Question for All Scholars Concerning Sabbath

[pedja]

Speculation, plain and simple. I provided you with a Scripture where St. Paul says people don’t need to concern themselves with Sabbath observance,…

You mean **Colossians 2, 16 **“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days”?

Ok what is Paul here saying? Simpy telling the young church to let no one (the false philosophers, vers 4, verse 8) judge them on **how **they are going to observe whatever they do observe!

So what the text says is that the Colossians **were keeping **certain traditions regarding the food and that they were keeping the sabbath days. Paul doesnt say “stop keeping the sabbath days”! He says “you, who are keeping the sabbath days, dont be concerned about what others tell you how to observe it”

Later it becomes clearer that in the whole chapter he is warning them not to get deceived, like in verse 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels or in verse 21 Touch not; taste not; handle not (warning against Asceticism, life characterized by abstinence from worldly pleasures).

So obviously there were some people who were telling the Colossians what to do and Paul is warning the Colossians to beware of those people! Look what Paul is saying:

1. …lest anyone should **deceive you **with persuasive words
2. Beware lest anyone cheat you…
3. So let no one judge you…
4. Let no one cheat you…

How is that proof that they dont need to concern themselves with Sabbath observance?!

 

[pedja]

Once again, you have not provided any hard evidence that Saturday Sabbath observance was happening in the Christian Church.

Face it, you can’t provide any Scriptural evidence of Saturday being the Sabbath for Early Christians (especially the Gentile ones) - you can only speculate as to why this isn’t mentioned. So what evidence do you have that Christians are supposed to observe the Saturday Sabbath?

Acts 13, 42.

*So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the **Gentiles *begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.

Acts 13, 44

*On the next Sabbath almost **the whole city *came together to hear the word of God.

Is that evidence enough?

 

[Morning_Star15]

Acts 13, 42.

*So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the **Gentiles ***begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.

Acts 13, 44

*On the next Sabbath almost **the whole city ***came together to hear the word of God.

Is that evidence enough?

Are these passages talking about Christians? NO! St. Paul went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day in order to preach to the Jews who were gathered there, and he caused such a stir with his preaching that not only the Jews, but also the Gentiles came to hear his next sermon to the Jews in the synagogue. Since when does a bunch of Gentiles hearing about Christ for the first time from St. Paul and coming back to hear more equal the Christian community worshipping on the Jewish Sabbath??? I asked for evidence that CHRISTIANS were worshipping on the Sabbath, not that the residents of Antioch were moved by St. Paul’s preaching. So no, these passages are not evidence enough.

 

[pedja]

Are these passages talking about Christians? NO! St. Paul went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day in order to preach to the Jews who were gathered there, and he caused such a stir with his preaching that not only the Jews, but also the Gentiles came to hear his next sermon to the Jews in the synagogue. Since when does a bunch of Gentiles hearing about Christ for the first time from St. Paul and coming back to hear more equal the Christian community worshipping on the Jewish Sabbath??? I asked for evidence that CHRISTIANS were worshipping on the Sabbath, not that the residents of Antioch were moved by St. Paul’s preaching. So no, these passages are not evidence enough.

The Sabbath is not Jewsih.

The point is that *you *actually have to prove that the day of observance has been changed.

Acts 16,13. *And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there. *

There you have the first Christians preaching on Sabbath.

But for you this is not going to be evidence.

Yet if the text would say "And on the* first day of the week *we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made…" you would take this as evidence that the early Christians were coming together and worshipping God (because prayer is a part of worship, same as breaking the bread).
You`re not logically consitant.

 

[MarysRoses]

You mean **Colossians 2, 16 **“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days”?

Ok what is Paul here saying? Simpy telling the young church to let no one (the false philosophers, vers 4, verse 8) judge them on **how **they are going to observe whatever they do observe!

WOW!

I had to come out of lurk for this one……

I agree, don’t let others judge you for what you DO observe. However, unless you are arguing that Christians should still be observing holydays (Passover, Purim, etc) and new moons, then you are out of line insisting that it means Sabbath must be kept. The verse is saying it is a matter of CHOICE, not law.

So what the text says is that the Colossians were keeping certain traditions regarding the food and that they were keeping the sabbath days. Paul doesnt say “stop keeping the sabbath days”! He says “you, who are keeping the sabbath days, dont be concerned about what others tell you how to observe it”

Right, don’t let others, even Seventh-day Adventists, tell us how to observe it. We give it the same status as Passover, Purim and temple offerings, we regard it as a shadow of the REALITY of Christ, who is now come. You were happy to quote verse 16, but neglected to let St. Paul finish his thought, as he himself explains his point:

“16
Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath. 8
17
These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ.

The Sabbath, along with the holy days and new moons and temple offerings are SHADOWS, the REALITY is Christ. Not a day of the week.

So what the text says is that the Colossians **were keeping **certain traditions regarding the food and that they were keeping the sabbath days. Paul doesnt say “stop keeping the sabbath days”! He says “you, who are keeping the sabbath days, dont be concerned about what others tell you how to observe it”

Later it becomes clearer that in the whole chapter he is warning them not to get deceived, like in verse 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels or in verse 21 Touch not; taste not; handle not (warning against Asceticism, life characterized by abstinence from worldly pleasures).

This is another anti-catholic interpretation of this passage that is not warranted. The context is not self denial (which he recommends in other passages), it is the old law and customs. Jews at that time practiced a lot of complex rules about what a person could touch, eat, wear and use and remain ritually pure.

Again, look at everything he had to say, not a few words:

20
If you died with Christ to the elemental powers of the world, why do you submit to regulations as if you were still living in the world?
21
“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”
22
These are all things destined to perish with use; they accord with human precepts and teachings.
23
While they have a semblance of wisdom in rigor of devotion and self-abasement (and) severity to the body, they are of no value against gratification of the flesh.

He isn’t saying that avoiding gratification of the flesh is wrong, he is asking why, if they have died with Christ, why are they still following regulations as if everything was still the same? He goes on to say while the old rules resemble devotion and dedication, they have little value. Again, the theme of shadow versus the reality of Christ.

So obviously there were some people who were telling the Colossians what to do and Paul is warning the Colossians to beware of those people! Look what Paul is saying:

1. …lest anyone should **deceive you **with persuasive words
2. Beware lest anyone cheat you…
3. So let no one judge you…
4. Let no one cheat you…

Yes, people were telling new Christians that they had to keep all the old laws to be a Christian. St. Paul sets them straight I quit letting the Adventists CHEAT me out of the freedom that Christ offers when I was 21.

How is that proof that they dont need to concern themselves with Sabbath observance?!

There is ample proof here, for anyone with questions, that the Sabbath is a shadow and Christians are not bound to it, any more than they are bound to observe Passover (holydays), new moons, or any other requirements and regulations of the old law. You can keep a Saturday Sabbath if you want to, it would be following St. Paul’s instructions in not judging your or denying your right to do so… But there is absolutely nothing which justifies the condemnation and judgment Adventists heap on those who choose to assemble for worship on Sunday.

 

[MarysRoses]

The Sabbath is not Jewsih.

The point is that *you *actually have to prove that the day of observance has been changed.

No, actually you are the one that needs to prove we are bound to a certain day of the week when all the evidence points to another conclusion.

Acts 16,13. *And on the Sabbath day we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made; and we sat down and spoke to the women who met there. *

There you have the first Christians preaching on Sabbath.

But for you this is not going to be evidence.

Yet if the text would say “And on the* first day of the week ***we went out of the city to the riverside, where prayer was customarily made…” you would take this as evidence that the early Christians were coming together and worshipping God (because prayer is a part of worship, same as breaking the bread).
You`re not logically consitant.

They went where the people were, which for that town meant the inhabitants were accustomed to gathering on Saturday. To accommodate the local habits to reach as many people as possible is not the same as an instruction to keep a certain day of the week holy. If simply assembling on a certain day was equivalent to an obligation to do so, there is ample historical evidence many early Christians assembled on Sunday.

 

[pedja]

MarysRoses, stop being so paranoid! You mentioned the Adventists a few times but what have I got to do with this? I am not here to defend the SDA neither do I care so please, when you`re talking to me there is absolutely no need to mention the SDA all the time. I can think and read the scripture for myself. The position I am taking here has got nothing to do with Adventism, so give me a break with that

The thing is, how was the 7th day Sabbath, created before sin, ever a shadow of things to come? Yes I understand passover and the sacrifical system which was pointing to Jesus and which was fulfilled in Jesus etc. but I am here talking about the day which Jesus himself created, which is basically just a holy and blessed day (Genesis 2,2-3) If Adam and Eve would have never sinned, that 7th day would still and forever be a different day, a special day, a day of rest. This is the day that God is talking about in the 10 commandments when He says, “remember it”! What has that commandment got to do with a “shadow of things to come”? It is illogical as claiming that the commandment You shall not kill is not valid anymore because it was a shadow of something!

 

[pedja]

No, actually you are the one that needs to prove we are bound to a certain day of the week when all the evidence points to another conclusion.

It doesnt. Thats what we are talking about right now, it simply does not point to any other conclusion.

They went where the people were, which for that town meant the inhabitants were accustomed to gathering on Saturday. To accommodate the local habits to reach as many people as possible is not the same as an instruction to keep a certain day of the week holy. If simply assembling on a certain day was equivalent to an obligation to do so, there is ample historical evidence many early Christians assembled on Sunday.

Not in the Bible.

 

[St_Violet]

It doesnt. Thats what we are talking about right now, it simply does not point to any other conclusion.

Not in the Bible.

I always thought the Bible and History goes hand in hand, infact I think History even Helped Bible teachers to explain scripture better. Kinda like how Ellen White relied History inaccuracies to prove that the sabbath is still binding. The Catholic Church doesn’t require anyone to keep the sabbath because our early church fathers asked us not to, I always thought that our early church fathers had better understanding of scripture, because some of them were students of Jesus’s disciples like again I bring up Ignatius of Antioch, he asked us to no longer keep the sabbath.

and out of curiousity aren’t your responses influence from your SDA doctrines? because you are using typical typical SDA arguments , interpretation and responses.

 

[Morning_Star15]

It doesnt. Thats what we are talking about right now, it simply does not point to any other conclusion.

Not in the Bible.

And there’s no evidence in the Bible that Christians kept the Jewish Sabbath. All of the verses you have provided are not speaking about Christians gathering, including the last one (where does it say that these were Christian women, rather than Jewish or pagan women whom the Apostles were trying to convert to Christianity?). So you can’t justify the SDA position that Christians are bound to keep the Saturday Sabbath by relying solely on the Bible.

And by the way, are you saying that the Bible is the only accurate historical source? None of us would know much about world history if we relied on the Bible as our only source of information (especially considering that it doesn’t go beyond the first century).

 

[pedja]

I always thought the Bible and History goes hand in hand, infact I think History even Helped Bible teachers to explain scripture better. Kinda like how Ellen White relied History inaccuracies to prove that the sabbath is still binding. The Catholic Church doesn’t require anyone to keep the sabbath because our early church fathers asked us not to, I always thought that our early church fathers had better understanding of scripture, because some of them were students of Jesus’s disciples like again I bring up Ignatius of Antioch, he asked us to no longer keep the sabbath.

and out of curiousity aren’t your responses influence from your SDA doctrines? because you are using typical typical SDA arguments , interpretation and responses.

I dont know if my responses are influenced by SDA, I dont think so (of course some of my information comes from SDA sources, but actually I am reading **anything **I can get). I dont like anybody telling me what to do and how to interpret and understand the scripture, I read a lot from both sides, I also use some software with original hebrew and greek language, and if something is unclear to me I try to read as much commentaries as possible and then I decide what makes sense to **me ** I couldnt care less about what whatever churches or church fathers have said, I deeply respect their effort but in the end it is **me **who has to understand it. I want to **know **why I believe certain things I do.

 

[pedja]

And there’s no evidence in the Bible that Christians kept the Jewish Sabbath.

And there`s no evidence that they kept the Sunday either.

All of the verses you have provided are not speaking about Christians gathering, including the last one (where does it say that these were Christian women, rather than Jewish or pagan women whom the Apostles were trying to convert to Christianity?). So you can’t justify the SDA position that Christians are bound to keep the Saturday Sabbath by relying solely on the Bible.

I might be repeating myself but I think I said it before, that I am **not **justifying the SDA position. If you are still not able to comprehend what that means I`ll say it again: I do not care what the SDA position is! **I **am trying to talk to you and explain to you how **I **see it.

And by the way, are you saying that the Bible is the only accurate historical source? None of us would know much about world history if we relied on the Bible as our only source of information (especially considering that it doesn’t go beyond the first century).

I think the Bible is inspired by God. I can only tell you how I understand the Bible but if you are telling me that it is not enough to look **only **at the Bible, then I suspect we`re never going to resolve anything.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Let’s stay on topic.

This is for all Christian scholars and historians both Catholic and Protestant.

Why do we worship on Sunday rather than the Sabbath? Are we not breaking a Commandment by doing so? I am Congregational Methodist and of course our main worship time is sunday morning just as it is for most of Christianity but why is that? When did it begin? Is it the doings of some Roman Emperor as the Adventists and others say? Fill me in.
WP

 

[Morning_Star15]

And there`s no evidence that they kept the Sunday either.

Well, I showed you two references to CHRISTIAN communities specifically gathering on Sunday, and you didn’t show any, so based on that I’d say there’s more Biblical evidence that they kept Sunday than Saturday.

I might be repeating myself but I think I said it before, that I am **not **justifying the SDA position. If you are still not able to comprehend what that means I`ll say it again: I do not care what the SDA position is! **I **am trying to talk to you and explain to you how **I **see it.

By “SDA position” I was referring to the position that Christians are obligated to keep the Saturday Sabbath day - this IS your position, right? I don’t know why you take offence to me calling your position the SDA position - I would have no problem with someone calling my position a “Catholic position”, since I’m Catholic (I would be much more troubled if somebody told me that my position was un-Catholic ).

I think the Bible is inspired by God. I can only tell you how I understand the Bible but if you are telling me that it is not enough to look **only **at the Bible, then I suspect we`re never going to resolve anything.

As you have seen for yourself in this discussion, the Bible doesn’t provide a definitive statement that the Christians kept the Saturday Sabbath, so to believe that they did, you couldn’t look only at the Bible.

I personally have no problem with looking outside of the Bible, because I believe in Sacred Tradition that was handed down from the Apostles. Some of this Tradition was recorded in the Bible, some wasn’t, but all of it has nevertheless been handed down by the Catholic Church through the centuries. I know based on Early Church documents that Christians were and are not obligated to observe the Saturday Sabbath. Also, as a historian, I have no problem looking at other accurate historical sources to find that Christians did in fact keep Sunday as their primary day of worship. So I have much more evidence of early Christian teachings and practices in my arsenal than you do, if you choose to only look at the Bible (or claim that you do).

 

[SDA2RC]

Not in the Bible.

Pedja,
Why do you believe that any evidence that we use must be in the Bible? Does the Bible ever say that all evidence of truth must come from the Bible? If not, then it would seem that your position regarding the Sabbath must take into effect other sources of information.

 

[pedja]

Pedja,
Why do you believe that any evidence that we use must be in the Bible? Does the Bible ever say that all evidence of truth must come from the Bible? If not, then it would seem that your position regarding the Sabbath must take into effect other sources of information.

That is a good question. The problem I have with sources which do not come from the Bible is simply the authority. Who is ever going to determine who is right in interpreting the Bible and who is wrong?

You as Catholic believe that your church is the only right one and that the interpretation given by Catholic theologians is the best. However at the same time there are a high number of scholars and theologians from other denominations who also believe that **their **interpretation is the only correct one. You as a Catholic would now have to claim that all of those people are wrong or that they at last only posses some minor elements of the truth. But that is exactly what those other theologians think of you (Catholics) and this is why we can debate forever and never come to a final conclusion. You know what I mean?

This is why I heavily rely only on the Bible, because I believe that God personally took care in inspiring the authors and putting it all together so that today all Christians can use one and the same Bible all over the world.

Of course I am not able to interpret every single verse of the Bible all alone, so that is why I need to check commentaries, what other people have written on some subjects, what their opinion is, especially when it comes down to the original language etc. But still, the definite decision of what to believe is based on the best possible understanding of the scripture alone.

 

[jmcrae]

That is a good question. The problem I have with sources which do not come from the Bible is simply the authority. Who is ever going to determine who is right in interpreting the Bible and who is wrong?

This question was solved by the Apostles themselves when they set up the process for the Succession - the laying on of hands.

If the person cannot trace his authority through the laying on of hands all the way back to the Apostles, then he has opinions, not Apostolic authority. If, on the other hand, he can, then he is someone that we need to be listening to.

It is because of the authority given them by the laying on of hands, going back to the Apostles, that we know that the men who gave us the completed Bible had the proper authority to do so, in the early 400s AD. (We cannot trust the Bible without also trusting the men who gave it to us.)

 

[St_Violet]

well pedja, your approach of the bible is definitly sola scriptura, well I supose I should just clarify that there is only one right interpretation of the bible , I do not believe GOD intended the Bible to be interpret whatever fits our opinions or views.

one of the things of why I have soo much confidence in the Catholic Church it’s teachings goes all the way back to the teachings of the Students of Jesus’s Apostles.

I now see this debate is not a debate on if the sabbath should be kept but a debate on sola scriptura.

 

[pedja]

Well, I showed you two references to CHRISTIAN communities specifically gathering on Sunday, and you didn’t show any, so based on that I’d say there’s more Biblical evidence that they kept Sunday than Saturday.

1. Cor .16,2. is hardly a proof that the early Christians kept the Sunday!

You said in post 177 that “it means that they would all be together to pool their collections - which means that they would all be gathered together on the first day of the week.”

It does **not **mean that! The text does not say that they would all be together on the first day of the week! Read again: *On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. *

I don’t understand how you can say that the text says something when it doesn’t? Can you notice the difference between what the text is saying and what you claim the text is saying? Are you deliberately misunderstanding it?!

 

[jmcrae]

1. Cor .16,2. is hardly a proof that the early Christians kept the Sunday!

You said in post 177 that “it means that they would all be together to pool their collections - which means that they would all be gathered together on the first day of the week.”

It does **not **mean that! The text does not say that they would all be together on the first day of the week! Read again: *On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. *

How can there be no collections when St. Paul comes, if they are not gathering together on the first day of the week and putting all of their contributions in the same place? Wouldn’t he still have to go from house to house, if they are keeping them at home? (Why would he not mention which day of the week to bring them to the Church, if he meant for them to bring them to the Church on a different day? And why would they gather up their contributions the day after the meeting in the Church, instead of the same day? )