Sabbath Keeping (from "Roman Catholic and The Bible")

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Sabbath Keeping (from "Roman Catholic and The Bible")

Post by RND » Wed Feb 18, 2009 2:27 am

steve wrote:As for your question, "So now every day is Sabbath? Is that Scriptural?", my reply is that sabbath is no longer a day, but a spiritual reality. According to Hebrews 4:9-10, the "keeping of sabbath," for the Christian, is entering into Christ's rest, which I take to be a daily experience (Matt.11:28-30). This is far more scriptural than the Catholic view, which makes Sunday to be the sabbath. There is not a line in scripture to support such a notion. Paul said that sabbath days and other ceremonial laws were mere "shadows" that find their ultimate antitype in Christ (Col.2:16-17). The same is true of the tabernacle and its furniture and rituals (Heb.8:5/10:1). These, and all shadows, disappeared with the coming of the Light of the World.
This is indeed confusing. If everyday is the sabbath ("...that sabbath is no longer a day...") and Sunday isn't the Sabbath ("...the Catholic view...makes Sunday to be the sabbath...") then why gather for corporate worship on Sunday? Why not Tuesday?

Paul had not yet written his 2nd letter to Timothy when he wrote his letter to the Hebrews in Rome. Thus it should be obvious that Paul, as a devout Jew and Pharise, was not abandoning or dismissing the Torah and the Tanakh but readily observed and referenced them based on his admonition to Timothy in his second letter to him: "All Scripture is God‑breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

Sabbath Rest in Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews

Hebrews 4:9-10 states: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his" (Hebrews 4:9-10). After discussing the many exhortations that the writer of Hebrews gives to appreciate the better ministry of Jesus, Dr. Ford says:

"The full significance of these exhortations is only found by comparing the records of Hebrews three and four when we are told of a Sabbath rest that we can all by faith enter. The word 'enter' is found about a dozen times here. The rest of Eden's Sabbath, the rest of Canaan from the wilderness wanderings, the future rest of heaven, are all used as symbols of the rest of conscience all can have who believe in the efficiency of Christ's finished atonement."

"Whoever enters God's rest ceases from his own labors as God did from his (4:4). These words testify that all who see the meaning of the Cross no longer depend upon their own works. They refuse to be either encouraged or discouraged by their own deeds, and find rest from sin and guilt by faith's entrance into Christ. Believers look to His perfect work instead of their own which is tattered and stained. The physical rest of the Sabbath then becomes an emblem of the rest of conscience enjoyed all week long. By believing the gospel we enter the most holy place, the presence of God symbolized by the sacred rest-day from the beginning of time."(12)

On the Sabbath, we rest from our regular work and we rest in the finished work of Jesus. The Sabbath reminds us of how special we are to God and how important our world is to Him. He made us (for full fellowship with Him), He died for us (to restore the possibility of that fellowship after we had lost it), and He is coming soon (to finally unite us with Him in that fellowship forever). This gives the Christian tremendous self assurance wonderful peace, hope and joy. Thus, the Sabbath the sign of God's creation, redemption, and final restoration is truly a blessing, a gift of love from God to us, the high point of every week.

The Nature of the Sabbath Rest in Hebrews

What is the nature of the “Sabbath rest” that is still outstanding for God’s people (Heb 4:9)? Is the writer thinking of a literal or spiritual type of Sabbathkeeping? The answer is both. The author presupposes the literal observance of the Sabbath to which he gives a deeper meaning—namely, a faith response to God. Support for a literal understanding of Sabbathkeeping is provided by the historical usage of the term “sabbatismos—sabbathkeeping” in verse 9 and by the description of Sabbathkeeping as cessation from work given in verse 10: “For whoever enters God’s rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his.”

The meaning of “sabbatismos” has been long debated because the term occurs only once in the NT. The tendency has been to interpret the term figuratively as spiritual rest experienced every day, rather than the physical rest of the seventh day. This view has been challenged by the scholarly symposium From Sabbath to the Lord’s Day, produced by a team of American/British Sundaykeeping scholars at Cambridge University in England.

Professor Andrew Lincoln, one of the contributor to the symposium, found the use of sabbatismos in the writings of Plutarch, Justin, Epiphanius, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul. He acknowledges that in each of the above instances “the term denotes the observance or celebration of the Sabbath. This usage corresponds to the Septuagint usage of the cognate verb sabbatizo (cf. Ex 16:23; Lev 23:32; 26:34f.; 2 Chron 36:21) which also has reference to Sabbath observance. Thus the writer to the Hebrews is saying that since the time of Joshua an observance of Sabbath rest has been outstanding” (p. 213)
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by steve » Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:40 am

Why gather on Sunday, indeed—or Saturday! Good question! Tuesday is just as good with God. However, on Sundays you will probably find more people to gather with, if that is something you are interested in.
What is the nature of the “Sabbath rest” that is still outstanding for God’s people (Heb 4:9)? Is the writer thinking of a literal or spiritual type of Sabbathkeeping? The answer is both. The author presupposes the literal observance of the Sabbath...
Maybe he does and maybe he doesn't. The writer of this line is the only person that I know to be presupposing such a thing in the passage. It certainly does not fit the flow of thought in Hebrews.

I have never disputed that "keeping of Sabbath" is a good translation of sabbatismos. So what? "Let us keep the feast [i.e., of unleavened bread]" is a good translation of 1 Corinthians 5:8. However, one would have to be dull and unattentive to context in order to fail to see that Paul is advocating something spiritual, not ritual when he says "keep the feast" (read the verse).

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by RND » Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:41 am

steve wrote: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.
Right. Why Sunday?
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by steve » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:01 am

Why are you asking me to defend Sunday as a special day of gathering, when I have never advocated it? Let the Catholics answer, since it is their rule.

This really isn't as confusing as you make it sound. It is, however, spiritual, and a natural man would not be able to receive it, because spiritual things are spiritually discerned. It is quite simply that God is available to meet with people every day of the week. Time and place are inconsequential. It doesn't matter whether you are on one side of the International Date Line (and it is Saturday there) or if you are on the other (where it is Sunday). God does not mark His calendar. Jesus is wherever a few gather in His name, and the day of the week is inconsequential. The SDA's have a similar problem to the Roman Catholics, in that they are obsessed with "days and months and seasons and years" (Gal.4:10). God gave shadows to children (Gal.4:1-7). He now wants His children to grow up and put away childish things.

You wrote:
it should be obvious that Paul, as a devout Jew and Pharise, was not abandoning or dismissing the Torah and the Tanakh but readily observed and referenced them based on his admonition to Timothy in his second letter to him: "All Scripture is God‑breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
"

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).

However, this gets us off the topic of this thread—which is Roman Catholicism. You and others have already started multiple threads on the sabbath, which is where this discussion should be conducted.

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by RND » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:50 am

steve wrote:Why are you asking me to defend Sunday as a special day of gathering, when I have never advocated it? Let the Catholics answer, since it is their rule.
Because you said that the day doesn't matter. OK, that's fine....I get that. 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.
This really isn't as confusing as you make it sound. It is, however, spiritual, and a natural man would not be able to receive it, because spiritual things are spiritually discerned.
Neither can man understand God's law, or the ways of it, in his carnal nature.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

You say that this is "spiritual" now. OK, I'll go with that. So when Paul, who was extremely spiritual, kept the sabbath regularly was this not "spiritual" as well?
It is quite simply that God is available to meet with people every day of the week. Time and place are inconsequential. It doesn't matter whether you are on one side of the International Date Line (and it is Saturday there) or if you are on the other (where it is Sunday). God does not mark His calendar. Jesus is wherever a few gather in His name, and the day of the week is inconsequential.


If that were true why does the commandment say, "Remember....?'"
The SDA's have a similar problem to the Roman Catholics, in that they are obsessed with "days and months and seasons and years" (Gal.4:10). God gave shadows to children (Gal.4:1-7). He now wants His children to grow up and put away childish things.
Then you would logically have to say that is true for all sabbath keepers whether they be Seventh-day Adventist, Seventh-day Baptist's, Messianics, UGOG, et al.

BTW Steve, since you brought it up ("...God gave shadows to children...") I have to ask, since the 4th commandment was part of the moral law what was it a "shadow" of, or too? The reason I ask is what then was the shadow of the 7th commandment? The 8th commandment? The 10th commandment? If the 4th commandment pointed to something specific what did the others point too?
You wrote:
it should be obvious that Paul, as a devout Jew and Pharise, was not abandoning or dismissing the Torah and the Tanakh but readily observed and referenced them based on his admonition to Timothy in his second letter to him: "All Scripture is God‑breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
"

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 that were true Steve Paul could have, and most assuredly would have, been charged with breaking the law of Moses and subject to stoning. Yet, clearly he never was, even when examined and on trial. See Acts 23-25.

Act 23:9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes [that were] of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.

Act 25:7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. 8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

By Paul's own admission he never broke the "law of the Jews." That means Paul never ate pork or worked on the sabbath.
However, this gets us off the topic of this thread—which is Roman Catholicism. You and others have already started multiple threads on the sabbath, which is where this discussion should be conducted.
Yes, I agree. But I actually see this as part of the larger discussion. And here's why. You say it isn't about the day. OK, that's fine - if that is what you truly believe. But the question then become by who's authority do you keep Sunday as a day of gathering? The scriptures? By your own admission Sunday isn't a a sabbath day for gathering. So I have to conclude in some way that you are keeping a "tradition of men" and not of the Lord. The Catholic believes that tradition is even more important than the Bible....you must as well.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by RND » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:32 am

Steve, if you don't mind I decided to address this answer as well since you changed your response to include Saturday.
steve wrote:Why gather on Sunday, indeed—or Saturday! Good question! Tuesday is just as good with God. However, on Sundays you will probably find more people to gather with, if that is something you are interested in.
What is the nature of the “Sabbath rest” that is still outstanding for God’s people (Heb 4:9)? Is the writer thinking of a literal or spiritual type of Sabbathkeeping? The answer is both. The author presupposes the literal observance of the Sabbath...
Maybe he does and maybe he doesn't. The writer of this line is the only person that I know to be presupposing such a thing in the passage. It certainly does not fit the flow of thought in Hebrews.
Steve, isn't true that the writer was a "sabbath keeper?"
I have never disputed that "keeping of Sabbath" is a good translation of sabbatismos. So what? "Let us keep the feast [i.e., of unleavened bread]" is a good translation of 1 Corinthians 5:8. However, one would have to be dull and unattentive to context in order to fail to see that Paul is advocating something spiritual, not ritual when he says "keep the feast" (read the verse).
The feast of unleavened bread, first fruits, tabernacles, etc. all pointed to the coming Messiah. What did the 7th day sabbath point to? Paul was making a rather significant comparison to his audience (the Jews in Rome) that the sabbath rest (that they obviously were still observing) was exactly a picture of entering in the rest of Jesus as God rested from His works. "Thus there remains a keeping of the sabbath...." If the sabbath was being done away with in favor of "any" day why would Paul tell a bunch of sabbath observant Jews that the sabbath remains?

Paul said that the bllod of bulls and goats meant nothing anymore, but not the sabbath. Strange.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by steve » Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:18 pm

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 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. It is similar to the reason Paul went to the synagogue on Saturdays—to find Jews gathering, whom he wished to evangelize. 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.
You say that this is "spiritual" now. OK, I'll go with that. So when Paul, who was extremely spiritual, kept the sabbath regularly was this not "spiritual" as well?
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. The Old Testament law does not command anyone to go to synagogue on the sabbath. 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.
If that were true why does the commandment say, "Remember....?'"
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?
Then you would logically have to say that is true for all sabbath keepers whether they be Seventh-day Adventist, Seventh-day Baptist's, Messianics, UGOG, et al.
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.
I have to ask, since the 4th commandment was part of the moral law what was it a "shadow" of, or too? The reason I ask is what then was the shadow of the 7th commandment? The 8th commandment? The 10th commandment? If the 4th commandment pointed to something specific what did the others point too?
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. It was the same kind of law as the other calendar laws (e.g., festivals, new moons). 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. In my opinion, nothing but their presuppositions is there to support this interpretation. In that passage, Paul likened the sabbath law to other ceremonial laws, like dietary restrictions. In Matthew 12:2-4, Jesus compared sabbath-keeping with the observation of the law of showbread—another ceremonial law. Circumcision was also a ceremonial law, but Jesus said that even circumcision preempted sabbath obligations (John 7:22-23).
If that were true Steve Paul could have, and most assuredly would have, been charged with breaking the law of Moses and subject to stoning. Yet, clearly he never was, even when examined and on trial. See Acts 23-25.

Act 23:9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes [that were] of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.

Act 25:7 And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. 8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

By Paul's own admission he never broke the "law of the Jews." That means Paul never ate pork or worked on the sabbath.

"If that were true"??!! If Paul's declarations about his own practices were true...? 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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.
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. 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. 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. 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.

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by RND » Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:13 pm

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! :D
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! :D 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?! :D
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.
Last edited by RND on Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by darinhouston » Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:45 pm

RND wrote: You say that this is "spiritual" now. OK, I'll go with that. So when Paul, who was extremely spiritual, kept the sabbath regularly was this not "spiritual" as well?
If Steve agrees, I am considering moving this entire thread out of the present topic and into a discussion of the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments.

Meanwhile, I just can't stomach some of the attitude here and must point out just a couple of things to RND who is rising in his disrespect and arrogance against our gracious host.

RND, have you considered that there may be a difference between "spiritual" and "religious"? Paul was spiritual, but not everything he did was spiritually minded, certainly. What steve is trying to tell you is that there may have been a continuing sabbath practice in the land -- even if Paul continued to attend synagogue on that day (whatever day it was) out of tradition or otherwise, that wasn't a spiritual observance. Quite apart from the religious or traditional practice was the spiritual reality of what the sabbath had become after the resurrection (to him and to all men). He could continue to meet on the Sabbath (for whatever reason he wished) while not denying that law having been fulfilled in christ's rest. He clearly met every day as well with believers and not just the sabbath.

You point to references he made to the sabbath day to prove he approved it's continuation as a special day of rest -- that doesn't follow. I may tell someone I will meet them at the mall on Halloween out of simple recognition that Oct. 31 is traditionally understood as Halloween and recognizing that those around me celebrate it as a holiday without thinking it has any special meaning in the abstract (or for me, personally). Folks were still meeting on the day that had been known and would continue be known as the Sabbath day-- he met with them on the Sabbath -- why would it be strange to reference that as he might any other time marker like "Wednesday" or the like? Why would those Jews quite calling it the Sabbath just because the Christians weren't recognizing the law regarding the sabbath? They wouldn't, so it wouldn't be strange to keep calling it that as most of the people still used that as the name of the day where "they" rested.

RND wrote: 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?!
This is petty, but -- again, your sarcasm is lost on me -- your self-righteous response fails to recognize the lack of a pronoun -- it doesn't say "Isn't [it] true" -- so, it is a bit ambiguous whether you are asking a question or making a declarative such as "[It] is true that the writer was a ..." yet you use a question mark. I think I know what you meant, but take care with your condescension.

User avatar
RND
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Victorville, California, USA
Contact:

Re: Roman Catholic and The Bible.

Post by RND » Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:30 pm

darinhouston wrote:If Steve agrees, I am considering moving this entire thread out of the present topic and into a discussion of the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments.

Meanwhile, I just can't stomach some of the attitude here and must point out just a couple of things to RND who is rising in his disrespect and arrogance against our gracious host.
Darin, what about the disrespect and arrogance of the host towards the guest? Is that something you can't stomach as well or is it just when I do it? Are comments aimed a belittling me and my general knowledge of scripture are OK?
Steve wrote:You are not sufficiently familiar with the scriptures to allow us to discuss the matter intelligently.
In other words, since I'm a babe in the woods regarding scripture we can't have an "intelligent" conversation? Wow, that was a slap.
Steve wrote: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.
Ah, so if I wasn't "wrong" and just believed as you do Rabbi I'd be OK? Seems to me I read the same type of comments regarding Steve's debating style regarding his debates with James White.

Rabbi lead me to the truth in that case, I'll follow. But if you are going to make vain references as to why Sunday is kept that are in more agreement with the very religion you routinely disparage then we have a "situation."

Darin, without a doubt you have been the most fair and even handed person here that I have dealt with. Kudos to the other Steve as well. I just don't see the need to continually belittle me, my thoughts, or the insistence to make rude comments to me.
RND, have you considered that there may be a difference between "spiritual" and "religious"? Paul was spiritual, but not everything he did was spiritually minded, certainly. What steve is trying to tell you is that there may have been a continuing sabbath practice in the land -- even if Paul continued to attend synagogue on that day (whatever day it was) out of tradition or otherwise, that wasn't a spiritual observance.
Darin, that is an interesting point you make no doubt but as much as Paul wrote about disdaining "tradition" I'm not sure that this would have been the reason why he would have kept the sabbath. In fact, based on his letters to the Hebrews in Rome I can think that Paul may have actually had a new found respect for the observance for the sabbath. More Christ less law.
Quite apart from the religious or traditional practice was the spiritual reality of what the sabbath had become after the resurrection (to him and to all men). He could continue to meet on the Sabbath (for whatever reason he wished) while not denying that law having been fulfilled in christ's rest. He clearly met every day as well with believers and not just the sabbath.
I have no doubt in believing Paul met with people during the week. But I also have no doubt in believing that when the preparation day rolled around he knocked of from work and began getting ready for the sabbath.
You point to references he made to the sabbath day to prove he approved it's continuation as a special day of rest -- that doesn't follow.


Not exactly Darin. I point to references Paul made that say nothing about the sabbath being changed or overturned in anyway. Remember Darin, Paul's letters weren't just written to gentiles, but written specifically to converted Jews.
I may tell someone I will meet them at the mall on Halloween out of simple recognition that Oct. 31 is traditionally understood as Halloween and recognizing that those around me celebrate it as a holiday without thinking it has any special meaning in the abstract (or for me, personally).


Well Darin, since I don't observe "Halloween" you'll have to pick another day! :D
Folks were still meeting on the day that had been known and would continue be known as the Sabbath day-- he met with them on the Sabbath -- why would it be strange to reference that as he might any other time marker like "Wednesday" or the like?
Darin, Paul most certainly could have and most likely did meet with converts on other days other than the sabbath. Acts 20:7 tells us as much. But just because he met with others on another day doesn't mean Paul was giving up the sabbath.
Why would those Jews quite calling it the Sabbath just because the Christians weren't recognizing the law regarding the sabbath? They wouldn't, so it wouldn't be strange to keep calling it that as most of the people still used that as the name of the day where "they" rested.
I can't honestly say I'm following you here Darin.

RND wrote: 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?!
This is petty, but -- again, your sarcasm is lost on me -- your self-righteous response fails to recognize the lack of a pronoun -- it doesn't say "Isn't [it] true" -- so, it is a bit ambiguous whether you are asking a question or making a declarative such as "[It] is true that the writer was a ..." yet you use a question mark. I think I know what you meant, but take care with your condescension.
Yes indeed Darin, I left out the word "it" by accident in all the cases I posed this question. :oops: Whew! Proves I'm human after all! However, I see lots of posts where mistakes such as these are made and yet commentary is still presented simply by understanding a mistake was made.

You used the word "quite" instead of "quit" but I understood you meant "quit" Darin.You also used the word "you" when you meant "your." Keep in mind I didn't offer an answer to your question unfortunately simply because it seems rather hard question to follow.

Let's say we try again:

Isn't it true that the writer was a "sabbath keeper?"
Last edited by RND on Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary

Post Reply

Return to “Fellowship & Worship”