7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things;
in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,
as they do also the other scriptures,
unto their own destruction.

You missed the point. Whatever were the "other", the claim is simple, Paul's epistles are scripture.

Since that could be understood c. 60 AD, so could Luke's Gospel be understood as scripture from 1 Timothy 5:18.

What I am saying is the Bereans wanted to verify Paul's doctrine (including his gospel). Therefore, they would most naturally have referred back to what we call the Old Testament to do that. Luke's Gospel account, if Paul was carrying it with him, would have been part of that which they were checking out, testing, proving, to see if it lined up with scripture (tanakh).

I'm not saying any of the NT writings aren't Scripture, or weren't accepted as such by early Christians. But that acceptance could only come after having been verified as consonant with the scriptures already available.

Is there any evidence the Bereans were checking Paul's doctrine against Luke's account? I just don't see how that makes any sense.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

I'm putting together some of this NT reference to NT scripture material in one spot.

New Testament references to the New Testament as scripture
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...t-as-scripture

With a separate page on "my gospel" (from a year or two back.)

"my gospel" - Paul writing of Luke's gospel
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...-Luke-s-gospel

Very good, will check it out.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I understand debating.

When it's in your mind that thete are certain conclusions that you are basing your whole argument against in order to think our line of reasoning is false, and think it can only take one to that direction, then you might as well be accusing us of the same thing, because what else can we respond to other than what you're saying? So, we're left trying to reason with you, in referring to your conclusion, and showing how neither we see that conclusion nor is such a conclusion even necessary, and then proceed to explain why it's not necessary and why our conclusions are vastly different. It's just a royal waste of time. And it gets into rabbit Trails when we're not even discussing what each other is actually believing. I've seen circles like this go for days when it's all the while a waste of time when it could have gotten to the point.

There's nothing wrong with saying that a person's natural conclusion would lead in a certain direction, but you're not even reasoning with us about what we look at as a conclusion and arguing from that basis. You're just close-minded to any conclusion we have, because in your mind it leads to a different conclusion, so it's just not fair.

If you present a line of reasoning, and say it supports your position, and I detect that the line of reasoning necessarily leads to a certain conclusion which is known to be false, then it is entirely reasonable to point that out in the effort to show you that your line of reasoning leads to false conclusions, and therefore it is an erroneous line of reasoning.

The proper response is to either accept that, and abandon that line of erroneous reasoning, or else to show and demonstrate how that line of reasoning does not in fact lead to the erroneous conclusion. Something that you generally failed to do, instead opting to accuse me of putting words in your mouth or of missing your point or of just being stubborn and not conceding to your line of reasoning as irrestible.

A perfect example is the "we're not under law, therefore we don't have to keep Sabbath" argument. The argument is a simple syllogism:

Fourth Commandment is part of the law.
We aren't under the law.
Therefore Fourth Commandment not obligatory.

But as anyone can see, this line of reasoning makes all ten commandments non obligatory. Therefore, it is WRONG.

But instead of abandoning that line of reason, the response is instead to introduce another line of argument, premised on "the fourth commandment is unique because it commands a ritual observance".

Which is then seen to be a species of the following syllogism:

Ritual is not for us.
Sabbath is a ritual.
Therefore, Sabbath is not for us.

But, when it is pointed out that baptism, Communion, regular church attendance, and even prayer qualify as "ritual" (so the argument would do away with baptism, Communion, etc), the response is to RETURN TO THE PREVIOUS ARGUMENT AND ARGUE BUT WE'RE NOT UNDER LAW.

Several arguments are advanced and shown to result in clearly false conclusions, but intead of seeking new arguments that don't have those problems the old arguments are just recycled on a theological merry go round. Hence, no progress in the discussion can be made.

Honestly, the strongest argument you probably could make would be to strengthen and develop your line of reasoning concerning proper Sabbath keeping, so that much like sacrifice and offering has been replaced with prayer and praise, the Sabbath has been replaced with... fill in the blank.

(Actually, the strongest arguments are those advanced in favour of a transference from seventh day to first day, but that is technically an in-house debate among Sabbath keepers, so you wouldn't be likely to take that approach.)

Your argument(s) concerning stoicheion are, at present, the best you've put forth so far on the Sabbath issue, but there are still some gaping holes in the proof of the connections you'd like to make. But be that as it may, I think if you really drilled down into that side of things you'd be better off.

You might even discover what stoicheion actually meant to people back in the first century.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

I'm putting together some of this NT reference to NT scripture material in one spot.

New Testament references to the New Testament as scripture
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...t-as-scripture

With a separate page on "my gospel" (from a year or two back.)

"my gospel" - Paul writing of Luke's gospel
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...-Luke-s-gospel

There was a little glitch in the first url.

Now updated:

New Testament internal references to the New Testament as scripture
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...t-as-scripture

[peter83]

And the 7nth day God RESTED from all His works.
Does the Bible ever says that "God the forst day started again to work'? does never said that "God rested for 24 hours?
When we will enter in to His rest, this will be a 24 hours long rest? Or eternity?
Hebr.4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.4 9 There remaineth therefore a Sabbatiism to the people of God.5 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
There is the Sabbatism (rest) we WILL enter ,and those who believe allready ENTERED (past) in to His rest. WHt that means? We are RESTING allready from OUR WORKS OF THE FLESH.....We are Sabbath keepers! the real Sabbath keepers.

LISTEN TO THE "REAL MEANING OF SABBATH" BY GINO:

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Esaias

A perfect example is the "we're not under law, therefore we don't have to keep Sabbath" argument. The argument is a simple syllogism:

Fourth Commandment is part of the law.
We aren't under the law.
Therefore Fourth Commandment not obligatory.

But as anyone can see, this line of reasoning makes all ten commandments non obligatory. Therefore, it is WRONG.

Isn't the argument that the fourth commandment was ONLY obligatory under the law. If so, that would have nothing to do with the other commandments. I know you disagree with that statement as well, but I'm asking to see if I am following you correctly.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If you present a line of reasoning, and say it supports your position, and I detect that the line of reasoning necessarily leads to a certain conclusion which is known to be false, then it is entirely reasonable to point that out in the effort to show you that your line of reasoning leads to false conclusions, and therefore it is an erroneous line of reasoning.

The proper response is to either accept that, and abandon that line of erroneous reasoning, or else to show and demonstrate how that line of reasoning does not in fact lead to the erroneous conclusion. Something that you generally failed to do, instead opting to accuse me of putting words in your mouth or of missing your point or of just being stubborn and not conceding to your line of reasoning as irrestible.

A perfect example is the "we're not under law, therefore we don't have to keep Sabbath" argument. The argument is a simple syllogism:

Fourth Commandment is part of the law.
We aren't under the law.
Therefore Fourth Commandment not obligatory.

But as anyone can see, this line of reasoning makes all ten commandments non obligatory. Therefore, it is WRONG.

But instead of abandoning that line of reason, the response is instead to introduce another line of argument, premised on "the fourth commandment is unique because it commands a ritual observance".

Which is then seen to be a species of the following syllogism:

Ritual is not for us.
Sabbath is a ritual.
Therefore, Sabbath is not for us.

But, when it is pointed out that baptism, Communion, regular church attendance, and even prayer qualify as "ritual" (so the argument would do away with baptism, Communion, etc), the response is to RETURN TO THE PREVIOUS ARGUMENT AND ARGUE BUT WE'RE NOT UNDER LAW.

Several arguments are advanced and shown to result in clearly false conclusions, but intead of seeking new arguments that don't have those problems the old arguments are just recycled on a theological merry go round. Hence, no progress in the discussion can be made.

Honestly, the strongest argument you probably could make would be to strengthen and develop your line of reasoning concerning proper Sabbath keeping, so that much like sacrifice and offering has been replaced with prayer and praise, the Sabbath has been replaced with... fill in the blank.

(Actually, the strongest arguments are those advanced in favour of a transference from seventh day to first day, but that is technically an in-house debate among Sabbath keepers, so you wouldn't be likely to take that approach.)

Your argument(s) concerning stoicheion are, at present, the best you've put forth so far on the Sabbath issue, but there are still some gaping holes in the proof of the connections you'd like to make. But be that as it may, I think if you really drilled down into that side of things you'd be better off.

You might even discover what stoicheion actually meant to people back in the first century.

by far my strongest arguments are from Galatians chapter 3 through in the Galatians chapter 4, where the law was distinctly said to be a Schoolmaster corresponding to the tutors and governors in chapter 4. In chapter 4 it actually talks about keeping days months and years. Then we read that the elements of the world brought them into bondage. And then the chapter continues to say that the law gendereth to bondage. I've been stressing that argument all along and you're just saying, no, it's not talking about law when it mentions the elements of the world, contrary to context before and after that reference.

The Hoops that you had to jump thru in order to get away from the fact that the law was the elements of the world, makes this obvious to me. I'm going to write up a detailed note about this showing the reasoning and how my thoughts do not lead to the conclsions you present. But I was trying to focus on that, you are

going another directions and wouldn't deal with that as much as I was willing to. That's where the disparity came in with you talking about lines of reasoning that I wasn't interested in dealing with as much as Galatians 4.

And you have to understand also that dealing on a form with one another like this, you're not going to get the full responses perhaps that we would get if we were in person where we put more stress on certain issues. My life doesn't revolve around this form, so I'm not going to be totally thorough and responses that maybe I'd rather should be. I was focusing my time on Galatians 4 I tried going there again, you kept pulling away.

[Esaias]

I await your detailed write up. I hope you would address the issue I brought regarding the terminology used (many commentators are now in agreement the calendrical system described in Galatians is a non Biblical, ie pagan, gnostic, or syncretistic calendrical system).

I also hope you will interact with the data indicating the stoicheion to which the Galatians were returning is NOT the Sinaitic Covenant, but prior paganism.

And, it would be nice if you could demonstrate how seeking to do what God commanded equates to "desiring to be under the law by becoming a circumcised Jew" without devolving into pure antinomianism.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Isn't the argument that the fourth commandment was ONLY obligatory under the law. If so, that would have nothing to do with the other commandments. I know you disagree with that statement as well, but I'm asking to see if I am following you correctly.

I think Tithesmeister was arguing it was only obligatory under the law, and he was honest enough to recognize that would necessarily mean all Ten were likewise only obligatory under the law. Thus he said he didn't believe any of them were binding or obligatory to anyone living today.

To avoid the necessary conclusion of antinomianism, he then argued the new testament constituted a new legislation, where nine of the ten commandments (plus others) were repeated, but the fourth was not, thus the fourth was no longer obligatory for anyone as it had not been relegislated.

But as I pointed out, the new testament is not a replacement "book of the law", rather it affirms the universality of prior divine law. Otherwise, only Christians are obligated to do anything, heathens cannot possibly commit sin and thus are not even in need of pardon. Which is obviously incorrect. Therefore the new replacement legislation idea is incorrect.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Isn't the argument that the fourth commandment was ONLY obligatory under the law. If so, that would have nothing to do with the other commandments. I know you disagree with that statement as well, but I'm asking to see if I am following you correctly.

An additional note:

Brother Blume used a side argument that Sabbath keeping was only obligatory under the law, that prior to then it was never commanded. But he never really fleshed this out so I never really delved into that.

But, I think it can be shown that the opposite is in fact the case. I started a short lived thread on Genesis and the Law,
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=53035 which included these observations:

Originally Posted by Esaias

In looking at this subject, a few things come into focus.

1. Genesis provides a back story that culminates in the Exodus. Not merely a bare historical narrative, but it establishes the Covenantal (and thus the "legal") basis for the Sinaitic Covenant. In other words, the Sinaitic Covenant is shown to be a fulfillment of the Covenantal obligations between Abraham and God, established in Genesis. So that Genesis is to the rest of the Law what the Magna Charta, English Common Law, and colonial Declaration of Independence are to the Constitution and federal and state law. Genesis provides the legal foundation upon which the Sinaitic Covenant rests.

2. Genesis shows via historical narrative numerous examples of moral and ethical decisions and consequences. This demonstrates a universal moral code of conduct was known and in place prior to Sinai. This code governed man's relationship to God as well as to his fellow man.

3. All ten of the Ten Commandments are referenced in Genesis.

4. Numerous other laws and legal concepts are found in Genesis as well: clean vs unclean animals, levirate marriage, laws governing warfare, tithing, parental authority, prostitution (including the penalty), and so forth.

5. Considering the Law with its commandments, statutes, judgments, ordinances, etc were given to Israel as an example other nations were to follow (Deut 4:6-8), Genesis provides further support in that it shows pre-Israelites of varied backgrounds recognizing and following the same basic moral-ethical-religious code that was later codified as "The Law" given to Israel.

In addition, the Sabbath is referenced in Genesis 2:2-3, then afterward we hear about the Garden, and Adam placed there to keep it (do work), and him being given a wife (helper, to help him do his work). Considering Jesus said God made the Sabbath for man (Adam), it is highly likely that Adam would have been aware of the sanctity of the Sabbath, and likely kept it (or would have, depending on how long he was in the Garden).

He was the sin of God, made in His image. God planted a garden if you will (Creation) and managed it, and sanctified the seventh day. Adam is put in a Garden to keep it. A "son of" isn't just a descendant physically (or by creation), but also by imitation (John 8:42, 1 Peter 3:6, Isaiah 51:1-2). So it would be expected that Adam would both know about and honour the Sabbath.

Furthermore, Israel kept the Sabbath prior to the covenant being made (Ex 16). Also, the Fourth Commandment is a command to remember the Sabbath day, clearly implying it had been forgotten (likely during their stay in Egypt, which was an occasion for lapsing into idolatry, see Ezek 20:6-8).

All of this, and more actually, indicates the Sabbath was in operation as a moral obligation prior to Sinai.