Question for All Scholars Concerning Sabbath

  • Thread starter Thread starter sandmountainsli
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DJ,
I am probably skipping some of the conversation, but it seems to me that your position is that several of the orthodox (as in correct, not heretical) Christian churches of the first few centuries kept the Sabbath is that correct?
 
djconklin said:
The first “we” is everyone. No support was made for the claims that were made.

As for Ireland and Ethiopia:

Ireland and St. Patrick: sabbathtruth.com/documentation/saint_patrick.asp
Click to expand...
St Patrick is imagined to be a Sabbath keeper (no evidence is provided, apart from a highly imaginative and speculative PDF file.) The two writings we have of his, the Confession of St Patrick and his Letter to Coroticus, say nothing about the Sabbath.

Nothing Adventist or Sabbatarian about those letters - in fact they are quite Catholic. Do you know of Adventist bishops? Adventists who do penance? Adventists monks and nuns? He certainly didn’t believe in unconsciousness after death, awaiting the resurrection of the body.

The one minor thing Adventists can use to pretend he wasn’t Catholic was the fact that his father was a deacon, and his grandfather was a priest. Their claim based on this?
“The absence of celibacy in the Celtic Church gives added proof to the fact that the believers had no connection with the church at Rome.”
Click to expand...
  • Sabbath Truth (sic)
This is absurd. Catholicism, and really only fully so in the West, practices celibacy as a discipline, not a doctrine of faith. And what’s more, celibacy only became a rule in the 11th century.

Pope Adrian II was married. Maybe he was an Adventist pope? That was 867-872 AD.

Pope Hormisdas (pope from 514-523 AD) was married, and his son became Pope Silverius in 536 AD. Were they Adventists? This was long after Patrick in the 300’s AD.

Or is the Sabbath Truth site just misrepresenting the facts in order to push its agenda?

The son and grandson of Catholic clergy is highly unlikely going to be non-Catholic and still claiming to follow in their footsteps.

Contrasting Patrick’s Confession with contemoraneous documents makes it obvious that he was quite familiar with Catholic theology, and phrased his own words along their lines.

His two existing writings:
yale.edu/glc/archive/1166.htm
cin.org/users/james/files/patconf.htm

A bit more from me on this Sabbath Truth website - theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/249/Adventists-Abusing-Socrates
djconklin said:
Ethiopia - 1604
Jesuits tried to induce the Abyssinian church to accept Roman Catholicism. They influenced King Zadenghel to propose to submit to the Papacy (A.D.1604). “Prohibiting all his subjects, upon severe penalties, to observe Saturday any longer.” Gedde’s “Church History of Ethiopia.” p.311, also Gibbon’s “Decline and Fall,” ch. 47 (found at sabbathtruth.com/history/sabbath_history17.asp – note that some people in England in the 1600’s were keeping the Sabbath as well.)
Click to expand...
Saturday to the Ethiopians does not and never did mean what it means to Adventism. To claim that these people kept the Sabbath in the way Adventism wants the Sabbath kept - more than a non-essential custom like celibacy in the Western Church - is a huge, huge stretch.
 
Stephen_Korsman said:
Nothing Adventist or Sabbatarian about those letters - in fact they are quite Catholic. Do you know of Adventist bishops? Adventists who do penance? Adventists monks and nuns? He certainly didn’t believe in unconsciousness after death, awaiting the resurrection of the body.

The one minor thing Adventists can use to pretend he wasn’t Catholic was the fact that his father was a deacon, and his grandfather was a priest. Their claim based on this?
  • Sabbath Truth (sic)
This is absurd. Catholicism, and really only fully so in the West, practices celibacy as a discipline, not a doctrine of faith. And what’s more, celibacy only became a rule in the 11th century.

Pope Adrian II was married. Maybe he was an Adventist pope? That was 867-872 AD.
Click to expand...
LOL…an “Adventist Pope!” That is funny. This thread is supposed to be “For all scholars;” I was just wondering where they all got to? :whacky:

You guys are all clutching at straws - grasping desperately at all these obscure notes that contradict one another, or that the interpretations thereof contradict one another. Who can figure what this is even about anymore? Maybe one of the “scholars” in hiding can reveal the secret to me??:tsktsk:
 
out of curiosity, is the president of the Seventh Day Adventist Church Jan Paulsen married?

how is he doing in regards of leading the church?, he seems to be very low key, although I continue to see a bit of him in Adventist magazines.
 
Protestant101 said:
LOL…an “Adventist Pope!” That is funny. This thread is supposed to be “For all scholars;” I was just wondering where they all got to? :whacky:

You guys are all clutching at straws - grasping desperately at all these obscure notes that contradict one another, or that the interpretations thereof contradict one another. Who can figure what this is even about anymore? Maybe one of the “scholars” in hiding can reveal the secret to me??:tsktsk:
Click to expand...
Protestant,
We are hardly grasping at straws, we have 2000 years of history behind us supporting our beliefs and the authority of the Church. On the other hand, you’re basing your case about the Sabbath on quotes that state that Christians had meetings on Saturday. Because this is all you have, you try to some how equate Sabbath keeping with a Meeting. We still have worship services on Saturday… and we STILL don’t observe the Jewish Sabbath.
 
Protestant101 said:
LOL…an “Adventist Pope!” That is funny. This thread is supposed to be “For all scholars;” I was just wondering where they all got to? :whacky:

You guys are all clutching at straws - grasping desperately at all these obscure notes that contradict one another, or that the interpretations thereof contradict one another. Who can figure what this is even about anymore? Maybe one of the “scholars” in hiding can reveal the secret to me??:tsktsk:
Click to expand...
Will you please answer our questions and analyze the rebuttals we present, rather than toss out insubstantial posts such as this one?
 
Egads! What a lousy translation!
Click to expand...
  1. There is no “what you” in the Greek.
  2. There is no “celebrating certain” in the Greek.
  3. “holy days” is like what they have in the KJV. But, while that is the only place in the KJV the word “heorte” has been mistranslated it means “feast.”
  4. There is no Greek support for the word “ceremonies.”
  5. There is no Greek support for “For these rules”; and there should be a “Which are” instead.
  6. There is no Greek suppport for “the reality yet”; it should be “things”.
  7. There is no Greek support whatsoever for the last sentance. It is “but the body of Christ” which is a reference to the church. It is the positive counter to the “let no man judge” in vs 16.
Click to expand...
Okay, let’s re-do it correctly (with notes):
Click to expand...
“Don’t let outsiders condemn you for {i.e. the people in Colossae are doing these things} eating and drinking, on {or, “in that part of”} feast {days, supplied} or new moon or ceremonial sabbaths. Which are shadows of things yet to come. Let the church decide these things.”
Click to expand...
This translation, the NLT, a very excellent one, is very heavy on paraphrasing (though certainly more on target than ludicrous ones such as The Message). I am aware of the word-for-word translations published and also own a copy of the original Greek manuscripts. Comparing and contrasting these brings much insight on a matter such as this.

Few readers of the Word in today’s world will honestly find themselves absorbed in a King James translation if for no other reason than the fact that it does not present it in a format easily accessible to the contemporary reader. Likewise, I find it very nice to be able to sit down and enjoy the Word in an easy-to-read format (feeling reassured by comparative studies that it is fairly accurate to the originals) and also have more literal translations and the Greek manuscripts handy for more intensive study.

However, I think it only right to point out that almost all—the vast, vast majority of—English translations agree with the bulk of what is found here. E.g.,
“Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.” NASB
“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” NIV
“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: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” KJV

The most literal rendition of the passage we could put on paper (though mostly unintelligible) is:

Not therefore anyone you let judge in eating and in drinking or in respect of a feast or of a new moon or Sabbaths which things is (are) a shadow of things coming but the body [is] of Christ.

Since it is unanimously agreed upon by most translations that the meaning of the passage is as shown above, I see no reason to discuss the point further … Also, you ignored my quotation from Romans, which carries as much or more pertinence to the subject as this text does.

I worship on Sunday because many have taken up jobs on Saturdays and thus most Protestant churches, as is custom, continue to worship on Sunday. I would have no problem worshiping on Saturday were it not for the fact that it is not practiced by most churches aside from Roman Catholicism and Seventh-Day Adventism, and because I desire not to be a member of either body, continue as is my tradition, lest I should become legalistic over such a minor issue.
 
The_Truthinator said:
I would have no problem worshiping on Saturday were it not for the fact that it is not practiced by most churches aside from Roman Catholicism and Seventh-Day Adventism, and because I desire not to be a member of either body, continue as is my tradition, lest I should become legalistic over such a minor issue.
Click to expand...
To Catholicism, it is a minor issue because it’s not dogma, just pious practice that became fixed. In a different sense, it’s a major issue, in that communal worship of God is important to us, and we see the celebration of Jesus’ resurrection as important.

To Adventism, it is dogma, which is why the rest of us have to continually defend our right to do as we do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top