not observe" "THE day"; NOT "ALL days". ("all days" is only in v5!) So you take any given holy day, and if a person "observes the day, [he] observes it for the Lord, and and he that observes not the day, to the Lord he does not observe" ["it" is also added, in italics). Nowhere are annual days specified, and noone who judged others over days only kept some of the days, but rather expected Christians to keep the whole Law.

 

[BobRyan]

Eric said
notice how "observe" in your quotes is only used in v.6. The key verse where "alike" was added was verse 5,

??? Is there a point to this?

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"!!

Are you trying to split these verses into separate topics? Chapters? books?

Do you have a way of arguing that they don't go together? That they are not talking about the SAME thing? Vs 5 shows that value is being placed on the day and vs 6 shows that this means the person is actually OBSERVING it.

What is "not to get"??? Are you just grasping at straws??

In v6, the choice is only between "observe" and "not observe"

Indeed because they place value on either ONE day or on ALL days. The one who places value only on ONE day is NOT observing ALL the days in the list!!

There is no such thing as a limited choice such that "One can only OBSERVE ONE of the Lev 23 days or NONE of them" as you suggest. You are going into pure speculation having lost all basis of fact for your point!

Also you try to twist the SAME word in Vs 5 from "VALUE and ESTEEM" in the case of ONE day -- to "NOT value and NOT ESTEEM" in the case of ALL.

So that valuing/esteeming ONE results in OBSERVING one - but value and esteem for ALL results in OBSERVE NONE!!!

That form of logic twisting inserted INTO the text has to be done from previous bias - it is not IN the text!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Eric B]

??? Is there a point to this?

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"!!

Are you trying to split these verses into separate topics? Chapters? books?

Do you have a way of arguing that they don't go together? That they are not talking about the SAME thing? Vs 5 shows that value is being placed on the day and vs 6 shows that this means the person is actually OBSERVING it.

What is "not to get"??? Are you just grasping at straws??

Of course they go together, but you are trying to smear "observe" into both verses when it is only in one of the verses.

Indeed because they place value on either ONE day or on ALL days. The one who places value only on ONE day is NOT observing ALL the days in the list!!

There is no such thing as a limited choice such that "One can only OBSERVE ONE of the Lev 23 days or NONE of them" as you suggest. You are going into pure speculation having lost all basis of fact for your point!

While NOW there is no such "limited choice" to observe some or all of the days; with the freedom we have, that Paul was articulating here. But back THEN, the people judging others over days were those who kept the WHOLE Law. I have never heard of any group that kept only some of the days, and then pushed the Christians to keep some of the days.

Also you try to twist the SAME word in Vs 5 from "VALUE and ESTEEM" in the case of ONE day -- to "NOT value and NOT ESTEEM" in the case of ALL.

So that valuing/esteeming ONE results in OBSERVING one - but value and esteem for ALL results in OBSERVE NONE!!!

That form of logic twisting inserted INTO the text has to be done from previous bias - it is not IN the text!

Because the word "esteem" mean "judge". It is the same exact word used in v.3 and 10-13! Everyone has an opinion of any given day. They either hold it as a normal day, or as special. They have "judged" each day one way or another! The distinction in this passage is to judge one day OVER another, as opposed to judging them all the same; hence the "alike" added. It is clearly a different word than "observe", so you cannot jump it over as if it were the same word, and say all days are "observed".