Question for All Scholars Concerning Sabbath

[Protestant101]

I agree, the bible has proven to be a historical book, but it even took more then the bible to understand biblical times.

so Protestant101, out of curiosity, do you disregard all that our early church fathers ( after the deaths of Jesus’s apostles) has taught?

No. I do not disregard everything they taught. This is a common myth amongst Catholics, about Protestants where they think this kind of thing.

For a personal example; since I came to Jesus; and joined His Remnant Church, which was 20+ years ago now, I have had a card board book mark in my main study Bible. It is actually a bookmark that was put out by Al Anon; but on the one side it has a prayer on it that they entitled: “Prayer For Today.” I think it was St Francis of Assissi (is that spelled right?), who originated the prayer:

"Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace
Where there is hatred, let me sow love
where there is injury, pardon
where there is doubt, faith
where there is despair, hope
where there is darkness, light
and where there is sadness, joy

O Divine Master, grant that I
may not so much seek to be
consoled, as to console
to be understood, as to understand
to be loved, as to love
For it is in giving that we receive
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned
and it is in dying that we are
born to eternal life."

So, yes, there are some things that “the early Church Fathers taught,” which I heartily adopt into my Christian pilrimage here on this Earth. But, even with this prayer; I found it my duty to make one small correction on the bookmark with a red-ink pen. The last two lines, where it says “it is in dying that we are born to eternal life,” I inserted “it is in dying to self.”

Now, on a similar vein, when we talk about the true “Early Fathers of The Church;” I find that it is more likely these can be read about in the Old Testament of The Holy Bible.

When I read something from the Pioneers of The Catholic Church, as I prefer to call what you say are “early Church Fathers,” and their teachings are not found in the Bible; I get out the red ink pen and make the needed corrections. :coffeeread:

 

[SDA2RC]

It is cherry-picking because, as I have pointed out in the Bible; the Bible doesn’t call the Sabbath “Jewish” in the context of only being for “Jews.”

To my knowledge no one has ever claimed that scripture states that it is the “Jewish Sabbath”. But nor did scripture state that it was a “Jewish Passover”, or that Sunday is a false sabbath for that matter. I have simply stated that it was only given to the Jews and never to the Christians as a command, therefore it was a Jewish institution. It was the Jewish Sabbath.

Your statement about Christians not being commanded in the NT to keep the 7th day Sabbath, is actually a separate question which I will gladly address soon; but first, lets sort this out.

Fair enough…

The Bible does not make the claim that the Sabbath was just for “Jews.”

Again this is a straw man argument, we have never said that the Bibles states the fact that the Sabbath was just for the Jews. What we have stated was that the Sabbath was only given to the Jews, the record of the Jewish nation and the Sabbath proves this without an explicit statement.

Anything that was “given to the Jews” was not meant for them to keep to themselves, or for themselves.

Actually, it was… Jews were not supposed to intermingle and were severely chastised for doing so… only Jews who were circumcised were allowed to take part in Jewish religious rituals… in fact, it was considered an abomination for non-circumcised Jews to keep the Sabbath, similar to our view of non-Catholics partaking in the Eucharist. The Jews were told by God that the Sabbath was a sign between God and the Jews, not between God and the world.

Christians today are also not to “keep the faith” but to give it away. The whole reason that the Jews, as a nation, failed in their gospel commission was because of what you are preaching here - that the truths they learned was just for them.

To my knowledge the Jews were not given a Gospel Commission, Christ gave that to the Christian Apostles. The Jews were chosen to be a separate, pure, and holy people prepared for the coming of the Messiah. Christ himself did not try to evangelize the gentiles, the truth of the time was given to the Jews for the Jews.

You and others appear to be saying that anything in the Bible that was “Jewish” or “given to the Jews” is not for today’s Christians.

David, this is a straw man argument, no one on this forum has indicated that anything that was Jewish is not for todays Christians… that would be absurd. We use Jewish scriptures, Jewish rites in our worship, etc…etc… What we have said is that we are not bound to obey laws that were specifically given to the Jews, and not to the Christians. We are not bound to abide by Jewish worship rituals, such as the Sabbaths, weekly, monthly, and yearly. Nor do we sacrifice animals, have a temple, use the Sons of Aaron as our priests etc.

It appears to me that you are over generalizing our statements. We are saying that just as we do not observe the Passover, the sacrifices, etc. because they were Jewish institutions that were fulfilled in Christ, so we also do not observe the Jewish Sabbath, which was also fulfilled by Christ. We no longer need a temporal rest, for we can now enter into the Spiritual rest of Christ which is eternal, not a 24 hour period.

The Bible states many reasons why this is not so - even with the things which we call “shadows.”

Scripture tells us that shadows were a tutor that bring us to Christ, but now that Christ has come to us, there is no further need to be under a tutor. Our new tutor is the Holy Spirit.

(Col 2:16 NASB) Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day–
(Col 2:17 NASB) things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

Stretched to it’s furthest, your sentiments about all the “Jewish” things in the Bible would also tell us that we don’t need Jesus; for He was a JEW.

Again, this is a straw man argument… no one has argued that all things Jewish are to be rejected. But there are aspects of the Jewish worship and ceremonial laws which we as Christians no longer observe… sacrifices, Sabbaths, Yearly Sabbaths, Dietary laws, moral laws, health laws, etc…etc…

 

[SDA2RC]

However; I would disagree that The “non-Scriptural evidence” you refer to is actually more at risk to “interpretation.” For the simple reason that it is “non-Scriptural.”

I am not sure how you came to this conclusion… I see it just the opposite. We have much more in writing from the Early Church fathers that we can compare to get an accurate picture, than we do in scripture. Scripture was never meant to be a teaching manual, the letters were written to those who had already accepted the faith. It was taken for granted that the readers already had a set of common beliefs. This is why we are commanded to hold fast to oral tradition and to obey and submit to our leaders. It was through the Church that the Gospel was spread, not through a book.

 

[SDA2RC]

Protestant/Pedja,
Someone on my blog made the following post, I would like to to get your response to this. He says it much better than I would be able to say it myself. "As an amateur student of Jewish Christianity, I can tell you that there was no such thing as a Trinitarian Sabbatarian in ancient times. If you believed in the Trinity & Virgin Birth then you kept the Lord’s Day & the Sabbath if you were a Jewish Christian. The only sabbatarian “Christians” were the Ebionite heretics who denied the Virgin Birth, Deity of Christ & apostleship of Paul.

You have to wait for the 16th century radical “reformation” before you have sabbatarian trinitarians(the 7th Day Baptists appear to be the first).

And as someone who studies Judaism, Orthodox Judaism teaches that it is a horrible sin for Gentiles to observe the Sabbath. Only Jews can do that. It would be the equivalent of a non-baptized person trying to take Communion. …"
You are welcome to read his original post here

BTW… this is echo’ed in SDA writings, such as:``The children of Noah…were given seven Laws only, the observance of the Sabbath not being among them’’ (Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:21 [Soncino ed., p. 23], as quoted in C. Mervyn Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt, eds., Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday [Berrien Springs, Mich.: Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1992], p. 75).

The Noachian laws are also listed in Midrash Genesis Rabbah 16:6 (Soncino ed., p. 131), Sanhedrin 56 a, b; and Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 1:2(5) (Soncino ed. pp. 26-7) (ibid., p. 74). Gentiles could be considered righteous if they observed these laws, which did not include the Sabbath. Nor did they include restrictions about pork. Rabbi Judah could say that there was a time for the ``sons of Jacob when unclean beasts were still permitted to them’’

(Hullin 7:6, as quoted in Maxwell and Damsteegt, p. 74 The rabbis did not think that the Sabbath had been given to Gentiles: ``Why does it say, `The Lord hath given you’’ (Ex. 16:29)? To you hath he given it [the Sabbath], but not to the heathen. It is in virtue of this that the Sages stated Sanh. 56b] that if some of the heathen observed the Sabbath, then not only do they not receive any reward [but they are even considered to be transgressing]’’ (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 25:11 [Soncino ed., p. 314], as quoted in Maxwell and Damsteegt, p. 74).

``A non-Jew who observes the Sabbath whilst he is uncircumcised incurs liability for the punishment of death. Why? Because non-Jews were not commanded concerning it… The Sabbath is a reunion between Israel and God, as it is said, `It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel’ (Ex. 31:17); therefore any non-Jew who, being uncircumcised, thrusts himself between them incurs the penalty of death… **The Gentiles have not been commanded to observe the Sabbath’’ **(Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:21 [Soncino ed., pp. 23-4], as quoted in Maxwell and Damsteegt, p. 75).

Further evidence of the antiquity of this rabbinic understanding comes from the second-century B.C. book of Jubilees: **The Creator of all blessed it, but he did not sanctify any people or nations to keep the Sabbath thereon with the sole exception of Israel. **He granted to them alone that they might eat and drink and keep the Sabbath thereon upon the earth’’ (Jubilees 2:31, James Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, [New York: Doubleday, 1985], vol. 2, p. 58).
(wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/history1.htm)

 

[Protestant101]

I am not sure how you came to this conclusion… I see it just the opposite. We have much more in writing from the Early Church fathers that we can compare to get an accurate picture, than we do in scripture. Scripture was never meant to be a teaching manual, the letters were written to those who had already accepted the faith. It was taken for granted that the readers already had a set of common beliefs. This is why we are commanded to hold fast to oral tradition and to obey and submit to our leaders. It was through the Church that the Gospel was spread, not through a book.

Only one thing is wrong with what you wrote here; 99% of “Tradition” is not “oral,” it is written. It is written in God’s Holy Bible.

As to all the “stuff” you wrote about the Sabbath re your Cork replies, you have only quoted non-Biblical sources. This is unfortunate.

 

[Hellisreal]

Only one thing is wrong with what you wrote here; 99% of “Tradition” is not “oral,” it is written. It is written in God’s Holy Bible.

As to all the “stuff” you wrote about the Sabbath re your Cork replies, you have only quoted non-Biblical sources. This is unfortunate.

Where is it written in the bible about alter calls?
Hard core proof of the Trinity?
Rapture? Pre or post trib?
The list is infinitum.

 

[St_Violet]

No. I do not disregard everything they taught. This is a common myth amongst Catholics, about Protestants where they think this kind of thing.

For a personal example; since I came to Jesus; and joined His Remnant Church, which was 20+ years ago now, I have had a card board book mark in my main study Bible. It is actually a bookmark that was put out by Al Anon; but on the one side it has a prayer on it that they entitled: “Prayer For Today.” I think it was St Francis of Assissi (is that spelled right?), who originated the prayer:

"Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace
Where there is hatred, let me sow love
where there is injury, pardon
where there is doubt, faith
where there is despair, hope
where there is darkness, light
and where there is sadness, joy

O Divine Master, grant that I
may not so much seek to be
consoled, as to console
to be understood, as to understand
to be loved, as to love
For it is in giving that we receive
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned
and it is in dying that we are
born to eternal life."

So, yes, there are some things that “the early Church Fathers taught,” which I heartily adopt into my Christian pilrimage here on this Earth. But, even with this prayer; I found it my duty to make one small correction on the bookmark with a red-ink pen. The last two lines, where it says “it is in dying that we are born to eternal life,” I inserted “it is in dying to self.”

Now, on a similar vein, when we talk about the true “Early Fathers of The Church;” I find that it is more likely these can be read about in the Old Testament of The Holy Bible.

When I read something from the Pioneers of The Catholic Church, as I prefer to call what you say are “early Church Fathers,” and their teachings are not found in the Bible; I get out the red ink pen and make the needed corrections. :coffeeread:

well It seems to me that you are gulity of picking and choosing or “cherry pick” as you like to call it. I supose it is not unheard of , most Protestants I come across of are cherry pickers. it seems you only have regard for the early church fathers that you happen to agree with , or atleast it’s what it looks to me.

All of the early church fathers are pioneers of the catholic church correct me if I’m wrong, and if I’m wrong I would ask that you name an early church father who does not seems to be a pioneer for the catholic church to you just out of curiosity because perhaps I could learn something. most of the early church fathers that are brought up often are the ones who suceeded in the survival of christianity.

 

[Protestant101]

well It seems to me that you are gulity of picking and choosing or “cherry pick” as you like to call it. I supose it is not unheard of , most Protestants I come across of are cherry pickers. it seems you only have regard for the early church fathers that you happen to agree with , or atleast it’s what it looks to me.

All of the early church fathers are pioneers of the catholic church correct me if I’m wrong, and if I’m wrong I would ask that you name an early church father who does not seems to be a pioneer for the catholic church to you just out of curiosity because perhaps I could learn something. most of the early church fathers that are brought up often are the ones who suceeded in the survival of christianity.

LOL, well we can “pick cherries” together and learn something from one another…

 

[SDA2RC]

LOL, well we can “pick cherries” together and learn something from one another…

And share the cherries of course… mmm

 

[SDA2RC]

Only one thing is wrong with what you wrote here; 99% of “Tradition” is not “oral,” it is written. It is written in God’s Holy Bible.

As to all the “stuff” you wrote about the Sabbath re your Cork replies, you have only quoted non-Biblical sources. This is unfortunate.

Protestant,
I am not sure where you got the 99% figure… we have never claimed that 99% of tradition is oral. However, the scriptures do clearly present to use BOTH ORAL and WRITTEN (Scripture) tradition… unfortunately, in my experience, most Adventists only pay heed to the Written Tradition (Scripture) and ignore that which God gave us in another form.

(2 Th 2:15 NASB) So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, **whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

**Protestant, please tell us what oral traditions (passed on by word of mouth, not scriptural letters) do Adventists hold to from the first century.

 

[Protestant101]

And share the cherries of course… mmm

You do have a good sense of humor: SOMETIMES!

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant,
I am not sure where you got the 99% figure… we have never claimed that 99% of tradition is oral. However, the scriptures do clearly present to use BOTH ORAL and WRITTEN (Scripture) tradition… unfortunately, in my experience, most Adventists only pay heed to the Written Tradition (Scripture) and ignore that which God gave us in another form.

(2 Th 2:15 NASB) So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, **whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

**Protestant, please tell us what oral traditions (passed on by word of mouth, not scriptural letters) do Adventists hold to from the first century.

The 99% figure is simply to depict “a majority of.” The actual figure could be a different number.

The first myth which needs to be dispelled here though is this thing about “most Adventists only pay heed to the Written Tradition” because this is not true. But we look at “Tradition” as something different than perhaps Catholics, and some other Protestants.

When you say “Tradition” and I say “Tradition,” we probably mean two different things.

I will do a little thinking for a few days on how to word my next post here to explain better what I am talking about.

In the meantime, don’t forget to share some of those “cherries!!” :extrahappy: :bounce:

 

[SDA2RC]

The 99% figure is simply to depict “a majority of.” The actual figure could be a different number.

The first myth which needs to be dispelled here though is this thing about “most Adventists only pay heed to the Written Tradition” because this is not true. But we look at “Tradition” as something different than perhaps Catholics, and some other Protestants.

When you say “Tradition” and I say “Tradition,” we probably mean two different things.

I will do a little thinking for a few days on how to word my next post here to explain better what I am talking about.

In the meantime, don’t forget to share some of those “cherries!!” :extrahappy: :bounce:

I look forward to hearing your explanation…

 

[SDA2RC]

The 99% figure is simply to depict “a majority of.” The actual figure could be a different number.

One thing that I would like to note is that it is futile to try to assign a number to what we hold as Catholics that comes from written vs. oral tradition. The reason I say this is because all oral Tradition has its basis in written Tradition, and vice-versa. We cannot have oral without written and we cannot have written without oral. The source for both is the same, it is simply the mode of transmission which may be different. Truth from God is authoritative no matter the form in which it takes, it is the same quality, and the same holiness.

 

[Protestant101]

One thing that I would like to note is that it is futile to try to assign a number to what we hold as Catholics that comes from written vs. oral tradition. The reason I say this is because all oral Tradition has its basis in written Tradition, and vice-versa. We cannot have oral without written and we cannot have written without oral. The source for both is the same, it is simply the mode of transmission which may be different. Truth from God is authoritative no matter the form in which it takes, it is the same quality, and the same holiness.

Well, the point I am trying to make is that all “oral Tradition” has it’s base in “written Scripture;” not in “written Tradition.” But I am still contemplating how to say the next post I refered to above, so will visit again on the week end.

Watch for those “cherries” brother!!

 

[SDA2RC]

Well, the point I am trying to make is that all “oral Tradition” has it’s base in “written Scripture;” not in “written Tradition.” But I am still contemplating how to say the next post I refered to above, so will visit again on the week end.

Watch for those “cherries” brother!!

Haha… you know… I use to go picking cherry’s with my grandfather when I was younger, in a large cherry orchard… your comment just made me think of that… thanks… it was a fun time.

ok… back to serious business… (or something)… I consider written tradition to be written scripture… scripture is those traditions which were passed to us by the apostles by written letters.

Oral Tradition in my belief, is those Traditions which were passed on to us through the preaching of the apostles and teachings which were not necessarily written down explicitly, but have always been part of the Christian faith.

Some examples:
Our Stand on Abortion
Liturgy
Our Stand on Birth Control
Modes of Baptism
Ages of Baptism
etc. etc.

Scripture does not tell us explicitly the details of some of these beliefs, however, we can find through Church Tradition, that which the Apostles commanded us to retain, the teachings which were passed on to the first Christians by the Apostles.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, the point I am trying to make is that all “oral Tradition” has it’s base in “written Scripture;” not in “written Tradition.”

Actually, no. The Mass predates the Scriptures, and there is no outline of the Mass in Scripture. Yet, the Mass of today is essentially the same as the Mass of the Apostles. Same with the other Sacraments - there is no “how to” in the Scriptures, and yet we still follow pretty much the same outlines today as the Apostles were using in 33 AD.

 

[djconklin]

The Didache (C. 90-150 A.D.):

“On the Lord’s Day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure…”

I’m not sure if this has been covered before (I just started reading the thread); but, as I understand it there is no Greek word for “day” in the text. So, it seems instead to talking about the Lord’s way. Secondly, the first word of the text (“kata”) should have been translated as “according to.”

Likewise, for the quote from Letter to the Magnesians–there is no word for “day” in the text and should instead be translated as above: “Lord’s way.”

 

[amills]

I’m not sure if this has been covered before (I just started reading the thread); but, as I understand it there is no Greek word for “day” in the text. So, it seems instead to talking about the Lord’s way. Secondly, the first word of the text (“kata”) should have been translated as “according to.”

Likewise, for the quote from Letter to the Magnesians–there is no word for “day” in the text and should instead be translated as above: “Lord’s way.”

Can you retranslate the entire phrase for us. Replacing the words you use does not make sense.

Also, if there was no word for day in Greek what did they use to describe a particular day such as the Sabbath?

 

[adventistnomore]

I’m not sure if this has been covered before (I just started reading the thread); but, as I understand it there is no Greek word for “day” in the text. So, it seems instead to talking about the Lord’s way. Secondly, the first word of the text (“kata”) should have been translated as “according to.”

Likewise, for the quote from Letter to the Magnesians–there is no word for “day” in the text and should instead be translated as above: “Lord’s way.”

With the Didache, I agree that there are no sure grounds for asserting that the word “day” should be understood. As for the letter to the Magnesians, I also agree that the “Lords” should probably not be associated with “day.” Of course, I wouldn’t discount the possibility altogether, but its dubious, and one would best avoid citing those passages as evidence of the “Lord’s day”. I also believe, however, that these facts do not render the Adventist position any stronger, since the Letter to the Magnesians is still anti-sabbatarian.