steve wrote:RND,
You are not sufficiently familiar with the scriptures to allow us to discuss the matter intelligently. I am not faulting you. There are many who know the scriptures less than you do. However, your continual statements of scriptural "fact" are so frequently incorrect that it takes more time to point out your misstatements than it takes to positively state the truth. Additionally, you don't even pay attention to what I say (so as to even know what I am saying) before you contradict me.
For example, you wrote:
But you apparently gather for worship on Sunday, with 90% of all other "protestants." So I figure you have a reason why you gather on Sunday.
Have you not been reading what I say? It is all right for you to pass over my posts, if you do not find them profitable, but please do not respond without reading them. Where did I ever give the impression that I gather specifically on Sundays for worship?
I your first post, before you corrected it and added the word "Saturday," you said: "Why gather on Sunday, indeed! Good question! Tuesday is as good with God. However, on Sundays you will probably find more people to gather with, if that is something you are interested in."
Your comment "Why gather on Sunday, indeed!" led me to believe you gather on Sunday.
I gather with believers many times during the week. I am often in such gatherings on Sundays, since that is a good day to find Christians gathering.
But it's not the sabbath right?
It is similar to the reason Paul went to the synagogue on Saturdays—to find Jews gathering, whom he wished to evangelize.
Wasn't Paul also a Jew? So, wouldn't it stand to reason that because he was a Jew and kept the law he'd go to synagogue on Sabbath?
When he met with Christians, it was sometimes on Sundays (Acts 20:7), but might be any day of the week. I am in Christian gatherings on Mondays and Thursdays more regularly than on Sundays.
Steve, I hope you realize you are using the exact same arguments that Catholics like to make regarding the sabbath and why we don't have to observe it! While you like to think you are superior in logic and understanding of scripture I've actually been down this road many times.
In Acts 20:7 Paul met at night after the sabbath was over. Some translations even say "Saturday night." Read verse 8 "And there were
many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together."
My question then would be why don't Christians gather on Saturday night?
Also, Paul was set to travel the next day by boat with Luke to Assos, but instead he decided to walk the 20 miles from Troas to Assos. So it's obvious that Paul actually waited until the 7th day sabbath was over before he began his trip to Assos.
Also, how do you know that everyone in the room with him that night was a "Christian" and that they weren't in fact Jews? You seem to be assuming that Paul was meeting with strictly Christian converts. Also, the phrase "the first [day] of the week" literally means in Greek the "day after the sabbath."
week = of Hebrew origin (shabbath 7676); the Sabbath (i.e. Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension, a se'nnight, i.e. the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications:--sabbath (day), week.
Can you find a place in scripture that specifically says that Paul "kept the sabbath"? I know of no such assertion. That Paul went to the synagogue to preach on the sabbath simply reflects his awareness that he was not likely to find anyone there to preach to on any other day of the week.
Can you find one that says he didn't keep the sabbath? Obviously, the above regarding Acts 20:7 gives a good indication that he kept the sabbath by not traveling on it. Also, there is Acts 13 where he met on the sabbath. When the Greeks said come back next sabbath this would have been a great time for Paul to say, "Hey, the sabbath has been changed....let's meet again tomorrow."
There is Acts 23-25 when Paul was accused of breaking the "law of the Jews" and by his own admission he says he did not. Nothing to indicate that Paul didn't keep the sabbath.
The Old Testament law does not command anyone to go to synagogue on the sabbath.
What would you consider a "holy convocation" to be?
Exd 12:16 And in the first day [there shall be] an holy convocation, and
in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save [that] which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
Lev 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but
the seventh day [is] the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work [therein]: it [is] the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.
According to Strong's a "convocation" is a gathering.
That is the only activity of Paul that we read of him doing on the sabbath—and that has nothing to do with obeying the sabbath commandment to abstain from working. Did Paul abstain from working on sabbath? Perhaps. We have no indication in scripture.
Did Paul eat? There is nothing to indicate in scripture that he actually ate anything Steve so can we make the assumption he didn't? There is more in scripture to deduce that Paul not only kept the sabbath but rested on the sabbath than the other way around. You are suggesting that because there is nothing to suggest that Paul did not abstain from working on the sabbath we can conclude then that he must have worked on the sabbath.
Because that is what He wanted the people of Israel to do...remember the sabbath to keep it holy. He commanded them to do just what He wanted them to do. There is no mystery in that. The question is, if Jesus wanted His disciples to "remember the sabbath," why did He not also command them to do so?
Um Steve, gentiles were required to observe the sabbath rest as well. Remember "one law."
Also, Steve you are making another fantastic argument that says that since Jesus apparently didn't tell the disciple to keep the sabbath then it must have been that they didn't. Well, I didn't see anywhere in the Gospels where Jesus told the disciples to get dressed either. Should we assume they didn't where clothes?
Could it be that because it was Jesus' custom to meet and teach in the synagogue on the sabbath that He also figured it was the disciples custom?
Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
Do you think I would be reluctant to do so? Do you think I am singling out one denomination to criticize just because of who they are? We are talking about biblical teaching here—not picking on specific groups.
Oh, most certainly not Steve! But from what I have seen so far may I suggest you don't pick-up "bee keeping" anytime soon!
The 7th, 8th and 10th commandments were moral laws. They did not "point to" anything except the same thing all moral laws pointed to: the character of God. The fourth commandment was not part of the moral law—that is, it was ceremonial, not moral, in nature.
So what did the 4th Commandment "point to" Steve?
It was the same kind of law as the other calendar laws (e.g., festivals, new moons).
Steve, the sabbath was kept and required before the "law" was either given, or written down by Moses. When did it go from being part of the TC and part of the Moasic law?
This is why it is linked with them in Colossians 2:16-17. Despite the SDAs' claim that "sabbath days" in this passage refers to "special sabbaths" as opposed to "the Lord's Sabbath," the burden of proof certainly remains for them to bear on this point.
Frankly Steve I can now see why there are some that think James White cleaned your clock.
Paul was writing to Jews in Colosse Steve. He was extolling them not to be taken in "through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men." It was the "tradition of men" of men that said one could not heal on the sabbath, not the scriptures.
Read verses 20-22.
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world,
why, as though living in the world,
are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (
Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Paul was not addressing anything in the Ten Commandments Steve because it is painfully obvious the Ten Commandments contain nothing regarding what can or can't be touched, what can or can't be eaten, or what can or can't be handled. These things are contained in the Mosaic law.
In my opinion, nothing but their presuppositions is there to support this interpretation.
Well, even though I was admonished by another poster in another thread not to be disrespectful of you by saying "that's your opinion" I'm happy to say that in this case.
In that passage, Paul likened the sabbath law to other ceremonial laws, like dietary restrictions.
Nope, sorry Steve, he did not.
The ordinances which were part of the “Law of Moses” were handwritten while the Ten Commandments were written by God’s finger. Is a child painting with their finger called finger painting or hand painting? Did God ever write any ordinances with His hand? He did NOT in fact. It is slowly going to become clearer and clearer that this passage in Colossians 2:16 is and can only be referring to the sacrificial part of the “Law of Moses,” which was written by the hand of Moses. So is the following hand writing or finger writing by God?
Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Now note in the following verse that the “ordinances” were by the “hand of Moses” and that the “ordinances” are SEPARATE from the “Whole Law” and the “Statutes.” The Ten Commandments are indeed separate from the “ordinances,” which was also demonstrated well in Luke 1:6 shown previously.
2 Chronicles 33:8 Neither will I any more remove the foot of Israel from out of the land which I have appointed for your fathers; so that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law AND the statutes AND the ordinances by the hand of Moses.
In Matthew 12:2-4, Jesus compared sabbath-keeping with the observation of the law of showbread—another ceremonial law.
The "law of shewbread" what is that exactly? What "ceremonies" centered around the table of shewbread? Read verse 6 Steve. Jesus was saying, in effect, that He was greater that He was greater than the Temple.
Mat 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple.
Circumcision was also a ceremonial law, but Jesus said that even circumcision preempted sabbath obligations (John 7:22-23).
Right. That neither eliminated circumcision as a health measure or the sabbath though.
"If that were true"??!! If Paul's declarations about his own practices were true...?
Regarding your comment regarding Paul Steve:
"This is perhaps where your errors are originating. Paul was a man who had been a Pharisee before his conversion. He always referred to that as something in his past—something he came to think of as "dung" (Phil.3:5-8). His observance of the ceremonial laws was optional to him as a Christian. When he was among Jews, he kept those laws, just to win them over. When he was among Gentiles, he felt no need to keep them (1 Cor.9:19-23)."
If Paul considered the law "dung" (I've seen Catholics make that argument too!) and stopped observing the law of Moses as you seem to suggest then he would have bee lying when he said: "Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all."
Are you suggesting that Paul lied when he said that, when among those without the law he lived as one without the law (in contrast to his keeping the law when he was among the Jews)? I consider that we can trust Paul to describe his own policies.
A fantastic leap you make there Steve. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. Just trying to put some sense to your misconception about Paul. Paul stated clearly, while on trial, "Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all."
That would mean Paul never ate lobster or catfish, broke the sabbath or took something without permission from the owner. You are attempting to suggest that Paul did some of these things by quoting 1 Corinthians 9 and the two just don't add up.
In the verses you quoted from Acts, you are ignoring the context entirely. These statements were made in the context of a court trial, where Paul had been falsely accused of bringing a Gentile into the temple, contrary to Jewish law.
"Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all."
That is pretty succinct to me Steve. But going even deeper Steve Paul was imprisoned for breaking a "tradition of men" and not of God. Paul's imprisonment resulted from a false charge that he had taken a gentile with him past a forbidden checkpoint in the temple compound (Acts 21:29). Trumped up charges Steve.
The Pharisees, who said (on this occasion) that they found "no fault" with Paul simply meant that they did not see any validity in the present charges, suggesting he should be released. On other occasions, they certainly found fault with him (e.g. Acts 15:5), as they had with Jesus.
Sure. Based on what though Steve? Trumped up charges.
Paul's statement that he had not violated "the law of the Jews" was simply a declaration of his innocence of the charges brought against him. He was not giving a summary of his entire life, since that was in no sense germane to the trial, and would not be strictly true (e.g., Rom.7:5, 22-23).
Paul's declaration seems extremely encompassing to me Steve.
Your idea that Paul would have been stoned by the Jews if he had eaten pork or broken the sabbath is misguided on two points:
1) Paul specifically said (in 1 Corinthians 9) that his behavior among the Jews included his keeping of their laws. It was only among those who were "without law" that he himself lived "as without law." Those Gentiles among whom he lived "as without law" would have no interest in stoning him.
You fail to see the logical leap you are making here Steve. Just because Paul was in the presence of gentiles doesn't mean he ate all manner of common animals.
2) The Jews of the first century did not stone sabbath breakers (though they often would have liked to!). The Romans did not permit this.
Gee, maybe somebody should tell Stephen then!
I'll bet he'd be glad to hear they didn't stone those they considered to be lawbreakers!
Steve, isn't true that the writer was a "sabbath keeper?"
Since this is not a complete sentence (question?), I can not quite make out your meaning.
Steve, maybe you aren't familiar with "close ended" questions. I was in sales for about 20 years and a "closed ended" question requires either a positive or a negative answer. The question was quite clear. Maybe you found it vague because it required a yes/no response. I'll answer the question for you:
Isn't true that the writer was a "sabbath keeper?" No David, that is not true.
Isn't true that the writer was a "sabbath keeper?" Yes David, that is true.
See how easy that was?!
If you are informing me that the writer himself was not a sabbath-keeper, that is fine with me. I never suggested that he was one.
I just asked a question.
What I said was that he was making a presupposition in his claim that the writer of Hebrews was presupposing the keeping of the literal sabbath day.
Anywhere in scripture that I might find where Paul didn't observe the sabbath Steve?
This he certainly was doing, whether he was a sabbath-keeper himself or not. This is one of many cases where you could have spared yourself unnecessary key-strokes by simply reading what I said before firing off a half-cocked response.
Steve, I think you set yourself up for this type of questioning and examination when make the obtuse and disjointed arguments you make.