Salvation History: 7-day creation, 7-headed Beast

[spauline]

Seventh Day Adventists place great emphasis on the importance of the Sabbath, and insist on keeping the Old Sabbath. A Catholic on another forum asked about the relevance of the Old sabbath as the SDA's see it. I responded as follows:


A NEW Sabbath has been inaugurated. The reason there are two sabbaths and not just one is probably because salvation history will have TWO sabbaths, and not just one, that is, first an IMPERFECT Sabbath (the OLD one) followed by the true Sabbath (the New One).

Put simply, the imagery of the days of creation, according to several ECFs, is a foreshadowing of the RE-creation of the world, that is, the Redemption of Man. Hence, salvation history is a succession of "ages" or "days", the first part of which is the prevalence of "sin" (darkness, "evening came") followed by Redemption (light, "morning followed"). Then, the imagery implies that, from the Fall of Man to the end of the world and New Creation will be exactly "eight ages" inclusive.

And this agrees with most Catholic data when we assume the general scenario of the approved mystics.

Five ages delineate the Old Law:

I. The Fall/ the Flood
II. Babel/Language Confounding and calling of Abraham
III. Egypt's Enslavement / Exodus and Kingdom of Isreal
IV. Intermediate Jewish Falling Away / Exile and Restoration
V. Second Falling away and OT Antichrist Antiochus / First Coming of Christ

In the sixth day, God "creates" man in His own image, in the sixth age, God RE-creates man in His image by bringing the Gentiles into the light of Christ:

VI. Pagan Rome persecutes / Catholic Christendom

The seventh day is the Old, imperfect Sabbath:

VII. Minor Apostasy (1500 - today) / Glorious Restoration of Catholicism and age of peace (according to mystics)

Hence, in the seventh day there is truly "rest" for God's People, for God will show humanity the consequences of its apostasy through the Minor Chastisement, reuniting Christians and gloriously restoring the faith throughout the world.

Finally, there is the eighth day:

VIII. the Great Apostasy and NT Antichrist / the Second Coming of Christ and New Creation

Note, when humantiy falls away the second time from Catholicism, they no longer have the excuse they have now because of Christian division. They are unforgivable and irredeemable. and so the world must end with the Second Coming, which brings the utlimate Sabbath, the eternal New Creation.

Note also the parallel of the days of the weeks: day "eight" is also day "one", just as the eighth note in a scale in music brings one back to the first note, only one "octave" higher. Similarly, there are parallels between day one and day eight. In day one, the Fall holds reign over humanity (in Noah's day, most of mankind is wicked), unchecked by any Redemption. So God DESTROYS the world and BEGINS the Redemption of humanity. In the eighth day, the Fall once again reigns in humanity (the Gentiles have permanently and irrevocably rejected the Gospel), and again God destroys the world. But so then in the first day God BEGAN the redemption of humanity by using WATER to destroy but also cleanse/redeem the world, so in the eighth day, God ENDS the Redemption by destroying the world by FIRE, condemning it because it is irredeemable and unforgivable. And in both cases, a NEW World begins, the first, a world that is starting to be redeemed. in the eighth, a world that has already been redeemed is passing into the ULTIMATE New World, the everlasting Resurrection and New Creation.



Similarly with the Beast: see Revelation 17: "Five have fallen" (the Old Law). "One is" (Pagan Rome, the sixth), "the other has not yet come" (the seventh , the minor apostasy), "and the beast which was and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes into perdition" (the fallen nature of man is consummate with all the stages of the beast, and the beast "was" (the fall reigned in the first head, unchecked by Redemption), and the beast "is again" in the eighth (the fall reigns again at the end of the world, but this time irredeemable)).

I know this is alot but it'll give them something to think about.

[spauline]

addenduum:

the beast "is not" between heads one and eight because humanity is in the process of being redeemed, that is, because God is still "remaking humanity", the fall takes a back seat to God's Love and Power that is gradually restoring man unto Himself.

[Ted]

Spauline,

While your reading of ECF’s is accurate, it shows how far the ECF’s could stray from scripture. The basic argument the ECF’s made was:

1. The first day was the creation of light.
2. Jesus was light of the world.
3. Jesus inaugurated a new world.
4. We worship on the “eighth day” celebrating this first day of creation of the new world.

As anyone can see, that’s terrible exegesis. There’s no scripture to support it whatever. And it denies history.

Justin Martyr used the argument that we should worship on the eighth day since there were eight people in the ark. That’s Gnostic numerologic nonsense.

The Pontifical Gregorian Vatican University granted a PhD degree summa cum laude to Samuele Bacchiocchi for his work, published by the Gregoriana as From Sabbath to Sunday. You should read it. The entire thesis you propose is factually false. Many teachers wish to avoid those facts, but facts are stubborn things. They are not subject to our opinions.

Ted

[spauline]

Spauline,

While your reading of ECF’s is accurate, it shows how far the ECF’s could stray from scripture. The basic argument the ECF’s made was:

1. The first day was the creation of light.
2. Jesus was light of the world.
3. Jesus inaugurated a new world.
4. We worship on the “eighth day” celebrating this first day of creation of the new world.

As anyone can see, that’s terrible exegesis. There’s no scripture to support it whatever. And it denies history.

Justin Martyr used the argument that we should worship on the eighth day since there were eight people in the ark. That’s Gnostic numerologic nonsense.

The Pontifical Gregorian Vatican University granted a PhD degree summa cum laude to Samuele Bacchiocchi for his work, published by the Gregoriana as From Sabbath to Sunday. You should read it. The entire thesis you propose is factually false. Many teachers wish to avoid those facts, but facts are stubborn things. They are not subject to our opinions.

Ted

Hi, Ted, I'm not sure i follow you.

I realize that I am somewhat going off into further development that is not explicitly in the ECFs. I'm "expanding", as it were, on the basic premise.

But i'm not familiar with this Samuel Bacchiocchi and this work. What do you mean the facts are false? Which facts? please clarify.

I pray that God Bless you sincerity of heart to do the Will of God,
scott
:smile:

[eschaton]

Put simply, the imagery of the days of creation, according to several ECFs, is a foreshadowing of the RE-creation of the world, that is, the Redemption of Man. Hence, salvation history is a succession of "ages" or "days", the first part of which is the prevalence of "sin" (darkness, "evening came") followed by Redemption (light, "morning followed"). Then, the imagery implies that, from the Fall of Man to the end of the world and New Creation will be exactly "eight ages" inclusive.

.

Scott,

Ted mentions Justin Martyr and I think Irenaeus said something about this. Are there others from the second or early third century. Can you give me some references?

[spauline]

Scott,

Ted mentions Justin Martyr and I think Irenaeus said something about this. Are there others from the second or early third century. Can you give me some references?


Hi, eschaton,

here's a few I dug up and put up on my blog:

More Support for Beast Creation metaphors (http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-7HJjW9kieKlaV2usQKhFiwefjXc-?cq=1&p=59)

Blessings to you!
scott

[Ted]

Spauline,

If I was incomplete and confusing, let me try to clarify.

The issue of an “old” and a “new” Sabbath is completely foreign to scripture. As Bacchiocchi carefully describes in his book (available at www.biblicalperspectives.com, published with the imprimatur of Pope Paul VI and the acclamation of the chair of church history Dr. Monachino of the Gregoriana), the change from Saturday to Sunday observance was a gradual one over two centuries, pushed by a variety of social and political trends. None of those had anything to do with what any of us would find to be reasonable biblical exegesis.

If I got the ECF identity wrong on the quote, forgive me. I was at work, away from my library, so I gave the name by memory. But the point stands. Gnostic methodology was used to create the illusion of scriptural foundation when none existed. Anti-Semitism was the order of the day, and many saw the Sabbath as a Jewish ordinance. This distinction was promoted to get Christians differentiated from Jews. Jews were being persecuted, and Christians were identified as Jews since they observed the same day. Sunday was the more “sacred” day in the pagan world.

Now to biblical specifics.
Five ages delineate the Old Law:

I. The Fall/ the Flood
II. Babel/Language Confounding and calling of Abraham
III. Egypt's Enslavement / Exodus and Kingdom of Isreal
IV. Intermediate Jewish Falling Away / Exile and Restoration
V. Second Falling away and OT Antichrist Antiochus / First Coming of Christ
This is simply incorrect. We note that the fall marks the beginning of this sinful era. But the Law (Torah) was given in formal form at Sinai, as a result of the loss of memory of God’s teaching earlier (see Ezek 20). But it was observed by Abraham (Gen 26:5) even though not written down. We can also derive all of the ten commandments from stories prior to Abraham, and by inference, see that they were all present in Eden. In particular, the Sabbath came in creation week (Gen 2:2-3).

The old and new covenants are different in two ways. First, the new has the Law written on the heart, not externally written on stone or parchment. It’s still the Law. (Note: Torah means ‘teaching,” not legislation.) Thus, it’s the same teaching. Second, the mode of administration changed.

In the earliest days, each patriarch offered sacrifices. After Sinai, the priests offered them. And at the Cross, the last sacrifice was offered, with Jesus becoming the high priest of the order of Melchizedek.

The seventh day is the Old, imperfect Sabbath:
This directly contradicts Genesis 2:2-3. There God finds that everything is “very good.” As a consequence, God ceases from his creative activity (lit. Hebrew), and blesses the Sabbath day, making it holy. That is not in any way imperfect. That is, by definition, absolute, complete perfection.

Note also the parallel of the days of the weeks: day "eight" is also day "one", just as the eighth note in a scale in music brings one back to the first note, only one "octave" higher. Similarly, there are parallels between day one and day eight. In day one, the Fall holds reign over humanity (in Noah's day, most of mankind is wicked), unchecked by any Redemption. So God DESTROYS the world and BEGINS the Redemption of humanity. In the eighth day, the Fall once again reigns in humanity (the Gentiles have permanently and irrevocably rejected the Gospel), and again God destroys the world. But so then in the first day God BEGAN the redemption of humanity by using WATER to destroy but also cleanse/redeem the world, so in the eighth day, God ENDS the Redemption by destroying the world by FIRE, condemning it because it is irredeemable and unforgivable. And in both cases, a NEW World begins, the first, a world that is starting to be redeemed. in the eighth, a world that has already been redeemed is passing into the ULTIMATE New World, the everlasting Resurrection and New Creation.

This is excellent Gnostic logic. It’s a great example of the exegetical error I pointed out before. It directly parallels a lot of what Origen wrote.

As I said, your argument is factually in error. There is no scripture to support it, and much that directly contradicts it. Further, it fails to understand the historical facts. The Sabbath was observed in the apostolic church. Over two centuries that practice faded, pushed by numerous factors. Of interest, the Coptic church did not follow Rome’s lead, and continued to keep the Sabbath, a practice that continues to this day in some African branches of Christianity.

Ted

[eschaton]

I found this interesting bit in the Holman Bible Dictionary.

The habit of Jesus was to observe the sabbath as a day of worship in the synagogues (Luke 4:16), but His failure to comply with the minute restrictions brought conflict (Mark 2:23-28; 3:1-6; Luke 13:10-17; John 5:1-18). At first, Christians also met on the sabbath with the Jews in the synagogues to proclaim Christ (Acts 13:14). Their holy day, the day that belonged especially to the Lord, was the first day of the week, the day of resurrection (Matt. 28:1; Acts 20:7; Rev. 1:10). They viewed the sabbath and other matters of the law as a shadow of the reality which had now been revealed (Col. 2:16-23), and the sabbath became a symbol of the heavenly rest to come (Heb. 4:1-11).

[Ted]

Eschaton,

Holman is simply repeating a factual error when it says that the apostles regarded the Sabbath as a "shadow" to be cast off. Further, there is no evidence whatever that the apostles kept Sunday. Of particular importance is the fact that chapter 67 of Justin Martyr's First Apology has been shown to be a late forgery.

This has a profound effect on the Sunday case, since now there are no clear evidences of Sunday observance until the mid-second century. For general information, let me summarize the arguments.

1. Chapter 67 largely duplicates chapters 65 and 66, something JM does nowhere else.
2. The key elements are 67 are duplicated in detail, but with expanded paraphrase.
3. Chapter 67 begins with a doxology, which is the normal conclusion of a book or letter, implying that that was the original end of the Apology
4. In 67, the statement about baptism in 65 is replaced by a statement about Sunday worship.
5. In the rest of the Apology, Justin makes only general comments about chronology, often missing exactness by hundreds of years. Yet 67 strongly emphasizes exact chronology. Curiously, Justin does not even make a chronologic distinction between the birth and death of Christ in the rest of the Apology.
6. Justin is focused tightly on the theology of the Cross, but never once mentions the day of the week of the Cross. His only chronology of the Cross is to link it with Pilate and Tiberias.
7. In the Dialogue with Trypho, Justin clearly states that he personally does not keep any day (not even Sunday).
8. In the Martyrdom of Justin Martyr (widely accepted as genuine), Justin tells Rusticus that Christians do not have a habit of meeting as a large group (contrary to chapter 67).
9. In the Dialogue, chapters 33-34, Justin mentions the Sabbath observance in concert with the "eighth day" logic. But he immediately segues into true circumcision, regarding a "Sabbath" discussion to be a divergence from important issues.
10. It is widely recognized that two of the three letters from emperors at the end of the Apology are forgeries. The third is disputed. Thus, chapter 67 is at the end of the Apology, the easiest place to put a forged chapter.

(The 8 in ark, thus worship on the 8'th day is in chapter 138 of the Dialogue.)

Let us now consider Acts 25:8. "I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar." This statement has a very clear import. Jesus was repeatedly accused of breaking the Sabbath (cf. John 5:18). So if Paul had broken the Sabbath, this would have been an offense against the Law of the Jews. But Paul asserts that he had NOT broken the Sabbath.

It's pretty clear that Paul, whose gospel was fully accepted by all the apostles (Gal 2:1-10). And if he kept the Sabbath, we should expect that the other did, too. Of course, when we read Acts 4, we find that the apostles are accused of teaching Jesus, not of breaking the Sabbath. Sabbath-breaking would have been easy to prove, and would have been a clear offense to be punished, particulary in Jerusalem, where they were. But it wasn't.

I could go on for many pages, but I think I'll stop here. The case is clear. The apostles kept the Sabbath. There is no command countermanding the fourth commandment. All arguments in favor of Sunday fail either on historical or scriptural grounds.

The Westminster Confession says that all important doctrines are either clear in scripture or are a good and necessary consequence of it. The Sabbath is clear. There is no passage that presents it as abolished.

Ted

[tizzidale]

Of particular importance is the fact that chapter 67 of Justin Martyr's First Apology has been shown to be a late forgery.

Shown by whom? Thanks.

[tizzidale]

And let's not forget one of the most compelling early evidences (outside of scripture - which I think is the most compelling) of the keeping of the 'eighth day': the epistle of Barnabas. It reads:

Then we shall be able to sanctify it, having been first sanctified ourselves. Further, He says to them, "Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure." Ye perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead. And when He had manifested Himself, He ascended into the heavens.

[tizzidale]

And let's not forget other early evidence:

Ignatius to the Magnesians
Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for “he that does not work, let him not eat.” For say the [holy] oracles, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.” But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week].

[Ted]

Tizzidale,

Note that Barnabas is using classic Gnostic numerologic methods with his "eighth day" nonsense, something no reasonable exegete today would ever consider.

As for Ignatius, I will let Bacchiocci speak for himself. (From chapter VII of From Sabbath to Sunday).

FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY:
A HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RISE OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

Chapter 7

ANTI-JUDAISM AND THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University
Ignatius, Barnabas and Justin, whose writings constitute our major source of information for the first half of the second century, witnessed and participated in the process of separation from Judaism which led the majority of the Christians to abandon the Sabbath and adopt Sunday as the new day of worship. Their testimonies therefore, coming from such an early period, assume a vital importance for our inquiry into the causes of the origin of Sunday observance


Ignatius
According to Irenaeus, Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch at the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117).1 The Bishop argues "against the Judaizing tendencies of his territory, which, not far geographically from Palestine, had suffered the influences of the synagogue and of the Judaeo-Christians."2 His language suggests that the separation from Judaism was in progress, though the ties had not yet been severed.3 In fact the tenacious survival and veneration of Jewish institutions such as the Sabbath is explicitly mentioned by this author. For instance, in his Epistle to the Magnesians Ignatius writes, "For if we are still practicing Judaism, we admit that we have not received God’s favor. For the most divine prophets lived in accordance with Jesus Christ (ch. 8:1,2)."4

In the following chapter he refers again to these Old Testament prophets "who lived in ancient ways" and who "attained a new hope, no longer sabbatizing but living according to the Lord’s life (or Lord’s day—meketi sabbatizontes kata kuriaken zoen zowntes)."5 The necessity to renounce Jewish customs is again urged in chapter 10:3, where the warning is given that "it is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like the Jews. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism but Judaism in Christianity." In his letter to the Philadelphians the Bishop similarly admonishes that "if anyone expounds Judaism to you, do not listen to him. For it is better to hear Christianity from a man who is circumcised than Judaism from one who is uncircumcised" (ch. 6 :1).

These frequent recommendations to abandon the practice of Judaism imply a strong leaning toward Jewish practices within the Christian communities of Asia Minor. In this climate it is hardly conceivable that a radical break from Sabbath keeping had already taken place. On the other hand, the condemnation of Jewish practices such as "sabbatizing," that is, the observance of the Sabbath according to Jewish manner, 6 and the exhortation "to live according to the life of the Lord," in the course of time may well have motivated the adoption not only of a way of life but even of a day of worship which would be different from the one of the Jews. The introduction of Sunday-keeping could then be part of the process of differentiation from Judaism which became necessary for reasons mentioned earlier.

Was Sunday already observed by few or by many in the province of Asia at the time of Ignatius (ca. A.D. 115)? This can hardly be established by the problematic passage of Magnesians 9:1. The key sentence "no longer sabbatizing but living according to the Lord’s life (or Lord’s day)," in recent times has been subjected to considerable scrutiny by various scholars.7

To read in the passage a reference to Sunday, it is necessary either to insert the substantive "day—hemeran" or to assume that the latter is implied by the usage of a cognate accusative. But, as pointed out by Fritz Guy, "in the seven letters there is no appearance of such a cognate accusative construction."8 This would be the only exception. Moreover the noun "life—zoen" is present in the oldest extant Greek manuscript (Codex Mediceus Laurentinus); thus "Lord’s life" is the most likely translation.

More significant still is the context. As Kenneth A. Strand concisely and incisively remarks, "Regardless of what "Lord’s Day" may have meant either in Magnesia or in Antioch and regardless of whether or not Ignatius intended a cognate accusative, the context reveals that it is not the early Christians who are pictured as ‘no longer sabbatizing,’ but that it is the Old Testament prophets who are described . . . Surely Ignatius knew that the Old Testament prophets observed the seventh day of the week, not the first! The contrast here, then, is not between days as such, but between ways of life—between the Jewish ‘sabbatizing’ way of life and the newness of life symbolized for the Christian by Christ’s resurrection."9

The "sabbatizing" then which Ignatius condemns, in the context of the conduct of the prophets, could hardly be the repudiation of the Sabbath as a day, but rather, as R. B. Lewis, asserts, "the keeping of the Sabbath in a certain manner—Judaizing."

In short, Ignatius provides no support for an end to the Sabbath.

Ted

[tizzidale]

We'll simply agree to disagree, my man. I choose to believe the plain witness of Christian history and my Church. One scholar's opinion, though he be the Pope himself (for example the latest work by Pope Benedict exhorts us to take it as a scholarly work and not authoritatively), is simply that - one scholar's opinion. One example I left out is the Didache, which exhorts the reader to gather on the "Lord's day".

BTW, are you a Seventh Day Adventist?

rusty

[Implicit_assume]

Rusty I assume you have a reason for asking ?

[tizzidale]

Rusty I assume you have a reason for asking ?

Yeah . . . I want to know.

rusty

[tizzidale]

Nevermind, Ted. Read your story on your webpage. :)

rusty

[tizzidale]

Ted,

Hey, I checked our your SDA friend, the one who studied in Rome, etc. etc. I found a letter written from the Pontifical Gregorian University addressing the claims he makes concerning his stay there. ****Notice: this isn't an attack on his claims in the book. He's obviously a well-learned individual. But as he uses his studies in Rome and his dissertation as an opportunity to attack my Church, I feel that his claims need to be addressed****



Dear Bishop Murray, the Peace of Christ.

I am writing in regard to Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, who resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan. My understanding is that this city is within the geographical territory of the Kalamazoo Diocese. It has recently come to our attention that Dr. Bacchiocchi is presenting himself and his degree from the Pontifical Gregorian University in a less than accurate way. Both his publicity and web site indicate several errors about his degree and awards he claims to have received here. Further, our information . . . . indicates that Dr. Bacchiocchi is actively engaged in anti-Catholic teaching.

Dr. Bacchiocchi did indeed graduate with a doctoral degree from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and was the first non-Catholic to do so. However, other claims he makes do not match those in our records. Those include:

1. He did not receive a summa from the Gregorian as he maintains.
2. He did not receive the Pope’s Gold Medal (this is presented each year in a public ceremony to only a handful of students who have achieved the highest quality of work in their dissertations).
3. He was not allowed to publish his dissertation in whole. Due to extensive problems with the text, he was only allowed to publish one chapter of his work and this only after extensive revision. The publication of one chapter signifies the minimum requirement to receive the doctoral degree at the Gregorian. His publicity and web site indicate that the whole dissertation has been published in book form with surrounding claims about its quality as a Gregorian publication. He has also used the official signature of the Gregorian University Press on the cover page of a book published by Biblical Perspectives.
4. At one time an imprimatur was claimed by Dr. Bacchiocchi, though we understand he later said this had been rescinded. As you know, this does not happen, nor does the Church find a need to give an imprimatur to non-Catholics who write on a variety of topics.

[Ted]

Tizzidale,

If you go to his site and review his newsletters, going back about 4 or 5, you will find that he has defended himself perfectly. Signore Vincenzo Monachino did endorse his book. He did graduate summa cum laude from the Gregoriana, and he did receive a Gold Medal directly from the Pope for his dissertation. I've seen it and the other documents. He posted facsimiles on his site.

The Roman Catholic assault on Bacchiocchi is late to the party, having waited 32 years to try to rewrite history. It is completely false, and is an attempt to smear the only non-Catholic to attend and graduate from the Gregoriana because his findings completely demolish the dogma presented in Dies Domine. BTW, you will find a long discussion of that encyclical in earlier newsletters, also on Sam's site.

If you want the truth, try reading it. Sam lays it all out in his newsletters.

Ted

[eschaton]

Scott,

If the six days of creation correspond with the six thousand years to the destruction of creation, shouldn't there be some sort of correspondence to the days of creation? I don't see that in the biblical history. Another thought is that Jesus said the OT scriptures teach the gospel (John 5:39, Ac 26:22,23,27 Ro 1:2 1Pe 1:10,11 Rev 19:10) . How is that found in the biblical history?


Seventh Day Adventists place great emphasis on the importance of the Sabbath, and insist on keeping the Old Sabbath. A Catholic on another forum asked about the relevance of the Old sabbath as the SDA's see it. I responded as follows:


A NEW Sabbath has been inaugurated. The reason there are two sabbaths and not just one is probably because salvation history will have TWO sabbaths, and not just one, that is, first an IMPERFECT Sabbath (the OLD one) followed by the true Sabbath (the New One).

Put simply, the imagery of the days of creation, according to several ECFs, is a foreshadowing of the RE-creation of the world, that is, the Redemption of Man. Hence, salvation history is a succession of "ages" or "days", the first part of which is the prevalence of "sin" (darkness, "evening came") followed by Redemption (light, "morning followed"). Then, the imagery implies that, from the Fall of Man to the end of the world and New Creation will be exactly "eight ages" inclusive.

And this agrees with most Catholic data when we assume the general scenario of the approved mystics.

Five ages delineate the Old Law:

I. The Fall/ the Flood
II. Babel/Language Confounding and calling of Abraham
III. Egypt's Enslavement / Exodus and Kingdom of Isreal
IV. Intermediate Jewish Falling Away / Exile and Restoration
V. Second Falling away and OT Antichrist Antiochus / First Coming of Christ

In the sixth day, God "creates" man in His own image, in the sixth age, God RE-creates man in His image by bringing the Gentiles into the light of Christ:

VI. Pagan Rome persecutes / Catholic Christendom

The seventh day is the Old, imperfect Sabbath:

VII. Minor Apostasy (1500 - today) / Glorious Restoration of Catholicism and age of peace (according to mystics)

Hence, in the seventh day there is truly "rest" for God's People, for God will show humanity the consequences of its apostasy through the Minor Chastisement, reuniting Christians and gloriously restoring the faith throughout the world.

Finally, there is the eighth day:

VIII. the Great Apostasy and NT Antichrist / the Second Coming of Christ and New Creation

Note, when humantiy falls away the second time from Catholicism, they no longer have the excuse they have now because of Christian division. They are unforgivable and irredeemable. and so the world must end with the Second Coming, which brings the utlimate Sabbath, the eternal New Creation.

Note also the parallel of the days of the weeks: day "eight" is also day "one", just as the eighth note in a scale in music brings one back to the first note, only one "octave" higher. Similarly, there are parallels between day one and day eight. In day one, the Fall holds reign over humanity (in Noah's day, most of mankind is wicked), unchecked by any Redemption. So God DESTROYS the world and BEGINS the Redemption of humanity. In the eighth day, the Fall once again reigns in humanity (the Gentiles have permanently and irrevocably rejected the Gospel), and again God destroys the world. But so then in the first day God BEGAN the redemption of humanity by using WATER to destroy but also cleanse/redeem the world, so in the eighth day, God ENDS the Redemption by destroying the world by FIRE, condemning it because it is irredeemable and unforgivable. And in both cases, a NEW World begins, the first, a world that is starting to be redeemed. in the eighth, a world that has already been redeemed is passing into the ULTIMATE New World, the everlasting Resurrection and New Creation.



Similarly with the Beast: see Revelation 17: "Five have fallen" (the Old Law). "One is" (Pagan Rome, the sixth), "the other has not yet come" (the seventh , the minor apostasy), "and the beast which was and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes into perdition" (the fallen nature of man is consummate with all the stages of the beast, and the beast "was" (the fall reigned in the first head, unchecked by Redemption), and the beast "is again" in the eighth (the fall reigns again at the end of the world, but this time irredeemable)).

I know this is alot but it'll give them something to think about.

[Ted]

We'll simply agree to disagree, my man. I choose to believe the plain witness of Christian history and my Church. One scholar's opinion, though he be the Pope himself (for example the latest work by Pope Benedict exhorts us to take it as a scholarly work and not authoritatively), is simply that - one scholar's opinion. One example I left out is the Didache, which exhorts the reader to gather on the "Lord's day".

BTW, are you a Seventh Day Adventist?

rusty

Rusty,

Thanks for looking at my webpage. For the rest of you, I used to be SDA, but am not. And Sam Bacchiocchi is a personal friend.

As for this being one scholar's opinion, that isn't quite true. In defending his dissertation, Sam had to persuade a panel of Roman Catholic scholars of the validity of his presentation. And Monachino praised it. So it is a consensus of several at least.

You raise the Didache'. Have you actually read section 14? Assuming it is speaking of the "Lord's Day" (there are translation issues), it's not speaking about Sunday. It's speaking about the day that the Lord's Supper was observed. It is an uncontested fact (see the Quartodeciman controversy) that the Lord's Supper was observed on Passover, which can fall on any day of the week. It lend's no support for Sunday observance.

There is no "plain witness of history" for Sunday observance in the early church. Thus, you are relying on your denominational teaching. Is that safe ground?

Ted

[maudman]

Tizzidale,

Note that Barnabas is using classic Gnostic numerologic methods with his "eighth day" nonsense, something no reasonable exegete today would ever consider.

As for Ignatius, I will let Bacchiocci speak for himself. (From chapter VII of From Sabbath to Sunday).

FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY:
A HISTORICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE RISE OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE IN EARLY CHRISTIANITY

Chapter 7

ANTI-JUDAISM AND THE ORIGIN OF SUNDAY

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University
Ignatius, Barnabas and Justin, whose writings constitute our major source of information for the first half of the second century, witnessed and participated in the process of separation from Judaism which led the majority of the Christians to abandon the Sabbath and adopt Sunday as the new day of worship. Their testimonies therefore, coming from such an early period, assume a vital importance for our inquiry into the causes of the origin of Sunday observance


Ignatius
According to Irenaeus, Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch at the time of Trajan (A.D. 98-117).1 The Bishop argues "against the Judaizing tendencies of his territory, which, not far geographically from Palestine, had suffered the influences of the synagogue and of the Judaeo-Christians."2 His language suggests that the separation from Judaism was in progress, though the ties had not yet been severed.3 In fact the tenacious survival and veneration of Jewish institutions such as the Sabbath is explicitly mentioned by this author. For instance, in his Epistle to the Magnesians Ignatius writes, "For if we are still practicing Judaism, we admit that we have not received God’s favor. For the most divine prophets lived in accordance with Jesus Christ (ch. 8:1,2)."4

In the following chapter he refers again to these Old Testament prophets "who lived in ancient ways" and who "attained a new hope, no longer sabbatizing but living according to the Lord’s life (or Lord’s day—meketi sabbatizontes kata kuriaken zoen zowntes)."5 The necessity to renounce Jewish customs is again urged in chapter 10:3, where the warning is given that "it is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like the Jews. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism but Judaism in Christianity." In his letter to the Philadelphians the Bishop similarly admonishes that "if anyone expounds Judaism to you, do not listen to him. For it is better to hear Christianity from a man who is circumcised than Judaism from one who is uncircumcised" (ch. 6 :1).

These frequent recommendations to abandon the practice of Judaism imply a strong leaning toward Jewish practices within the Christian communities of Asia Minor. In this climate it is hardly conceivable that a radical break from Sabbath keeping had already taken place. On the other hand, the condemnation of Jewish practices such as "sabbatizing," that is, the observance of the Sabbath according to Jewish manner, 6 and the exhortation "to live according to the life of the Lord," in the course of time may well have motivated the adoption not only of a way of life but even of a day of worship which would be different from the one of the Jews. The introduction of Sunday-keeping could then be part of the process of differentiation from Judaism which became necessary for reasons mentioned earlier.

Was Sunday already observed by few or by many in the province of Asia at the time of Ignatius (ca. A.D. 115)? This can hardly be established by the problematic passage of Magnesians 9:1. The key sentence "no longer sabbatizing but living according to the Lord’s life (or Lord’s day)," in recent times has been subjected to considerable scrutiny by various scholars.7

To read in the passage a reference to Sunday, it is necessary either to insert the substantive "day—hemeran" or to assume that the latter is implied by the usage of a cognate accusative. But, as pointed out by Fritz Guy, "in the seven letters there is no appearance of such a cognate accusative construction."8 This would be the only exception. Moreover the noun "life—zoen" is present in the oldest extant Greek manuscript (Codex Mediceus Laurentinus); thus "Lord’s life" is the most likely translation.

More significant still is the context. As Kenneth A. Strand concisely and incisively remarks, "Regardless of what "Lord’s Day" may have meant either in Magnesia or in Antioch and regardless of whether or not Ignatius intended a cognate accusative, the context reveals that it is not the early Christians who are pictured as ‘no longer sabbatizing,’ but that it is the Old Testament prophets who are described . . . Surely Ignatius knew that the Old Testament prophets observed the seventh day of the week, not the first! The contrast here, then, is not between days as such, but between ways of life—between the Jewish ‘sabbatizing’ way of life and the newness of life symbolized for the Christian by Christ’s resurrection."9

The "sabbatizing" then which Ignatius condemns, in the context of the conduct of the prophets, could hardly be the repudiation of the Sabbath as a day, but rather, as R. B. Lewis, asserts, "the keeping of the Sabbath in a certain manner—Judaizing."

In short, Ignatius provides no support for an end to the Sabbath.

Ted


Hello Ted


I think it would be considered poor exegete to not consider how things were considered in context of the elite Jewish Leaders and also the situation of the church in the beginning.

There is a perception in early Jewish/Israelite history of a belief held by them in what your calling numerology nonsense was actually a belief they held about themselves and it is even held by some Jews today.

It only became numerology because the story of the creation is expressed in a numerical fashion. Because numerology nonsense can prevail in such Gnostic traditions the Eighth day here isn’t one of them. It seems like it but it isn’t. Barnabas’s mention of the eighth day is about something else and it is in reference to two distinct creation events of Genesis.

Also Christ kept the Sabbath and so did the Apostles. Christ was fullfiling their(Jewish) Law. Sin was transgression of their Law not the Gentiles. He had to be without sin in their Law and not their preception of it. The Apostle Paul and the Twelve also did but that doesn’t mean a thing because the church in it infancy was going to the Jew first then the Gentile.

When you start trying to justify Sabbatarianism you run into a lot of issues about why certain things were done away with and others were not.

Simply, it was ok for the Jews who converted to keep the Sabbath in the New Testament spirit just as it would have been ok for Gentiles to worship on Sunday except in the New Testament spirit. Christ didn’t teach non circumcision. He didn’t teach against a lot of things because the Jew would have seen him as a demon not their Messiah. Paul strongly expresses that Abrham was faithful before their was Law. There were many Laws and ordinates in the Jewish society that were consistant with the civilized Society that was also Gentile and ONe should understand how this plays out in what is lawful and isn't under the new covenant.

Barnabas’s approach is based on something that was far more ingrained in the Jewish psychic and is to some a revelatory statement. Jewish elite didn’t see themselves as an extension of the human race and there are some today who still think that way. And this was something that was taught and ingrained in the youth of Israelite culture. The Eight day creation is a new man and its based on the Son of Man not Mankind.

It is the Idea that Adam was a Special and seperate Creation of which the fall is representative of those born and chosen before the foundation of the world or those predestined to inherit a world that was being prepared for them. Because of their Fall (the Adam) not mankind Them later being the ascendents of Abraham which had excluded the Son of Man Of which Abraham was a a branch of that seed.

The new covenant Eighth day man was a type of Adam who now is poised to inherit that which Adam had Lost tempararitly in the Fall. Because the Garden story in many Jewish elitist is about their special creation. They are the Miracle man created by YHWY not Elihym. The LOrd of God not by the God. THey are the work of the Lord and his personal touch.

[Ted]

There is a perception in early Jewish/Israelite history of a belief held by them in what your calling numerology nonsense was actually a belief they held about themselves and it is even held by some Jews today.

It only became numerology because the story of the creation is expressed in a numerical fashion. Because numerology nonsense can prevail in such Gnostic traditions the Eighth day here isn’t one of them. It seems like it but it isn’t. Barnabas’s mention of the eighth day is about something else and it is in reference to two distinct creation events of Genesis.
Unfortunately, the evidence contradicts your position. BTW, you are in good company. I refer you to Kieren Barry's work The Greek Qabalah. In it he develops the fact that the Jewish Cabalistic beliefs were actually Greek, and migrated into Judaism after the Diaspora. Thus, it wasn't until the second century that the Jews picked up the beliefs that the proto-Gnostics brought to Christianity.

Christ was fullfiling their(Jewish) Law. Sin was transgression of their Law not the Gentiles.
Space and time do not permit a full refutation of your position. I will mention two key errors. Jesus did not "fulfill the law." The only text that could possibly be taken that way is Matt 5:17-18. But your interpretation misses the fact that Jesus is using standard rabbinic rhetoric. One rabbi would accuse another of "abolishing the law" by misinterpreting it. The other would then "fulfill" the law (fill it full of meaning, see the second definition of pleroo). Jesus was declaring that he wasn't going to misinterpret it, he was going to interpret it properly and fill it full of meaning.

Second, it wasn't the "law of the Jews and not the Gentiles." It was the Law of God. The entire Torah was given as instruction to prepare us for Christ. And in the New Covenant, under which the church operates, that Law is to be written on our hearts. See Heb 8:8-12, the longest OT quote in the NT. It explicitly declares that the covenant from Sinai will be written on the hearts of the saints in the church. Of course, Exodus 34:28 explicitly identifies the old covenant as the ten commandments. Since the ONLY difference is where it is written, the new includes the Sabbath.

Of course, I could point you to Eph 6:1-3 where Paul refers to a specific list of commandments that are in force as he writes. That list exists exactly two places, Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. So I think you can see that arguing against the Sabbath as a universal commandment is futile. The Bible does not support abolition of an ordinance established at Creation (Exod 20:11).

Ted

[eschaton]

I hardly think the seven days of creation has anything to do with Greek gnosticism. "Eighth day" is also found 18 times in the OT. I think you take SDA scholars a little too seriously Ted. The SDA along with groups like the JW's are descendants of Miller and the interpretive methods he used. That led to the "great disappointment." Then followers relied on interpretations of the mystical Ellen White.

[maudman]

Unfortunately, the evidence contradicts your position. BTW, you are in good company. I refer you to Kieren Barry's work The Greek Qabalah. In it he develops the fact that the Jewish Cabalistic beliefs were actually Greek, and migrated into Judaism after the Diaspora. Thus, it wasn't until the second century that the Jews picked up the beliefs that the proto-Gnostics brought to Christianity.



I don’t disagree with some of your comments entirely. Jewish Cabalist is a later study in the numerology of the scripture. And I don’t deny that it has influences some Christian teachings. But to say it was Greek well I would only partially disagree.

I agree that the Greek education was heavily steeped in the mystery of numbers. Prime numbers, Roots …..Ect. And yes Hellenistic Jews would have been influenced and as history shows Cabalistic beliefs looks as a marriage that became numerology.

What became numerology is actually the absence of knowledge of an ancient tradition of the oral tradition of the Israelite culture. It is actually something that is absent from most peoples understanding of how that tradition worked. Ted I’m leaving some things unsaid on purpose. But basically what I’m saying is that numerology is what happened when certain aspects of the oral tradition that were key to the oral tradition and its success became replaced, as the written word became dominate as a means to preserve. Peering into the text and seeing oral tradition transcribed became numerology to those that lost all knowledge of the ancient tradition.

But the Eighth day man isn’t one of them cabalistic traditions. It is in fact a belief of something that has to do with Son of Man not numerology. The creation week isn’t numerology it is simply a numbered sequence and the Son of Man is after in the sequence. Paul is familiar with these understandings of the Israelite culture and he also understood Greek thought having been educated at tarsus.


Space and time do not permit a full refutation of your position. I will mention two key errors. Jesus did not "fulfill the law." The only text that could possibly be taken that way is Matt 5:17-18. But your interpretation misses the fact that Jesus is using standard rabbinic rhetoric. One rabbi would accuse another of "abolishing the law" by misinterpreting it. The other would then "fulfill" the law (fill it full of meaning, see the second definition of pleroo). Jesus was declaring that he wasn't going to misinterpret it, he was going to interpret it properly and fill it full of meaning.

Second, it wasn't the "law of the Jews and not the Gentiles." It was the Law of God. The entire Torah was given as instruction to prepare us for Christ. And in the New Covenant, under which the church operates, that Law is to be written on our hearts. See Heb 8:8-12, the longest OT quote in the NT. It explicitly declares that the covenant from Sinai will be written on the hearts of the saints in the church. Of course, Exodus 34:28 explicitly identifies the old covenant as the ten commandments. Since the ONLY difference is where it is written, the new includes the Sabbath.

Of course, I could point you to Eph 6:1-3 where Paul refers to a specific list of commandments that are in force as he writes. That list exists exactly two places, Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. So I think you can see that arguing against the Sabbath as a universal commandment is futile. The Bible does not support abolition of an ordinance established at Creation (Exod 20:11).

Ted


Well here I would disagree he did fulfill the Law. Primarily the Law of the Prophet. Here again I don’t disagree with some of your comments but how you have laid it out.
There were two commponets to the Israelite culture and Christ addresses both of them.
The Rabbi along with the Prophet was birthed out of Exile or just prior to the fall of Judah. Trying to save space for details but Christ was addressing something birthed out of the exile and that was the Synagogue. Rabbi was the head of the synagogue and the Pharisee is political liaison of the Rabbi. Scribes were in both components of the culture lawyers for both parties of the Pharisee and Sadducees. The synagogue central components due to exile were the Prophet and the belief of Abraham promises. Christ speaking to the synagogue Jew is destroying the primary components of that system. The rabbi and the Idea of The natural ancestral heritage that dominated Jewish thought in the synagogue. “”Call no man Rabbi or master and call no man thy Father (Abraham)””. He was fulfilling the Law of the Prophet the primary spiritual aspect of the synagogue worship. The Temple Jew (Judah) central components were the Priest and sacrifice core to temple worship. The debates of these two components were tearing apart Israel. Christ was going to heal that riff by fulfilling the Law both of the Prophet and the Temple. All other Laws were Laws that were both in the Israelite and Gentile Culture because they were Laws that stem from civilized societies and biological procreation. And in one master sweep he would bind all, and those that believed would become a new Creature not an old one.

This unity is of the House is reflected in RCC today and why the Temple and Synagogue tradition of the Israelite culture is bond into a single entity The Church.

The Israelite culture was the way it was because the Man, The Eight day man had fallen and their state as it existed was fallen. Christ was calling man to a new life not an old one and walking away from their previous existence. The Law that regulated the biology of life was just a stepping stone to a spiritual life. Although we’re commanded to honor our Biological parents and yes, this is a Good thing. And all Laws that dealt with our biological procreation were still in affect if one entered into that way of Life. But the Apostle Paul is telling us not to go down that way of Life because in doing so it would bring on us the CURSE of the LAW! But in the new covenant we are compelled to embrace a Father of spiritual procreation not a biological procreation. Leave all material things behind (Wife, Material possessions any thing that would bring the curse of the Law.)

The New Creature in Christ would seek to become celibate and purge from himself the things that would tarnish and become corrupt and that is a hallmark of the Roman Catholic Faith and why it is structured that way from the top to the Bottom. Celibacy is one of the highest forms of denying oneself in the service of our Lord.

Fertility worship was both an Israelite and gentile cultural characteristic. The first Adam from a new covenant perspective failed in his original predestined purpose and had to live a way that wasn’t worthy of his original formed destiny. The New Adam, the second Adam (Christ) Redeemed the First and now the New Creature could continue his original created Purpose which was to """""Alter the Theistic value of Mankind"""". The First Adam had failed in his primary purpose he naturally chose to go the way of Mankind not God.
Although its not against the Laws of God to enter into a life of Biological Pro-creation it burdens the nature of our Calling and that is what the Papacy of our church persevered and continues to exalt in the tradition,even if at times some have failed to do it perfectly.


MDN

[maudman]

Seventh Day Adventists place great emphasis on the importance of the Sabbath, and insist on keeping the Old Sabbath. A Catholic on another forum asked about the relevance of the Old sabbath as the SDA's see it. I responded as follows:


A NEW Sabbath has been inaugurated. The reason there are two sabbaths and not just one is probably because salvation history will have TWO sabbaths, and not just one, that is, first an IMPERFECT Sabbath (the OLD one) followed by the true Sabbath (the New One).

Put simply, the imagery of the days of creation, according to several ECFs, is a foreshadowing of the RE-creation of the world, that is, the Redemption of Man. Hence, salvation history is a succession of "ages" or "days", the first part of which is the prevalence of "sin" (darkness, "evening came") followed by Redemption (light, "morning followed"). Then, the imagery implies that, from the Fall of Man to the end of the world and New Creation will be exactly "eight ages" inclusive.

And this agrees with most Catholic data when we assume the general scenario of the approved mystics.

Five ages delineate the Old Law:

I. The Fall/ the Flood
II. Babel/Language Confounding and calling of Abraham
III. Egypt's Enslavement / Exodus and Kingdom of Isreal
IV. Intermediate Jewish Falling Away / Exile and Restoration
V. Second Falling away and OT Antichrist Antiochus / First Coming of Christ

In the sixth day, God "creates" man in His own image, in the sixth age, God RE-creates man in His image by bringing the Gentiles into the light of Christ:

VI. Pagan Rome persecutes / Catholic Christendom

The seventh day is the Old, imperfect Sabbath:

VII. Minor Apostasy (1500 - today) / Glorious Restoration of Catholicism and age of peace (according to mystics)

Hence, in the seventh day there is truly "rest" for God's People, for God will show humanity the consequences of its apostasy through the Minor Chastisement, reuniting Christians and gloriously restoring the faith throughout the world.

Finally, there is the eighth day:

VIII. the Great Apostasy and NT Antichrist / the Second Coming of Christ and New Creation

Note, when humantiy falls away the second time from Catholicism, they no longer have the excuse they have now because of Christian division. They are unforgivable and irredeemable. and so the world must end with the Second Coming, which brings the utlimate Sabbath, the eternal New Creation.

Note also the parallel of the days of the weeks: day "eight" is also day "one", just as the eighth note in a scale in music brings one back to the first note, only one "octave" higher. Similarly, there are parallels between day one and day eight. In day one, the Fall holds reign over humanity (in Noah's day, most of mankind is wicked), unchecked by any Redemption. So God DESTROYS the world and BEGINS the Redemption of humanity. In the eighth day, the Fall once again reigns in humanity (the Gentiles have permanently and irrevocably rejected the Gospel), and again God destroys the world. But so then in the first day God BEGAN the redemption of humanity by using WATER to destroy but also cleanse/redeem the world, so in the eighth day, God ENDS the Redemption by destroying the world by FIRE, condemning it because it is irredeemable and unforgivable. And in both cases, a NEW World begins, the first, a world that is starting to be redeemed. in the eighth, a world that has already been redeemed is passing into the ULTIMATE New World, the everlasting Resurrection and New Creation.



Similarly with the Beast: see Revelation 17: "Five have fallen" (the Old Law). "One is" (Pagan Rome, the sixth), "the other has not yet come" (the seventh , the minor apostasy), "and the beast which was and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes into perdition" (the fallen nature of man is consummate with all the stages of the beast, and the beast "was" (the fall reigned in the first head, unchecked by Redemption), and the beast "is again" in the eighth (the fall reigns again at the end of the world, but this time irredeemable)).

I know this is alot but it'll give them something to think about.

Hello Spauline

I agree with the spirit of your Post, There is a spiritual historicism behind Life itself and I think that this approach is valid.

Have you considered the seven headed beast in a relationship to the seven Spirits of God. That mankind itself created in the image and likeness of God possesses these spirits that are “”universal””. These seven spirits working through the natural man and culminates into the seven headed Beast. The natural man operates and uses the seven spirits of God towards his own means.
The natural man reaches out and operating within the frame work of 10 horns/principles of the social construct. Like say the 10 commandments. But the Ten Commandments are the worship of the beast in its latter form. This is cause by the little horn which is anti-Christ.

In other words, those who use the Ten Commandments to worship and preserve the flesh have skewed off tangent. It could be considered part of the Apostasy and anti-christ. The beast which has the appearance of a Lamb. But the commandments are used towards its’ own end and not that of Christ’s.

Now because the seven heads that are the seven spirits of God are universal and the Church because it is called out of the world still hold the seven spirits, in addition Christ prayed to the Father…. “”that we not be taken out of the world””” So we also operate with the seven spirits of God but with Christ we are given 7 sacred atonements….(Seven sacraments because we are still in the flesh) the atonement shield us from the judgments to come that God allows. Through the millennium the church is sealed with the 7 sacred atonements.

Because the Church uses the seven spirits of God toward Gods end and not as the man of sin toward his own ends the church is Holy, because the Father through Christ seals the Church with the sacred atonements.

The 7 seals revelations of judgment to come upon the seven spirits, 7 trumpets, 7 bowls of wrath is God pouring out judgments for the sins against the seven spirits of God that dwell in man. And this judgment is throughout the entire history of man to the End as a time appointed.

The seven Churches of Revelation administer to the seven spirits of God although they are covered with the 7 sacraments/sacred atonements will also suffer because some in the church are caught unaware. Christ calls us through the tribulation to shore up the seven spirits in us. To line them up with the Gospel, that our seven spirits be refined in the likeness of Christ. Those who use the seven spirits for their own personal gain both Christian and non Christian will suffer. They worship the beast Man, They worship the preservation of their flesh not that which preserve their spirits…. the seven spirits. That Light which lights every man which come into the world.

Peace and God bless.

[spauline]

Gosh, Maudman.

Thank you for your response, but, I'm not really sure of your post. I'll have to look into it more.

but thank you for your support and comments.

scott

[eschaton]

I didn't know God named the days in English.

[eschaton]

I didn't know God named them at all.

I was supposing that our worship day should have something to do with God. You said that we should worship on Sunday because the Sun deserves more attention, and it sounds something like the Son, or something like that. If that's the case, and it has something to do with God, then God must have given the days their names. No? What about Exo 16:23?

23 And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.

Somehow God knew the next day was the rest for the holy sabbath. Is He the only one that knew before He told the Hebrews?

[spauline]

Dear Whacky,

consider this: just as there are 7 days in a week and when you get to the eighth day, you are consummate with the first, so then music, which is part of Divine Revelation, has the same nature: given any key, there are only 7 notes that are in accord with the key, and when you start from any one of those notes and go 8 steps, in the 8th step, you will return to the note you started with. And of the seven possible scales for each of these seven notes, only TWO of them will have a sense of resolution at the eighth step, that is, to have a sense of finality and completeness. And those two are the simplest notes: the one being the primary MAJOR note, the other being the primary MINOR note. and the scale of the MAJOR note shall be a HAPPY scale, and the scale of the MINOR note shall be SAD scale, even as MAJOR and MINOR chords respectively relate to the primary poles of human emotion and experience, the one being JOY and the other being SADNESS and tragedy. And for these we again have to compare two primary essences in theology: when it is all said and done, there are two pole: SIN and GRACE, HELL and HEAVEN, TRAGEDY and VICTORY, the FALL and the REDEMPTION.

Why not then say that the seven days of creation that are extended to eight is a symbol of the eight primary REDEMPTIVE Actions of God in Salvation History that ascend like a musical scale of JOY, and that the seven heads of the beast which are extended to eight, are symbol of the eight stages of the fallen nature, a progressive decline into ultimate depravity.


I don't know, I've been thinkin' 'bout this stuff a long time and seems more and more likely and certain as time goes by! :)

[Ted]

But the Eighth day man isn’t one of them cabalistic traditions. It is in fact a belief of something that has to do with Son of Man not numerology. The creation week isn’t numerology it is simply a numbered sequence and the Son of Man is after in the sequence. Paul is familiar with these understandings of the Israelite culture and he also understood Greek thought having been educated at tarsus.
Paul would never have tolerated numerology, since it is a form of divination. If you trace the “eighth day” language, it comes exclusively from the ANF of Greek neoPlatonist extraction. Thus, any attribution to Hebrew sources is pure speculation. Similarly, placing the son of Man in a creation sequence denies the full conclusion of creation, where it is “very good.” We do not see re-creation until the eschaton, and there in the New Jerusalem. Thus, “eighth day” logic to support Sunday is inherently flawed.

Also Christ kept the Sabbath and so did the Apostles. Christ was fullfiling their(Jewish) Law. Sin was transgression of their Law not the Gentiles. He had to be without sin in their Law and not their preception of it. The Apostle Paul and the Twelve also did but that doesn’t mean a thing because the church in it infancy was going to the Jew first then the Gentile.

When you start trying to justify Sabbatarianism you run into a lot of issues about why certain things were done away with and others were not.
Actually, the problem goes the opposite direction. Let’s list what you must deny:
1. The Sabbath originated in Eden, not Sinai (Gen 2:2-3, Exod 20:11)
2. Abraham observed God’s law, including its details (Gen 26:5)
3. The Sabbath is repeated at Sinai (see “remember” implying a prior status), and written explicitly with God’s own finger.
4. Scripture contains no revocation of the Sabbath. (Unlike “the Law” i.e. Torah, which was changed. See Heb 7)
5. It’s not possible to “fulfill the Law” in a prophetic sense, since it isn’t a prophecy. Similarly, it’s not possible to “fulfill the Sabbath” since it’s not a prophecy.
6. 1 Cor 16:2 is a Jewish practice, based on Sabbath-keeping.
7. Heb 4:9 uses a Greek term that says that “a seventh-day Sabbath keeping remains for the people of God.”
8. Col 2:16 presupposes the current existence of the various festivals and Sabbaths being discussed.
9. Eph 6:1-3 requires that the entire Ten Commandments be in force, including the Sabbath, as of the time of writing.
10. The Bible contains no prescription to observe any other day of the week.
11. There are no scriptural examples of Sunday-keeping.
12. The gospel accounts that list the first day of the week do so only to present confirmatory evidence that Jesus rose on the third day in fulfillment of prophecy.

I think an even dozen should be an adequate start. I’m sure we can find others as we go on.

The new covenant Eighth day man was a type of Adam who now is poised to inherit that which Adam had Lost tempararitly in the Fall. Because the Garden story in many Jewish elitist is about their special creation. They are the Miracle man created by YHWY not Elihym. The LOrd of God not by the God. THey are the work of the Lord and his personal touch.
That’s the most confusing statement I’ve seen in a while. The Bible doesn’t know about “an eighth day man.” And YHWH is an el. El or elohim (plural) is simply the generic description of a celestial being. Thus, YHWH is an el, but being an el doesn’t make one YHWH. Thus, as Paul says (correctly), “there are many gods” (1 Cor 8:5). Jews believed in many gods. Satan was a god, as were Baal, Chemosh, and Dagon. But they were lesser elohim, created by YHWH. That is, he is the highest el, a unique being.

The problem here is our use of language. We think of “god” as meaning only YHWH. But that’s not biblical. el and theos are generic, while YHWH is specific. Now that you understand why the Bible uses language such as “most high god” (Psa 78:35, etc.).

The synagogue central components due to exile were the Prophet and the belief of Abraham promises. Christ speaking to the synagogue Jew is destroying the primary components of that system.
Belief in the promises to Abraham has nothing to do with the synagogue. It has everything to do with the promises of God. Since Jesus is God, he is affirming the promises (see Matt 5:5).

But the Apostle Paul is telling us not to go down that way of Life because in doing so it would bring on us the CURSE of the LAW! But in the new covenant we are compelled to embrace a Father of spiritual procreation not a biological procreation. Leave all material things behind (Wife, Material possessions any thing that would bring the curse of the Law.)
You completely missed the point. Paul affirms that the Law is “just, holy, and good” (Rom 7:12). He firmly upholds it as a standard of behavior. What he condemns is using the Law as the MEANS to salvation. We are doomed to failure. What he commends is using the Law as a response to salvation. In Eph 6:1-3 he declares that the fifth commandment is in force. He notes its specific location in a list. That list occurs ONLY in the Ten Commandments. Therefore, Paul regards the entire Ten Commandments as in force.

Recall that Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15) Thus, the forgiven saint is to endeavor to follow Christ’s instruction. And who gave the Ten Commandments on Sinai? The pre-incarnate Jesus.

I find it curious that so many will spend so much effort to abrogate an inconvenient command of God, but still support bans on theft, adultery, and so on. Logically, you should either support the entire ten, or abrogate them all.

Celibacy is one of the highest forms of denying oneself in the service of our Lord.
You may think that, and Paul does commend it at least once, but Paul explicitly commands all church leaders (bishops/presbuteroi) to be married. Thus, the Roman Catholic practice is directly contrary to scripture.

Pardon me for interrupting this extremely intelligent debate, as I alone am an idiot amongst all you wise people.

This whole sabbath day debate is really not that complicated, in my opinion.

Does God mention anywhere which day They started the creation? I don't think so. I believe it says, "and the evening and the morning" were such and such a day. Unless, it has been altered in newer translations to read, "and Sunday was the first day".

I am a simple man. I do not use a lot of big words, so let's look at this as elementary students.

If you are going to name days to honor planets and objects in the solar system, what day makes the most sense?

Saturday = Saturn's Day
Sunday = Sun's Day
Fortunately, your claim to being an idiot is false. But I can say that you are uninformed. Your use of the day names is anachronistic. The Bible doesn’t know about day names. There are exactly two names used for a day of the week: Sabbath and the preparation. All other examples are simply numbers.

When we look in Exodus 20:8-11, we find that the Bible defines the seventh day as the Sabbath day. Thus, we now need to look to history for verification. There is an aphorism that “The Jews did not keep the Sabbath, the Sabbath kept the Jews.” This speaks to the fact that the Hebrew peoples kept the Sabbath from the earliest times, millennia before the day names you cite, and the keeping of the Sabbath anchored them spiritually and culturally. The ANF all admit that our modern Saturday is the Sabbath day.

The celestial logic you adduce is simply not relevant in any way.

Ted

[maudman]

Paul would never have tolerated numerology, since it is a form of divination. If you trace the “eighth day” language, it comes exclusively from the ANF of Greek neoPlatonist extraction. Thus, any attribution to Hebrew sources is pure speculation. Similarly, placing the son of Man in a creation sequence denies the full conclusion of creation, where it is “very good.” We do not see re-creation until the eschaton, and there in the New Jerusalem. Thus, “eighth day” logic to support Sunday is inherently flawed.



I agree with you in that Paul wouldn’t have accepted numerology especially how some quacks present things and how they have twisted it. But Paul often used analogies. Using numerical references for analogy isn’t the same and metaphors and analogies completely dominate the scripture. Christ said unto you/apostles was given to know the secrets of the kingdom and only they at that time understood the full import or meaning of the new covenant. Pauls address to the gentiles in a letter discussed with the apostles confirm that their only requirement was to abstain from meats sacrifice to Idles and sins of the flesh.

The Catholic church has both a Saturday and Sunday service so it doesn’t wash that the church changed anything because both day’s have the same service to this very day and consistent with ortodox which is older that any faith since both Jews and gentiles worshiped. So if you have a beef with people that call themselves Christian and don’t worship on Saturday you need to exclude the RCC because it does Both. Most prots don’t know that. Most sabbatarians don’t either.

Forsake not the gathering is how it has been dynamically translated. There was no day of rest anymore just a place to meet and discuss and to perform the traditions of the apostles established. Sabbaths in a jewish sense just didn’t exist anymore and that is why Paul is yaacking at some for laying around because their were living as jews. What did Paul tell Peter why do you exhault men to live as the jew when you no longer do it. Because early jews were still sucking milk and hadn’t came to the meat of the Gospel.


te direction. Let’s list what you must deny:
1. The Sabbath originated in Eden, not Sinai (Gen 2:2-3, Exod 20:11)
2. Abraham observed God’s law, including its details (Gen 26:5)
3. The Sabbath is repeated at Sinai (see “remember” implying a prior status), and written explicitly with God’s own finger.
4. Scripture contains no revocation of the Sabbath. (Unlike “the Law” i.e. Torah, which was changed. See Heb 7)
5. It’s not possible to “fulfill the Law” in a prophetic sense, since it isn’t a prophecy. Similarly, it’s not possible to “fulfill the Sabbath” since it’s not a prophecy.
6. 1 Cor 16:2 is a Jewish practice, based on Sabbath-keeping.
7. Heb 4:9 uses a Greek term that says that “a seventh-day Sabbath keeping remains for the people of God.”
8. Col 2:16 presupposes the current existence of the various festivals and Sabbaths being discussed.
9. Eph 6:1-3 requires that the entire Ten Commandments be in force, including the Sabbath, as of the time of writing.
10. The Bible contains no prescription to observe any other day of the week.
11. There are no scriptural examples of Sunday-keeping.
12. The gospel accounts that list the first day of the week do so only to present confirmatory evidence that Jesus rose on the third day in fulfillment of prophecy.

I think an even dozen should be an adequate start. I’m sure we can find others as we go on.


That’s the most confusing statement I’ve seen in a while. The Bible doesn’t know about “an eighth day man.” And YHWH is an el. El or elohim (plural) is simply the generic description of a celestial being. Thus, YHWH is an el, but being an el doesn’t make one YHWH. Thus, as Paul says (correctly), “there are many gods” (1 Cor 8:5). Jews believed in many gods. Satan was a god, as were Baal, Chemosh, and Dagon. But they were lesser elohim, created by YHWH. That is, he is the highest el, a unique being.

The problem here is our use of language. We think of “god” as meaning only YHWH. But that’s not biblical. el and theos are generic, while YHWH is specific. Now that you understand why the Bible uses language such as “most high god” (Psa 78:35, etc.).



You completely missed the point. Paul affirms that the Law is “just, holy, and good” (Rom 7:12). He firmly upholds it as a standard of behavior. What he condemns is using the Law as the MEANS to salvation. We are doomed to failure. What he commends is using the Law as a response to salvation. In Eph 6:1-3 he declares that the fifth commandment is in force. He notes its specific location in a list. That list occurs ONLY in the Ten Commandments. Therefore, Paul regards the entire Ten Commandments as in force.

Recall that Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15) Thus, the forgiven saint is to endeavor to follow Christ’s instruction. And who gave the Ten Commandments on Sinai? The pre-incarnate Jesus.

I find it curious that so many will spend so much effort to abrogate an inconvenient command of God, but still support bans on theft, adultery, and so on. Logically, you should either support the entire ten, or abrogate them all.


You may think that, and Paul does commend it at least once, but Paul explicitly commands all church leaders (bishops/presbuteroi) to be married. Thus, the Roman Catholic practice is directly contrary to scripture.



Ted

Yeah I know it confusing, You are talking to someone who lived for many years as the early church. I kept the Sabbath, the feast days, The holy days and all. The only difference between what I did and the Jew was Christ. I studied most all Hebrew text and language of the first 9 chapter of genesis and I don’t want to go into what really happened in the first chapters of Genesis. I can say thing you that are more confusing than that. But I’ll leave it at that.

The problem is you only see the bible as the only source of truth but that is just the opinion of others and maybe it was the safest for the majority. You can’t blame Rcc for that. The plain truth is the bible is fragments of what people thought is the most important things of our faith. And most of its content was because Jews were the only converts early in the churches history. If Sabbath worship was so plain, Rcc would have never had a Sunday service with a Saturday service. Like I said we do both. Early Jewish convert kept going to the synagogue of the Jew. Some those that could met secretly on Sunday because the Jews for the most part had’t fully come to the knowledge of Christ. Early Christian were persecuted by both Jews and Romans. Early gentile converts met on Sunday, often in secret. They only had that day to worship because they weren’t Jews. Just like many Jews met secretly on the Sabbath because that was there only day of rest from the norms of society. The church worked around the norms of society. That is why Christianity is seen so diverse in the first centuries. They weren’t under a curse but set free.

The entire point of the scripture was to live a life that reflected that you were neither male nor female, jew or greek free or inbondage. That is what the apostle knew… not everyone that was converted. Many became converts for different reasons and nurturing their faith to a point of maturity was their goal. Plain fact of the matter Paul and the apostle believed that because of weaknesses of those called, certain conditions were better for the sake of the believer. The fact was that we neither marry or are given in marriage in the kingdom of God and that was what we are to prepare for. You can start now and work to that ends if you seek to prepare for the life in the kingdom.

So, biological Procreation was out. Paul telling them he would desire for them to be married is just appeasing their spiritual discontent or immaturity. The world was field of harvest now not an Israelite society. The Lord was looking for labors for the harvest not “””Susie homemakers””””. It’s confusing to most but it’s the truth. There were different levels of maturity and the church was trying to help al new converts in their new faith and that is all there is to it, Celibacy from the cares of the world was the ultimate Goal of any Christian. But it was easilier said at times not easily done. New Creature was a new creature not an old one with a different spin.



Concerning Abraham Promises and the synogoue



Tell that to a Jew who just got kicked from the temple and concurred when he can no longer sacrifice for atonement for sins. It was the only thing they had left because atonement was out with no temple and only a synagogue. You may not understand the full import of no temple and the ramification in the national heritage concept.

MDN

[Ted]

The problem is you only see the bible as the only source of truth but that is just the opinion of others and maybe it was the safest for the majority. You can’t blame Rcc for that. The plain truth is the bible is fragments of what people thought is the most important things of our faith
This is simply false. I hold that the Bible contains all that is necessary and sufficient for salvation. As for the origin of the canon, your statement is again false. It is more than clear that the OT canon was settled before Jesus, and His use of it confirms that fact. The NT canon developed as apostles wrote. Their writing were treated by the church as the word of God, since they recognized the authority of the writer and his connection with God as seen in them. Multiple copies were immediately distributed.

By 100 AD, the NT canon was recognized and widely accepted. It is not in any way fragmentary unless you argue for the missing Letter to Laodicea that Paul mentions (Col 4:16). Scholars are divided as to whether that is missing or whether it is one of the extant letters.

I never said that the Bible is the only source of truth. But even limiting ourselves to the OT is sufficient (2 Tim 3:14-15). There is no need for anything the RCC teaches beyond the Bible, and most of what it teaches beyond the Bible is contrary to the Bible.

If Sabbath worship was so plain, Rcc would have never had a Sunday service with a Saturday service.
This demonstrates a lack of understanding of history. The Sabbath was so central to the apostles that they would never have thought to bother instructing anyone about it other than what was already in the scripture. And it’s very clear from history that the shift began about 132AD with the persecution of Hadrian. Sabbath-keeping Christians looked too much like Jews, so the church began looking for ways to avoid being persecuted as Jews. For a while, both Sabbath and Sunday were used, then Sabbath was dropped. It’s only in modern times that there has been any focus on anything other than Sunday in the RCC.

So, biological Procreation was out. Paul telling them he would desire for them to be married is just appeasing their spiritual discontent or immaturity.
That stands directly contrary to Paul’s arguments. You should withdraw such a statement. Paul explicitly commands bishops to be married using the word dei to say that “it is necessary.” This is not a concession to weakness.

Your argument about no procreation is also flawed. Adam and Eve, before the fall, were to procreate, and God found that “very good.” Certainly 1 Cor 7 discusses celibacy. But Paul explicitly says that “I” say certain things about remaining celibate, then in verse 10 switches to instruction “from the Lord.” Thus, Paul recognizes that celibacy can allow one to serve in mission, but it’s not a divine command.

I must say it is interesting to se RCC apologists dance around the clear prescriptions of God.

Ted

[maudman]

This is simply false. I hold that the Bible contains all that is necessary and sufficient for salvation. As for the origin of the canon, your statement is again false. It is more than clear that the OT canon was settled before Jesus, and His use of it confirms that fact. The NT canon developed as apostles wrote. Their writing were treated by the church as the word of God, since they recognized the authority of the writer and his connection with God as seen in them. Multiple copies were immediately distributed.

By 100 AD, the NT canon was recognized and widely accepted. It is not in any way fragmentary unless you argue for the missing Letter to Laodicea that Paul mentions (Col 4:16). Scholars are divided as to whether that is missing or whether it is one of the extant letters.

I never said that the Bible is the only source of truth. But even limiting ourselves to the OT is sufficient (2 Tim 3:14-15). There is no need for anything the RCC teaches beyond the Bible, and most of what it teaches beyond the Bible is contrary to the Bible.


This demonstrates a lack of understanding of history. The Sabbath was so central to the apostles that they would never have thought to bother instructing anyone about it other than what was already in the scripture. And it’s very clear from history that the shift began about 132AD with the persecution of Hadrian. Sabbath-keeping Christians looked too much like Jews, so the church began looking for ways to avoid being persecuted as Jews. For a while, both Sabbath and Sunday were used, then Sabbath was dropped. It’s only in modern times that there has been any focus on anything other than Sunday in the RCC.


That stands directly contrary to Paul’s arguments. You should withdraw such a statement. Paul explicitly commands bishops to be married using the word dei to say that “it is necessary.” This is not a concession to weakness.

Your argument about no procreation is also flawed. Adam and Eve, before the fall, were to procreate, and God found that “very good.” Certainly 1 Cor 7 discusses celibacy. But Paul explicitly says that “I” say certain things about remaining celibate, then in verse 10 switches to instruction “from the Lord.” Thus, Paul recognizes that celibacy can allow one to serve in mission, but it’s not a divine command.

I must say it is interesting to se RCC apologists dance around the clear prescriptions of God.

Ted


Here again Historically the Christian faith in the beginning was diverse, it was as you say. But only prior to gentile conversions was Sabbath kept as you say, only if certain gentiles had a freedom to worship was the Sabbath consistent with a old testament Sabbath. Slaves and poor within the gentile culture wouldn’t have had any privileges of demanding the worship of their God. And it would have never been at their request. Only a Roman might could have worship on both day’s and only if he was single and could walk away from his family. All your statements Ted reflect diversity not absolutes. Yes Jewish Converts often worshiped on the Sabbath. The apostle’s messages “”most”” often times reflected the particular needs of those they wrote to and not as general church requirements. They were preserving those who believed and mostly those who believed were those in society who’s “”Hope”” and “”willingness”” to accept because their existing state was seen as “”hopeless”” Most the majority couldn’t read and understand and the church always took care of their needs. The Law such as sabbath could never be an obstacle in the new Covenant.


Christian faith was new on the seen and scripture reflects that. Many Christians look at scripture where it says “”believe on his name”” But is that the same for false christ’s and False teachers who teach falsely In the name of Christ? In Christianity’s birth Christ was Christ, but not after false teachers.


The bible contains communication of a message and its message is often specific to Problems and disbelief of individuals or a groups. Yes we can draw from some things as General but not all. All things new! “It addresses things for those who don’t “”Get IT””. They weren’t issues for the majority of the Leadership of the church but those of little Faith or for those confused….. often babes in Christ. The Apostles weren’t sitting around trying to understand the Mechanics of their faith. They knew what they believed.

To the gentile certain things are said and done for their belief in Christ for the Jews the same approach. It was all for Maintaining faith in Christ. They are addressing cultural and religious hang-ups. They are trying to preserve the faith of the Christian while at the same time understanding that there needed to be lots of Growth.

Creating general and sweeping accusations using certain texts often is out of context of that society and social reforms and claims that contradict most of Christian history. The scripture you have is the by product of those you say are wrong…... They kept it, they preserved it and you say they are wrong? Ours probably has more books than yours and You can invent reasons why they should or shouldn’t be there.

Paul’s statements and the Apostles reflect that there is a better way and often their statements are towards that End. The Spirit of Paul’s statements are consistently toward be like him “”Unmarried”” Neither jew or Greek, rich or poor, free or slave and neither MALE or FEMALE. But he also believes that God called some as they were and if married they should remain married because they have weakness in the flesh…….. That goes for Bishops and Lay persons. It has nothing to do with right or wrong but what is better for the church and that individual. Paul clearly states that temporal Marriages divided us against our calling Plain and simple. Celibacy was better for both lay peoples and church leaders but not all converts because of the weaknesses of the flesh had little strength against the BURN. Later the church required those of authority to remain celebate and only such persons were allowed to have authority. Why better for the CHurch iof you understand part of the problems in the CHurch and how marriages to social crats were effecting certain things in the church.




Limiting oneself to the Old Testament may have been fine for the Jew and his religious Beliefs and verification of Prophetic fulfillments but gentiles that couldn’t read often converted for different reasons than Jewish prophetic fulfillment. And often times Jewish Law wasn’t any different than Gentile on the social Norms. God wasn’t restricting conversions to the Christian faith on the Israelite religion. Faith wasn’t a Jewish thing but also a gentile thing.
The Roman soldier was found to have Greater faith than any in Israel (even the Apostles are present when Christ make that claim at that time) and he (Roman) knew nothing about the Old Testament and his God was Pagan. You don’t truly understand Abraham’s faith therefore you don’t understand the Roman soldier’s faith. Faith before there was the Law of Moses which helped to establish Israel as a national Identity in a kingdom.

Paul clearly states that Abraham was faithful before there was a Law. There wasn’t Prophets proclaiming anything and there wasn’t any National Israel. Those gentile conversions took root on things that had nothing to do with Old Testament Law about Prophets and National Israel.


Ted

There are threads here that quote scripture proof-text to counter your scripture and proof-text on the Sabbath issue. You can find and read them it really is not in my interest to convince you of things of such. Your and SDA or one of those that bitterly Left the Worldwide church of God after it changed toward Sunday worship.

Ted I just don’t buy your arguments for Sabbath worship, that all the bishops and lay people worshipping that their isn’t a great debate within the Church history that could convey such an event only minor heresy. But then again it really isn’t about Sabbath is it TED it is about Prophecy. When it comes right down to it your prophetic message only works if Christians were suppose to be Jews with a Christian message.

MDN

[eschaton]

Whacky,
What is the Gospel of Peace? Marcion's list contained all the books of the NT except three or four didn't it?

Actually, Marcion's list was an alternative to those books in use at the time. It was the Muratorian list that had all except Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and James. Supposedly it goes back to 170, but that's disputed.

[Ted]

Here again Historically the Christian faith in the beginning was diverse, it was as you say. But only prior to gentile conversions was Sabbath kept as you say, only if certain gentiles had a freedom to worship was the Sabbath consistent with a old testament Sabbath.
Here you speak without knowledge. Bacchiocchi and Odom have done complete reviews of the extant literature of that era, and that literature confirms that the early church did in fact keep the Sabbath, regardless of anything the modern Roman Church would like you to think. I’m not going to repeat their work here, as it is far too voluminous for a discussion board.

Christian faith was new on the seen and scripture reflects that.
Again, you speak without knowledge. Paul, the most prolific apostle and promoter of the church tells us that his work was “for the sake of Israel” (Acts 28:20). The early church was known as “the Way” (Acts 19:9, 23; 24:14, 22), which was considered the Jews considered to be a Jewish sect (Acts 24:12-14).

As you consider the entire testimony of the NT, you’ll find it quite clear that the Jesus considered Himself to be the restoration of true Judaism (John 3:3, etc.) and that the apostles considered themselves to be the continuation of that ministry. The term used for the church, ekklesia, is the same term the LXX uses for the Israelites in the wilderness (Deut 23:1, cf. Acts 7:38).

The Apostles weren’t sitting around trying to understand the Mechanics of their faith.
True. And I have to laugh. Paul is the greatest theologian in the epistles. But I’ve heard it said that he wouldn’t understand the concept of systematic theology.

The scripture you have is the by product of those you say are wrong…... They kept it, they preserved it and you say they are wrong?
You don’t use the words, but imply that the RCC is responsible for preserving the scriptures for us. That’s blatantly false. The RCC had no hand whatever in the creation of the canon. The canon of scripture created the church at large, because it conveyed the word of God. And the canon was recognized widely at least a century before a council ratified the facts on the ground.

Further, the scriptures had to be wrestled away from the RCC so the common man could have them. The Bible was a banned book. Reconcile that with the gospel if you can.

Paul’s statements and the Apostles reflect that there is a better way and often their statements are towards that End. The Spirit of Paul’s statements are consistently toward be like him “”Unmarried”” Neither jew or Greek, rich or poor, free or slave and neither MALE or FEMALE. But he also believes that God called some as they were and if married they should remain married because they have weakness in the flesh…….. That goes for Bishops and Lay persons. It has nothing to do with right or wrong but what is better for the church and that individual. Paul clearly states that temporal Marriages divided us against our calling Plain and simple. Celibacy was better for both lay peoples and church leaders but not all converts because of the weaknesses of the flesh had little strength against the BURN. Later the church required those of authority to remain celebate and only such persons were allowed to have authority. Why better for the CHurch iof you understand part of the problems in the CHurch and how marriages to social crats were effecting certain things in the church.
Now you are placing scripture against scripture, wrestling one out of context. The command that bishops be married is exactly that: a command. It is not to be changed. The suggestion that traveling ministers would be better off unmarried is not at that level. In context, Paul is saying that his unmarried state (and contentment with it) promotes his duties as a traveling evangelist. Marriage and family would place the proper duties of a father in tension with the time away from home to evangelize.

God wasn’t restricting conversions to the Christian faith on the Israelite religion. Faith wasn’t a Jewish thing but also a gentile thing.
The Roman soldier was found to have Greater faith than any in Israel (even the Apostles are present when Christ make that claim at that time) and he (Roman) knew nothing about the Old Testament and his God was Pagan. You don’t truly understand Abraham’s faith therefore you don’t understand the Roman soldier’s faith.
What does the faith of the centurion have to do with anything we’ve been discussing?

And don’t accuse me of not understanding faith, either of Jew, Gentile, or Abraham. Such an accusation is beneath you.

Ted I just don’t buy your arguments for Sabbath worship,
That is your privilege. I’ve shown how the arguments against Sabbath-keeping (note: I did not say Sabbath worship) are all unscriptural and fail the test of history. What you do with those facts is up to you.

When it comes right down to it your prophetic message only works if Christians were suppose to be Jews with a Christian message.
You are talking right past me. I haven’t got a clue what you mean. If you read my work on prophecy, you’ll see that there is a clear continuity throughout scripture, and that it’s impossible to understand prophecy without a solid grounding in the Hebrew cultus. At the same time, look at my work in Revelation. Where do I declare that the Sabbath is a central issue? Where to I rail against the RCC? Yes, I do see the RCC on the wrong side at the end, but it’s not the center of the story.

Jesus said, "Seek not the law in your Scriptures for the law is life, whereas the Scripture is dead. I tell you truly Moses received not his laws from God as writing but through the living word. The law is living word for living God to living prophets for living men. In everything that is life to the law is the law written, for I tell you truly all living things are nearer to God than the Scripture which is without life. I tell you truly that the Scripture is the work of man, but life and all its hosts are the work of our God. Wherefore do you not listen to the words of God which are written in his works? And wherefore do you study the dead Scriptures which are from the hands of men?" (Gospel of Peace)

I hold that you just called Jesus a liar. Or, do you have the authority to pick and choose which sayings of Jesus are True, and which are false? I don't think you are. Jesus referred to this as "hidden manna"; given by Him to the "one who overcomes". This and hundreds of other sayings of Jesus are not in your so-called "sufficient" canon. I double dare you to say it is a lie.

I found this at http://www.thenazareneway.com/index_essene_gospels_of_peace.htm
It was in 1928 that Edmond Bordeaux Szekely (pronounced Say-Kay) first published his translation of The Essene Gospel of Peace, an ancient manuscript discovered in the Secret Archives of the Vatican as the result of limitless patience, faultless scholarship, and unerring intuition.
This should tell us immediately that we should not regard the “Gospel of Peace” as authentic. We can’t even be sure it was from the Essenes. Josephus, whatever his flaws, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are much better sources. But that’s not the real issue.

You are declaring that the “Gospel of Peace” is authentic. You are either placing yourself as the authority, or you are accepting the authority of the RCC (assuming it has blessed this book as authentic). Neither is acceptable. The canonical scriptures are such because of two key facts. First, they contain the power of God. Second, the early church recognized them as of apostolic origin and containing the power of God. As I have stated before, the canon established itself through the distributed acceptance of the church at large.

As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven-- things into which angels long to look.
For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased "-- and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Let us be clear about this. Your “Gospel of Peace” directly contradicts the Bible. Thus, we cannot rely on it for guidance about anything. Let’s consider the facts.

Your “Gospel of Peace” says that the OT is merely “the work of men.” But Paul says that it is “inspired by God” (the Greek literally says “God=breathed). Peter says that “no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will.” This leaves us with a choice. You can believe the apostles, or you can believe the “Gospel of Piece.” Presumably, professing to be Christian, you believe that the apostles told the truth. After all, they were inspired by God, who cannot lie. And, BTW, Peter is supposedly the founder of your church. Don’t you think you ought to listen to him?

I think you can see that I’m not declaring what the authentic words of Jesus were. Rather, I’m agreeing with the power in the gospel as felt by centuries of Christians around the world, the power that identified the source of the writings. But let us not stop there.

Jesus repeatedly used the formula “Is it not written in the Law?” or its alternate “It is written” as the source for the authority for His statements. If the Savior found the written word sufficient authority, don’t you think you should as well?

I’ve pounded this enough. You insist that we have to go outside the Bible for authority. But you proffer authority that is not only beyond the Bible, it contradicts it. That places you in opposition to God incarnate, who declared in person and through His servants that the written word was “sufficient for wisdom unto salvation” (2 Tim 3:15).

It’s time for you to make a decision. Will stand for God or against Him?

Ted

[maudman]

What does the faith of the centurion have to do with anything we’ve been discussing?

And don’t accuse me of not understanding faith, either of Jew, Gentile, or Abraham. Such an accusation is beneath you.



Ted

Hello Ted

This is a good place to narrow something down to understand the differences in approach. Faith needs to be addressed.

The romans Faith

It has everything to do with it. Because no Greater Faith was found in all Israel. A Man who's God was Probably Pagan. If you recall how the Most Jew's despised and hated the Roman.

The Roman new somthing true about LIfe and that was Authority,. Not scripture, That was his Faith! The new covenant was really a level playing field. The Jew was called first thats all he had a leg up on his religion about the truth of God and its prophetic fullfilment. And when the formal traditions in the church was setup without the Threat of Persecussion RCC & OC reflect the traditions which have been consistant through out history. It reflect the ancient Israelite synagogue and temple worship in a single entity. WE have the Roman to thank for that, They had preserved the tradition. I see you don't venture over into the other forums much in systematic theology and there are reasons.

Concerning your comments on how the church forbid scriptures.

Ted your mislead on the Churches approach, the Church never kept scripture out of the hands of lay people or anybody accept in rare occasions.

1. Lay people were never educated enough to read unless he was entering a life of celebacy. The Church was the only place to bypass social restraints.
2. Printed texted as we see it today didn't happen until the printing press so few had it and even fewer could read and understand.
3 On rare occasions, and there are Three times I think to be exact where the Church forbid scripture reading, and it was in certain venaculars, In certain territories. They didn't jive with the Latin and heresy had resulted. The nuances of Language where trecherous barriers at times.
The Church never had any general restrictions of reading or possesing bibles. Only in a few instances is there even a case of such behavoir and it was because of poor translations.

Because Catholics aren't sola Scripture your always going to have problems. We believe the holy Spirit interprets Schripture not human desire to justify itself or understand Ted. Faith of the roman Soildier wasn't from the Bible but it is true that the Bible does testify of such faith.

[eschaton]

Whacky,

I don't think you are playing fair. You can't just take any document that claims to be from Jesus and accept it as authentic. I think it's right to stick to the recognized canon that is agreed upon by the fathers of the church. If you go outside of that you should present some good reasons for doing so. It's not fair to say Ted is calling Jesus a liar.

The NT was quoted by many saints and martyrs in the first 200 hundred years of the church, and their writings are available to us today. The NT could be completely reconstructed from their writings. Jesus said not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all is fulfilled (Mat 5:18)

[eschaton]

Whacky,

The eschatology forum is supposed to be for orthodox Christians. That's what it says in the guidelines. When you express support for Marcion you are agreeing with one of the oldest heretics and leaders of gnosticism.

As for the Gospel of Peace, the writer or translator was a vegetarian who claims all early Christians were vegetarians. He claims he found the text in the vatican library. It seems strange that he is the only one that knows about it. There aren't any valid scholars that talk about it.

[Secretary of Funk Jnthn]

This forum is for Theists only. If in any doubt about eligibility to participate, please check the "read me" sticky at the top of the forum

[Ted]

And when the formal traditions in the church was setup without the Threat of Persecussion RCC & OC reflect the traditions which have been consistant through out history.
This is simply false. Papal declarations rely on “the unanimous consent of the fathers.” That “unanimous consent” exists on very few issues. Probably the ONLY one is that Jesus was the messiah, virgin born, who died on a cross and rose the third day. After that, there is huge disagreement on almost everything.

Next time you are tempted to think that your position is true, be like Eschaton, and actually read the ANF. They were bitterly divided on the idea that Mary was the mother of God. They were bitterly divided on perpetual virginity. The idea of the immaculate conception and the bodily assumption were other dividing concepts. Until you actually do this legwork, don’t bother trying to get us to believe such nonsense.

Ted your mislead on the Churches approach, the Church never kept scripture out of the hands of lay people or anybody accept in rare occasions.
Let’s see:
1199, Pope Innocent III banned all translations into French. Of course, at the time, the only Bibles were in Latin (the Vulgate) and only select clergy had access.
1229, Council of Toulouse, Canon 14. “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament… we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”
1234, Council of Tarragona, Canon 2. “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language.”
1408, Third Synod of Oxford, England. “It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another… (unless) approved by the Provincial Council, … (possessors of translations) shall be punished as an abettor of heresy and error.”
1559, Index Librorum Prohibitorum The Bible was allowed “for the use of learned and pious men only.”
1713, Clement XI Unigenitus. Finally blesses the reading of the Bible by the laity.

This list covers about 500 years. I guess that’s a rare occasion.

Ted