Why Sunday

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Has our actual calendar changed since the Sabbath was instituted? Is there a spiritual Sabbath rest? Can the Sabbath be kept in principal rather than literally?

Of course, changed a few times.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What are your thoughts on Galatians 4:1-11?

1. Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2. But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4. But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5. To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
8. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
9. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10. Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

The heir of verse 1 is the Israelite who, although technically a child of God, functionally differs not a whit from a servant, even though, as heir, he is, in time, going to be heralded as the lord of the house. But while he waits to come to maturity, he, as heir, needs to be under instructors who have charge over him because he is not yet ready to assume the mantle of lordship his position as heir allows him to hold.

In the same way, Israelites under the law (note the "we" in verse 3), and not Gentiles who converted to Christian faith, even though they were the heirs who were sons, had to be under tutelage, governed by others because they were not ready for leadership. Rather, they were subjected to the rules and regulations they received from their Jewish world, that is, the Torah.

Then Jesus came, at the appointed time, a true human descended from Mary, descended from Adam, Messiah of Israel while the Torah was in full effect, to redeem the heir who was still a mere subjugated servant. He came to elevate him and move him past servant-hood and make him a true son, an heir, and lord of all. The gift of the Holy Spirit of God's Son is the evidence of that elevation. And all those who receive that Spirit are not to be considered mere servants but fully-fledged children and heirs.

However, before this occurred, these former pagan Gentiles of Galatia formerly gave themselves over to the service of idols. But now, they both know and are known of God. It is therefore not acceptable to Paul that they should return once again to their former idols and be in bondage to them.

For the Israelite, the former subjugation was to Torah. For the Gentile, the former subjugation was to idolatry. The weak and beggarly elements for these former Gentiles of Galatia is their idolatry. Paul doesn't make a claim against the Israelite and his subjugation to the Torah. There is a clear constant shifting between the subjects, as noted earlier with his use of "we" in verse 3 to "you" from that point forward. Therefore I conclude that the "days, and months, and times, and years" is a reference to pagan customs formerly practiced by these Galatians when they were idolaters. Paul then shares his concern that he has wasted his time on these former Gentiles.

Ultimately, Paul is trying to show these converted Gentiles that if they embrace the doctrine of the Judaizers and become circumcised, for them, it will be as if they were returning to their past idols and the sins thereof because to become circumcised is to deny Christ and fall from grace, that is to say, lose salvation and eternal life, because, as former heathen idolaters, if they give up on Jesus, there is nothing for them to revert back to, but heathen idolatry. They cannot embrace Torah the way the Israelite heir could because as Gentiles, they were not included in the covenant at Sinai.

So, the Israelite could deny Jesus, fall from grace, and fall back on the Torah. The Gentile, if he denies Jesus, and falls from grace, cannot fall back on the Torah because the Torah was not given to him. His only option is the idolatry of the past, even if it masquerades as being some warped and confusing form of (allegedly) Torah-observant Christianity.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I never claimed Matt 24 proves sabbath is over, though.

Did I say you did? Sorry. But that is my point concerning that chapter. Jesus acknowledges a sabbath, then instructs His disciples to pray that it isn't an obstacle for them. If it wouldn't be a future obstacle for a group of non day observers then why mention it. But He does, because He believed that it would be important to them. Important enough to pray about it.

Originally Posted by mfblume

If the gates are closed you cannot flee.

Yes.

Originally Posted by mfblume

When our thoughts require us to keep a day or be lost,then we've been removed from Christ.

the Gospel isn't about a to do list. Shepards lead, sheep follow, because of the shepherd. If we are led by the Spirit, THEN there is no more condemnation. If me wanting to murder someone and just abstaining from it through my self control, then I'm already lost.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Pluralities covers all sabbaths. Weekly ones, annual ones, jubilees, etc. SO seventh day was included.

That is just wanting something to be included which makes the argument contradict the plain wording elsewhere. The commands aren't annulled, but they are moral from God is the only god to be honored to Honor your spouse and don't betray them. Whether you are pro or con on a sabbath, it is still part of that moral law. Romans and Colossians doesn't negate anything found in that list of moral laws. Anti Sabbath keepers just need to stick to the simple rules of the discussion found in the Bible. Then they can get a harmonious outline which teaches what Jesus and Paul were trying to tell their first century Judean audience. An audience which lived in the geographical area, with the proper calendar, with a full working law system.
They didn't live in Alaska, Mexico, Toronto, Alberta, or Japan.

Originally Posted by mfblume

More vitally Jesus did not demand they keep it.

Better yet, He never told them it would be annulled.

Originally Posted by mfblume

He was also under law during his ministry. Law was not gone til the cross, even for Him.

The cross removes the curse, that's grace, vail rent, but the show still went on. Paul became a Judean to the Judean with the law, and became a Roman to the Roman, but didn't eat pork like Peter. Still the commandments of thou shall not remained as the moral standard, and the honoring of God though love and devotion still contained a sabbath.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I would only repeat myself, but when he said Sabbaths in COl 2 that's enough for me. The simplest read means any form of sabbath.

It just doesn't work that way, because there is obviously more to it. Or else you have a huge contradiction concerning the commandments which say honor God before all other Gods, not to blaspheme His name, and the day which honors Him. Again, whether you keep Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or None Day, it is still saying that there is a day set aside.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I honestly cannot see how he is not referring to the sabbath.

Because it begs the question concerning all the other commands concerning Him. He is to be placed before all other gods, His authority not to be blasphemed, His time is to be honored. Yet, it is much more than anything physical in its scope. I think maybe both sides are missing something far more. Like I took the post from the eschatology section, it is a greater scope.

Originally Posted by mfblume

We read about God resting the seventh day, and the word could easily have been added that man must therefore rest, too. But man Israel never hear do fit until Moses spoke of manna collection.

In Genesis we aren't shown instruction for Cain and Abel to give a first fruit offering? God rested from His labor, we have no pain in childbirth, and no sweat of the brow until they are banished from the Edenic rest.

Originally Posted by mfblume

My reference to Esaias was not making him any focus, but just a reference since he made a point that I saw as inconsistent, since you mentioned inconsistency, focusing on parts of law being fulfilled and not others of the same nature.

So I was not discussing him. I could have avoided his name but it would have sounded more like a slur if I said someone told me about new Jerusalem being spiritual but not sabbath day.

Please don't take me wrong, I love you. i love Esaias. I just want our discussion to be as pleasant as it started out in the beginning.

[coksiw]

Why is the Sabbath that Jesus mentioned relevant for the end times (at least for the futurist like me )?

1. There will be a nation of Israel. Oh wait, that already happened.
2. There will be daily sacrifices (The abomination of desolation will stop the daily sacrifice)
3. There will be a temple (otherwise not possible sacrifices)
4. There will be Sabbath keeping
5. There will be false Christs (the Jewish still await a Messiah that will build the temple or will show up when the temple is built)

All of it tells me clearly that there will be a Jewish tradition revival at Jerusalem before the end comes.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Why is the Sabbath that Jesus mentioned relevant for the end times (at least for the futurist like me )?

1. There will be a nation of Israel. Oh wait, that already happened.
2. There will be daily sacrifices (The abomination of desolation will stop the daily sacrifice)
3. There will be a temple (otherwise not possible sacrifices)
4. There will be Sabbath keeping
5. There will be false Christs (the Jewish still await a Messiah that will build the temple or will show up when the temple is built)

All of it tells me clearly that there will be a Jewish tradition revival at Jerusalem before the end comes.

You believe in a rebuilt third temple?
Can you show where Jesus, Paul, Peter, or even John explained how the temple would be rebuilt? Where did Jesus say there would be a return to the temple law system? Where can we find legitimate Biblilcal Judeans and Israelites who have pedigrees? Actual Levites who are not only legitimate sons of Aaron, but physically related to the family of Zadok the high priest? I truly hope you can explain all this, because I for one would like to know the answers.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Has our actual calendar changed since the Sabbath was instituted? Is there a spiritual Sabbath rest? Can the Sabbath be kept in principal rather than literally?

The calendar has been changed, but not the order of the days of the week, just the numerical dating.

The Gregorian calendar, which is the calendar used today, was first introduced by Pope Gregory XIII via a papal bull in February 1582 to correct an error in the old Julian calendar.

This error had been accumulating over hundreds of years so that every 128 years the calendar was out of sync with the equinoxes and solstices by one additional day.

As the centuries passed, the Julian Calendar became more inaccurate. Because the calendar was incorrectly determining the date of Easter, Pope Gregory XIII reformed the calendar to match the solar year so that Easter would once again "fall upon the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the Vernal Equinox.".

Ten days were omitted from the calendar to bring the calendar back in line with the solstices, and Pope Gregory XIII decreed that the day following Thursday, October 4, 1582 would be Friday, October 15, 1582 and from then on the reformed Gregorian calendar would be used. http://www.searchforancestors.com/ut...gregorian.html

[Esaias]

[index]Originally Posted by mfblume View Post
Esaias believes that he doesn't have to go to Jerusalem in the middle east in order to keep the feasts that he believes he must keep. He says this because he feels New Jerusalem is everywhere and the old is culminated, as you put it. But that is inconsistent, because the sabbath day is also culminated.

And sabbath is part of Mosaic law for Israel.

Never before Moses was any man commanded to keep sabbath.[/index]

Perhaps you should either quote where I said that or else ask for clarification on that issue. Feast keeping is a related, but distinct issue from the weekly Sabbath, by the way.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I amened what I agreed with, though you may have had an implication under it that you did not clarify.

But my post stated that Israel alone had to keep sabbaths because it cannot work in the entire world. Then you said something about agreeing that it's a spiritual rest that can be fulfilled all over the world instead of just regions where the days can be kept. At least that's the thought I got from your post.

Is there a different calendar in operation in the arctic regions? No.

Anybody in Nome, Alaska or Novaya Zemlya can know when the seventh day of the week is. This argument is one of the weakest arguments I've come across. And, logically, it fails even if the premises were true. All it would prove is either that only those in the arctic are relieved of the obligation (is the reader in the arctic? No? Then...) or it proves that if ONE person anywhere anytime cannot keep a commandment then nobody everywhere everytime is required to keep the commandment. So, orphans can't keep the 5th commandment therefore none of us have to?

But for those who might still be thinking the arctic argument has any merit, here:

The Bible defines the Sabbath as the seventh day of the week. The Bible defines a day as beginning at evening, running from one evening to the next. So the Sabbath occurs every seventh evening.

What is evening? In most areas, the evening occurs as the sun approaches the horizon, then "sets", then night occurs. The key though is that evening is the period just before and just after sunset.

Does the sun set in the arctic? Is there an evening in the arctic?

YES.

Even though in the extreme north and south lattitudes the sun does not go BELOW the horizon in summer, it nevertheless descends toward the horizon, then rises again. It is in fact sunset and sunrise, it just does not go below the horizon. The Bible never said the sun must go below the horizon (or rise above the horizon in winter). So there IS a daily sunset, a daily evening, in the arctic. The evenings occur about every 24 hours apart, just as they do everywhere else on the planet. Therefore, Sabbath keeping is no different in the arctic than anywhere else, except it doesn't get AS DARK at night in the summer or AS BRIGHT during the day in winter.

[votivesoul]

Going back for a moment regarding Sundays and the original references to the "first day of the week":

I see nine uses of that phrase in the KJV, as follows:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quickse...qs_version=KJV

- Matthew 28:1
- Mark 16:2
- Mark 16:9
- Luke 24:1
- John 20:1
- John 20:19
- Acts 20:7
- 1 Corinthians 16:2

I've already addressed Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 and have shown how a change in translation seems warranted (See: here and here.)

The question then is, the other seven references from the Gospels. In each case, note that they refer to the empty tomb scene after Jesus was crucified and buried. Does this mean that this scene took place on a Sunday, Jesus having been crucified and buried on a Friday?

Traditionally, that is the consensus. But what if something else occurred? Note the following text from Matthew 28:1:

Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων

(opse de sabbatōn tē epiphōskousē eis mian sabbatōn)

A literal reading is found here:

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/28-1.htm

After then [the] Sabbaths it being dawn toward [the] first [day] of [the] week...

But note, the Greek word sabbatōn is the same in both instances, and in both cases, is Genitive Neuter Plural. It would seem to make the most sense to translate each instance identically.

But instead we get: In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week...

Why the change? I think it's unnecessary to say the least. First, note as I said previously in post #10, that the Greek word for "day" isn't even in the text, it's supplied by the translators. That leaves us with mia the feminine form for the number 1 in Greek. Second, we must remember that for ancient Israel, they were commanded to keep certain festivals every year, one of them being Passover and another being Unleavened Bread.

These festivals were considered sabbaths of a sort, even if or though they did not fall upon the actual seventh day of the week. From Passover to the end of Unleavened Bread, every day was a high day, or special sabbath to the LORD (See Leviticus 23:1-8). It makes for a total of eight high days or special sabbaths. The first high day or special sabbath was on Passover. Then, seven more high days or special sabbaths lasting for the duration of Unleavened Bread were held.

This explains the reference in Matthew 28:1 regarding the first use of sabbatōn and why it's plural. It's a reference to the special week of special sabbaths that occurred during the first part of the festival.

From John 19:31, we know Jesus was crucified on the Preparation, that is, the day prior to the beginning of Passover, that is, the 13th day of the first month, otherwise in Hebrew called the Chagigah. Further, it need not be assumed that Jesus literally spent 72 hours in the grave. The custom of the times indicated that only a part of a day needs to pass for it to be considered one day. This is reasonable and makes sense to us, because if I say upon this very day, December 29th, 2019, that New Year's Eve is in three days, meaning I am counting today as one of the three, even though much of today has already passed as of this writing, I do not mean 72 exact hours. Because in actuality as of this writing, it's more like 33 hours, even though 33 hours doesn't exactly equal three days in the most literal sense.

The same is true for the Lord's time in the grave. So, if Jesus was crucified on a high day or special sabbath, that is, on the Preparation, the day before Passover, and was buried the same day, and he was, then spent all of the next high day or special sabbath of Passover in the tomb, and He did, and earlier the next morning rose from the dead, and He did, that makes for three days. It also makes it the morning of Unleavened Bread, the beginning of a new set of special sabbaths, which I submit to you, is the meaning of the second use of sabbatōn.

So, first plural use is for Preparation and Passover. Second plural use is for Unleavened Bread. Which means no Sunday in sight.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Is there a different calendar in operation in the arctic regions? No.

Anybody in Nome, Alaska or Novaya Zemlya can know when the seventh day of the week is. This argument is one of the weakest arguments I've come across. And, logically, it fails even if the premises were true. All it would prove is either that only those in the arctic are relieved of the obligation (is the reader in the arctic? No? Then...) or it proves that if ONE person anywhere anytime cannot keep a commandment then nobody everywhere everytime is required to keep the commandment. So, orphans can't keep the 5th commandment therefore none of us have to?

But for those who might still be thinking the arctic argument has any merit, here:

The Bible defines the Sabbath as the seventh day of the week. The Bible defines a day as beginning at evening, running from one evening to the next. So the Sabbath occurs every seventh evening.

What is evening? In most areas, the evening occurs as the sun approaches the horizon, then "sets", then night occurs. The key though is that evening is the period just before and just after sunset.

Does the sun set in the arctic? Is there an evening in the arctic?

YES.

Even though in the extreme north and south lattitudes the sun does not go BELOW the horizon in summer, it nevertheless descends toward the horizon, then rises again. It is in fact sunset and sunrise, it just does not go below the horizon. The Bible never said the sun must go below the horizon (or rise above the horizon in winter). So there IS a daily sunset, a daily evening, in the arctic. The evenings occur about every 24 hours apart, just as they do everywhere else on the planet. Therefore, Sabbath keeping is no different in the arctic than anywhere else, except it doesn't get AS DARK at night in the summer or AS BRIGHT during the day in winter.

We already went through all of this, but I will say it again. God did not say to go by calendars, but sundown to sundown. The evening and morning are a day, in that order.