Did God Die on the Cross? Part 1

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

I know it sounds judgmental, but no, I don't.  Neither of them consider Jesus to be God; so how can they be Christian. In addition,  I don't consider any religion (or individual) that puts someone else's musings on an equal or or higher basis than the Scriptures to be a true Christian religion.

Anticipating your next question - no; Ido not consider Adventism to be outside the pale of Christianity because of EGW.  I will admit that certain SDA's who do put EGW's writings on par with scripture may be outside the pale.

You seem to take issue with people who are not traditional Trinitarians. I'm one of those people - kinda.  I don't believe that the Holy Spirit is a Person like the Father or Jesus; but I do believe that the Holy Spirit is an integral part of God (i.e., God would not be who He is without the power of the Holy Spirit.)  Does that make sense; or does that put me outside of the pale of traditional Christianity in your opinion?

Alright, here is my logic chain.

Joseph Smith wrote the Mormon Articles of Faith and #1 just happens to be;

"We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost" (  http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/articles_faith.htm   ).

The Mormons baptize individuals by saying it's done "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost". Latter Day Saints FULLY believe in the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (LDS Teaching about the Godhead -  http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/godhead/index.htm       )

I could go on but I'm thinking you see where I'm going with this. If Mormons believe in the divinity of Jesus, have as their first Article of Faith that they believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and baptize using the standard formula than something else must be going on here, right? 

Would you agree that it's something deeper or different about Mormonism that has you judging them to not be Christian? Saying Jesus has a divine nature certainly has them attributing the Godhead to Jesus. 

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, JoeMo said:

So who has the authority to delegate Christ's authority?  Christ or some man?  Both Catholic and Adventist leaders have been corrupted.

For me, the authority for Christian standards is Christ.  If any "authority" preaches anything contrary to the Bible ( as far as salvational issues are concerned), then in my opinion, they are not "in authority".  But hey, I'm pretty much of a rebel.

I very much appreciated your candid comment about devotion to Mary.  Thank you for being honest and open.

I didn't agree with you equating it to keeping the 7th day Sabbath. At least there is biblical justification (like a commandment) for keeping the Sabbath.  Where it gets "iffy" is when people think it is the only commandment worth keeping.

 

The Authority was given to Christ to delegated it to His Apostles. This took place in Matthew 16, 18, Matthew 18, 18. According to Scripture this authority was passed on by the laying on of hands. 

The problem appears not to be "the Bible" but the interpretation of the Bible - you may have something YOU BELIEVE is a "salvational issue" yet to another person it doesn't even show up on their radar. This is the whole point of Acts Chapter 15 - the folks who insisted that Gentiles become circumcised AND observe the law of Moses believed to be saved one absolutely had to do this. As we know some people who advocated Gentiles observing "the law" didn't like what the Church Authority said - they left and became the Ebionites. 

Would you say that the Ebionites were within their Christian Liberty to reject what the Christian Church decided and laid down as law in Acts Chapter 15? 

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I think it comes from Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31.  "The evening and the morning were the first day", second day, third day etc. etc. Essentially "night and day" with the day - sun lighted hours, following the night - without sunlight. 

Then there's Leviticus 23:32, which in context is speaking about the Day of Atonement, but it fits the evening start. 

Leviticus 23:32 "It is a day of sabbath rest for you, and you must deny yourselves. From the evening of the ninth day of the month until the following evening you are to observe your sabbath." (NIV) 

It doesn't - and any educated Jew will tell you this. 

There is NO command in Scripture you are to start observing the Sabbath day on the evening of the 6th day such as you find for the Day of Atonement.

 

"Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the Lord your God. For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. And whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people. Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath." Leviticus 23, 27

On the tenth day of the seventh Month is the day of atonement - religious observance of the 10th day starts on the evening of the proceeding day. IF the ancient Hebrews understood the tenth day to begin on the evening of the 9th day there wouldn't be any need of the specialized instructions for observing the day of atonement. 

This has been known by Jews since before the birth of Christ - it's simply "RELIGIOUS TRADITION" or "ORAL TORAH". The Pharisees really did sit on Moses' seat and as Jesus clearly said to His disciples and the crowds [prior to Jesus' death & resurrection]. Do whatsoever they tell you to do - reason being they had the religious authority to MAKE BINDING religious laws. Jesus warned to do whatsoever they bid because of this and warned to NOT DO AS THEY DID - because the Pharisees preached but did not practice what they preached. 

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Speaking of the religious "authorities" of His day, Christ said:

Matthew 15:3  He answered, 'And why do you break away from the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, "Honour your father and your mother" and "Anyone who curses his father or mother will be put to death." 5 But you say, "If anyone says to his father or mother: Anything I might have used to help you is dedicated to God, 6 he is rid of his duty to father or mother." In this way you have made God's word ineffective by means of your tradition.' (NJB)

Mark 7:9 And he said to them, 'How ingeniously you get round the commandment of God in order to preserve your own tradition! (NJB)

Mark 7:13 In this way you make God's word ineffective for the sake of your tradition which you have handed down. And you do many other things like this.' (NJB)

So much for traditional interpretations

If the religious authorities of Christ's day were corrupt, why not later religious authorities? 

There are traditions outside of Sacred Traditions - Jesus was referring to those kinds of traditions. See my above post which answers this question.

 

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Would you agree that it's something deeper or different about Mormonism that has you judging them to not be Christian? Saying Jesus has a divine nature certainly has them attributing the Godhead to Jesus. 

In my studies with Mormons several years ago, they told me that Jesus is God's Son; but He is not on the same level as the Father.  In fact, they believe that Jesus and satan are brothers.  That alone to me disqualifies them as Christians.  If Jesus and satan are brothers, do Mormons consider them both to be gods?

If I remember correctly, Mormons believe that if people are faithful Mormons, in the next life they will also be "little g" gods running their own little kingdoms.

Going by memory here; can't give any Book of Mormon or Pearl of Great Price references.

What we think doesn't matter.  It's what God thinks that matters.

[JoeMo]

30 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Would you say that the Ebionites were within their Christian Liberty to reject what the Christian Church decided and laid down as law in Acts Chapter 15? 

As a staunch believer in religious liberty, I would say they have the right to believe or reject whatever they want.  If I remember correctly, even though the Ebionites believed Jesus was the Messiah, they did not believe He was God; and they only accepted parts of the NT.  Info on them is kinda scarce.  I don't think they even exist anymore.  But - IMHO, if they reject the divinity of Christ, they aren't Christians.  But as I said earlier, it doesn't matter what I think; it matters what God thinks.  I only see them from the outside; God sees their hearts.

[Gustave]

5 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

In my studies with Mormons several years ago, they told me that Jesus is God's Son; but He is not on the same level as the Father.  In fact, they believe that Jesus and satan are brothers.  That alone to me disqualifies them as Christians.  If Jesus and satan are brothers, do Mormons consider them both to be gods?

If I remember correctly, Mormons believe that if people are faithful Mormons, in the next life they will also be "little g" gods running their own little kingdoms.

Going by memory here; can't give any Book of Mormon or Pearl of Great Price references.

What we think doesn't matter.  It's what God thinks that matters.

Exactly, you got more into the "fine print" of what they actually believe - what they reject is that God IS ONE SUBSTANCE that is co-equally owned by 3 distinct Persons. 

Yes, they believe that they will become God's in their own right and Lord over their own (to be determined) planet in the universe. 

They believe that Father God "came down" as a man and bred Mary (in the traditional physical sense) and THAT was what produced Jesus. 

So, you would agree that a religion simply saying something that sounds Orthodox doesn't make it Orthodox if after peeling the onion back you realize the group has different definitions for terms long ago established and universalized. Do you agree with this?

[Gustave]

2 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

As a staunch believer in religious liberty, I would say they have the right to believe or reject whatever they want.  If I remember correctly, even though the Ebionites believed Jesus was the Messiah, they did not believe He was God; and they only accepted parts of the NT.  Info on them is kinda scarce.  I don't think they even exist anymore.  But - IMHO, if they reject the divinity of Christ, they aren't Christians.  But as I said earlier, it doesn't matter what I think; it matters what God thinks.  I only see them from the outside; God sees their hearts.

That's right, there was no "new testament" at that time - just a large collection of letters, epistles and writings purporting to be from the Apostles or people close to the inner circle of Jesus. 

St. Justin mentions two Jewish Christian sects who refused to give up observing The Law. One sect REQUIRED new members to be circumcised and observe The Law while the other sect observed The Law themselves but didn't require converts to observe it. Justin stated that the sect which claimed The Law was universally obligatory was considered to be heretical and the other sect he himself would hold communion with. 

I don't have any proof of this but suspect that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is an outgrowth of the Ebionites as they strictly follow Kosher dietary laws, observe the Sabbath and faithfully meet each Sunday for Divine Liturgy. They claim their tradition for doing this extends back to the 1st century and they may well be right. 

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, Gustave said:

So, you would agree that a religion simply saying something that sounds Orthodox doesn't make it Orthodox if after peeling the onion back you realize the group has different definitions for terms long ago established and universalized. Do you agree with this?

I do have to agree with this in general; but there are exceptions. Sometimes, peeling the onion leads people to new truth just because something is "Orthodox" (old and respected tradition from the past) doesn't make it correct.  An example would be that in the 14th century, the "orthodox" opinion was that the world was flat. They were wrong.

or·tho·dox

adjective

(of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

[Gustave]

3 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I do have to agree with this in general; but there are exceptions. Sometimes, peeling the onion leads people to new truth just because something is "Orthodox" (old and respected tradition from the past) doesn't make it correct.  An example would be that in the 14th century, the "orthodox" opinion was that the world was flat. They were wrong.

or·tho·dox

adjective

(of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

LOL! I have to concede to you there.

[8thdaypriest]

12 hours ago, Gustave said:

They believe that Father God "came down" as a man and bred Mary (in the traditional physical sense) and THAT was what produced Jesus. 

That's interesting.  NT says the Holy Spirit fathered Jesus. 

Matthew 1:20 "But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."

That makes the Holy Spirit the Father of Jesus.  Jesus did say, "God is spirit." 

 

[8thdaypriest]

13 hours ago, Gustave said:

There is NO command in Scripture you are to start observing the Sabbath day on the evening of the 6th day such as you find for the Day of Atonement.

If the very first "day" began with evening, why wouldn't all "days" from then on begin at dusk?

Why would not the very first 7th day rest begin at dusk, after God had created all evening/morning of the 24 hour period preceding.

Or do you believe the Sabbath should be kept holy only during daylight hours?

[8thdaypriest]

13 hours ago, Gustave said:

So, you would agree that a religion simply saying something that sounds Orthodox doesn't make it Orthodox if after peeling the onion back you realize the group has different definitions for terms long ago established and universalized. Do you agree with this?

No.

Because the "Catholic" religion has defined itself as the only "established" (by Christ) purveyor of truth - doesn't make that so.

It makes no difference (to the truth) just when that religious body came to power - 320AD, 1844, or last week. 

Because the Catholic religious empire kept a strangle hold on the Christian Church for 1200 years, does not validate every doctrine she sought to establish. 

Sola Scriptura

 

 

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

No.

Because the "Catholic" religion has defined itself as the only "established" (by Christ) purveyor of truth - doesn't make that so.

It makes no difference (to the truth) just when that religious body came to power - 320AD, 1844, or last week. 

Because the Catholic religious empire kept a strangle hold on the Christian Church for 1200 years, does not validate every doctrine she sought to establish. 

Sola Scriptura

 

 

God defined the Catholic Church as the only purveyor of truth - & that makes it so.

 ^"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1 Timothy 3, 15

That's a definite article there (THE Truth).

Question is WHAT CHURCH?

If you were Orthodox you'd have a valid line of succession back to the Apostles. I'm not seeing that.

 

[8thdaypriest]

"By their fruits you will know them."

Fruits: 

Approval of the use of images in worship (You shall not make unto thee any graven images.  You shall not bow down to them.)

prayer to the dead (saints),  (Communication with the dead was strictly forbidden in the Torah on pain of death.)

literal Tran-substitution in the Mass  (Jesus said, "It is finished."  He cannot be offered again and again.  No man can create his Creator)

baptism of infants,   ("Repent and be baptized".  Infants cannot repent, therefore they should not be baptized.  One does not inherit the sin.  Sin spread to all, because all sinned - not because they inherited Adam's sin.)

killing whole populations of people who do not agree with your doctrines (Waldensian) 

using military force to subdue other peoples - like the Francs, and forcing them to adopt the doctrine of the Trinity

Conquering and confiscating lands for "the church" 

infallibility of an elected Pope, who dictates church doctrine 

confession to a priest,  receiving absolution from a priest, 

changing the LORD's appointed times to alternate days - Sabbath to Sunday, Easter, Christmas, etc. etc. etc.

teaching the sinless conception of Mary herself, her subsequent sinless-ness, her ascension into Heaven, and her intercession for sinners

teaching that our God is a Trinity

 

[8thdaypriest]

Gustave,

I am not as studied as you, in history and religions.  Probably not as practiced at apologetics.  I would even say you're smarter than I am.   I don't even have a degree in Theology.  I just study the Bible.  I do read commentaries.  If they fit what Scripture says, then I can agree with that commentator. 

2 hours ago, Gustave said:

If you were Orthodox you'd have a valid line of succession back to the Apostles. I'm not seeing that.

Trouble I see with this statement, is that you cannot prove the "valid line of succession".   It's all your traditions. 

Even the supposed appointment of Peter as the first "head of the church" is without Scripture support.  It just doesn't fit what Jesus told Peter.

The "rock" upon which His church would be built - the "foundation stone" - at first rejected, was Jesus the Christ the Son of the Living God, not Peter. 

When Christ ascended, there were many, many believers standing there on the Mt of Olives - not just the 11 disciples.  Christ told all of them to "go" and "make disciples of all men, baptizing them". 

Here's Peter himself.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure.  . . .

same letter continued:   1 Peter 2:1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, 2 like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, 3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord. 4 And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in Scripture: "Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, And he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed." . . . . 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."  (NAS)

Peter is not even writing to Jews.  He's writing to Gentile converts.  Because he says "you were not a people, but now you are." 

This "people" are ALL being built up "a spiritual house, a holy priesthood".  So not special exclusive priesthood which must prove succession back to the original 12.

Peter obviously believes that Christ is the "living stone" - the "choice stone" - the "precious corner stone", upon which the church is built.  Certainly he does not believe the church is built upon himself. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave:  It is well established that, even in the present day, orthodox Jews begin the Sabbath at sundown, on Friday evening and end the Sabbath at sundown on Saturday evening.  [Note:  I am  using the names of the  days that are commonly used in the English speaking world.]   Those same Orthodox will tell you that the reason for beginning the Sabbath on Friday evening is based on the Genesis story that has the creation days beginning with the evening of what we would call the following day.

If you want to tell us that Reform Jews do not begin the Sabbath on Friday at sundown, I would respond that they may celebrate the Sabbath on the day that we have named Sunday.

Certainly there are Jewish groups that fit between the Orthodox and the Reform.  

Further, even today, any Orthodox Jew will tell you that the Day of Atonement begins at sundown of what we would call the preceding day.

We can debate as to whether or not Scripture is explicit as to the exact time to begin the Sabbath.  But, for Orthodox Jews, that beginning was at sundown on Friday, and that same orthodox Jew would trace that back to the creation story in Genesis. 

Quote from Gustave:

Quote

It doesn't - and any educated Jew will tell you this. 

There is NO command in Scripture you are to start observing the Sabbath day on the evening of the 6th day such as you find for the Day of Atonement.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Gustave,

I am not as studied as you, in history and religions.  Probably not as practiced at apologetics.  I would even say you're smarter than I am.   I don't even have a degree in Theology.  I just study the Bible.  I do read commentaries.  If they fit what Scripture says, then I can agree with that commentator. 

Trouble I see with this statement, is that you cannot prove the "valid line of succession".   It's all your traditions. 

Even the supposed appointment of Peter as the first "head of the church" is without Scripture support.  It just doesn't fit what Jesus told Peter.

The "rock" upon which His church would be built - the "foundation stone" - at first rejected, was Jesus the Christ the Son of the Living God, not Peter. 

When Christ ascended, there were many, many believers standing there on the Mt of Olives - not just the 11 disciples.  Christ told all of them to "go" and "make disciples of all men, baptizing them". 

Here's Peter himself.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure.  . . .

same letter continued:   1 Peter 2:1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, 2 like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, 3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord. 4 And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in Scripture: "Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, And he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed." . . . . 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."  (NAS)

Peter is not even writing to Jews.  He's writing to Gentile converts.  Because he says "you were not a people, but now you are." 

This "people" are ALL being built up "a spiritual house, a holy priesthood".  So not special exclusive priesthood which must prove succession back to the original 12.

Peter obviously believes that Christ is the "living stone" - the "choice stone" - the "precious corner stone", upon which the church is built.  Certainly he does not believe the church is built upon himself. 

Don't say that - don't you dare. It's obvious you've spent a significant amount of time in study of what you're advocating and some of the things you've told me I've never heard before. You're plenty smart and I'd add to that you're sincere. I just don't agree with your position.

You have a valid line of succession clearly laid out in multiple places in Scripture.

2 Corinthians 1, 21:  "Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God"

According to 1 Timothy 4, 14 "the gift" that Timothy had was imparted to him by "the laying on of hands of the presbytery. Timothy was not to lightly pass on this gift to others ( 1 Timothy 5, 22 ). Timothy was left in Crete so that he could appoint presbyters in every town ( 2 Timothy 1,6 ). 

What did the laying on of hands accomplish here? It conferred "the gift of God" in consecrating Timothy to the Office of Bishop. We are back where we started from. 

"Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, IS GOD". 

In Acts 1, 20 Peter quotes Psalm 69, 25 when he states a successor to Judas Iscariot must be ordained. Judas started off an Apostle and as we know Apostles became Bishops. We know what happened with Judas and why he wasn't there but the salient thing I'm trying to illustrate is that it's the OFFICE that's being passed on from one person to another here, thus,  ["and his bishoprick let another take"].

The Biblical point I'm trying to make  is that the anointing comes from God and is given to the Bishops who in turn ordain / appoint presbyters 'in every town'. If the Church wasn't hierarchal and Peter wasn't the guy left in charge the above Scriptures would not make any sense. The Biblical case for succession is proven - unless you have evidence I've misrepresented those above Scriptures to say something they really don't say. 

Every man in the Christians age has the option / or potential of becoming a Priest in the Church. For what you are asserting to be accurate would render meaningless the Scriptures I've cited above. My way of explaining these texts does not destroy the meaning of the text you appealed to ( 1 Peter 2 ) however your interpretation of 1 Peter 2 completely invalidates Peter's appeal to Psalm 69, 25 when the Office of Bishop is passed onto Matthias. In the Old Testament an individual didn't just assume a Religious Office - it was appointed to them by God through God's established Religious Authority. 

True, Jesus is the ultimate ROCK but this does not in anyway diminish from other people being established or described in that same way. 

Look up Isaiah 51, 1 and tell me if someone other than God is being explicitly called a rock there. 

Look up Ephesians 2, 20 and confirm that the Apostles are also called a foundation. 

These things do not diminish Christ as Christ is the source of all power that makes these things possible. 

I actually have much to share on this aspect and would be willing to go step by step so you could see where I'm coming from and realize that the case for Apostolic succession is absolutely Biblical - it can certainly stand vigorous inspection. 

 

 

[Gustave]

8 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

If the very first "day" began with evening, why wouldn't all "days" from then on begin at dusk?

Why would not the very first 7th day rest begin at dusk, after God had created all evening/morning of the 24 hour period preceding.

Or do you believe the Sabbath should be kept holy only during daylight hours?

They [the days] didn't and don't began at dusk - that's just Tradition.

"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. And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the Lord: to day ye shall not find it in the field." Exodus 16, 23

tomorrow ISN'T today.

"And the people stood up all that day, and all that night, and all the next day, and they gathered the quails: he that gathered least gathered ten homers: and they spread them all abroad for themselves round about the camp." Numbers 11, 33

Notice what Jimmy Akin below says about "traditionally kept from Friday evening to Saturday evening". 

Jewish Scholars will admit the Rabbis reconfigured or added to the Sabbath as its a well understood Jewish axiom that one can always add to the commandment but never take away from it. 

"In Israel, the day was for a long time reckoned from morning to morning...and it was in fact in the morning, with the creation of light, that the world began; the distinction of day and night, and time too, began on a morning (Gen. 1:3-5, cf. 14:16, 18). The opposite conclusion has been drawn from the refrain which punctuates the story of creation: “There was an evening and there was a morning, the first, second, etc., day”; This phrase, however, coming after the description of each creative work (which clearly happens during the period of light), indicates rather the vacant time till the morning, the end of a day and the beginning of the next work...The change of reckoning must there fore have taken place between the end of the monarchy and the age of Nehemias... this would bring us to the beginning of the exile..." (Ancient Israel, p.181-182)".

"Second, the talmudic innovation of reckoning a day from the eve before suggests a larger view of life. While we may never know what prompted the Rabbis to reconfigure the day, the existential benefit is indisputable. By inaugurating the celebration of Shabbat or a festival at sunset, they have framed a stretch of time that can be ritually filled to heighten the religious experience. At the other end of the day, an eventide that does not mark a boundary between sacred and profane time would tend to be anti-climactic, an appendage of time to be endured till sunrise catches us unawares. To celebrate from sunset to sunset is to experience the passage of time each day consciously and bravely. Ismar Schorsch
 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, I have viewed  the video:

Certainly I find points that I agree with.  I in the last several decades of my life have never said that the Roman Catholic Church changed the Sabbath.

In addition, that actual history behind the change that resulted in many Christians worshiping on Sunday is more complex than either SDAs or the video have stated.  He simplified it in the video just as much as we SDAs have often done.  The actual facts are much more complex than what we both have said.

On some of the points in the video:  I simply disagree with what he said.

However, I congratulate him for a video that was well developed and produced,  It established a central focus and kept it simple.

NOTE:  In my viewing of the video, I did not pick up on the sundown to sundown issue that Gustave implied was there.  Perhaps I missed it and I should view it again?

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Well, I have viewed  the video:

Certainly I find points that I agree with.  I in the last several decades of my life have never said that the Roman Catholic Church changed the Sabbath.

In addition, that actual history behind the change that resulted in many Christians worshiping on Sunday is more complex than either SDAs or the video have stated.  He simplified it in the video just as much as we SDAs have often done.  The actual facts are much more complex than what we both have said.

On some of the points in the video:  I simply disagree with what he said.

However, I congratulate him for a video that was well developed and produced,  It established a central focus and kept it simple.

NOTE:  In my viewing of the video, I did not pick up on the sundown to sundown issue that Gustave implied was there.  Perhaps I missed it and I should view it again?

He says that the Sabbath is still the same day it's always been, Saturday,  - however it should be noted that the Jews "traditionally" celebrate it from Friday evening to Saturday evening. This is because there is no command in Scripture to start observance of the 7th day on the evening of the 6th day (like the day of atonement instructions). It's Rabbinic Tradition. 

"Days were reckoned from morning to morning... Following the reign of King Josia (c. 640-609), and especially after the Babylonian exile a number of significant and enduring changes occurred in the Israelite calendar showing that the Jews gradually adopted the Babylonian calendar of the time...the seven day week persisted despite its failure to divide evenly either the month or the year. the day however, was counted from evening to evening, after the Babylonian fashion..." (New Catholic Encyclopedia -Volume 11, p.1068)

 

A well known Talmudic proverb: "We should always increase what is holy by adding to it some of the non-holy."

[Gregory Matthews]

As I recall, the Jews have had both a civil calendar and a religious calendar.  So, it would seem reasonable to me that they might, following the return from Babylon, have a civil calendar that began the civil day  in the morning, while retaining the Sabbath as a religious day that began at sundown.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I am thinking that the statements Gustave has made   related to the Jewish observance of the Sabbath deserve some more thought and discussion.

1)  A central issue here as I see it is whether or not Scripture contains either an explicit, or an implicit direction to observe the Sabbath from sundown to sundown. 

2)  An additional issue may be as to whether or not the Biblical use of the word "Sabbath: always references the weekly Sabbath or whether or not it may  reference something else such as a ceremonial feast day.

3)  To add to this list, Gustave has, as I understand him, introduced the idea that following the return from Babylonian captivity, the Jews may have made changes as to when the day began.

4)  As I have stated, the Jews, did have both a civil and a religious calendar.

As I am considering the above, my thinking goes as follows:

1)  I would be willing to agree that the Biblical beginning of the Sabbath is not explicit as to  beginning it at Sundown on the day we have named Friday.  But, I would suggest that it is implicit to begin it at sundown, on Friday.  I trace this back far prior to the Jewish nation, to the Creation story as found in Genesis.  I will suggest that this finds agreement in a Jewish practice that also traced it back to Creation..

2)  In the OT, the word "Sabbath" is used in relationship to ceremonial feast days.  Examples of this include:  The Feast of Trumpets (Leviticus 23:24), The Feast of Tabernacles (Leviticus  23:39),  and the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:32) which clearly begins it at sundown (evening) and ends it at sundown (evening).

Gustave makes a valid point in his suggestion that the Jews attached many traditions to the observance of the Sabbath that are not directly found in the Bible.  I agree with this.  As I write I am looking at several pages of regulations that the Jews had attached to the keeping of the weekly Sabbath day that are found in the Talmud and not in the OT.  The writings of Josephus, as found in his several works do document these Jewish extra-Biblical additions to the observance of the Sabbath that are not found in Scripture.

NOTE:  Simply as a point of interest:  There is a Babylonian Talmud of about the 5th century and also a Jerusalem Talmud which was earlier.

Issues related to the Jewish calendar are complex.  Information on some of them may be found at:

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3920-calendar-history-of

http://www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/calendar.htm

 

 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

I'd like everyone to open their Bibles to Leviticus 22, 29

"And when ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the Lord, offer it at your own will. On the same day it shall be eaten up; ye shall leave none of it until the morrow: I am the Lord."

The night belongs to the proceeding day - not the next day. They had ALL NIGHT until daybreak to eat the sacrifice and still be within the 14th day. 

Compare Leviticus 22, 29 with Leviticus 7, 16 which lays out how voluntary sacrifices are to be observed. The sacrifice can be eaten on the "same day" of the sacrifice AND the NEXT DAY. 

Again the night belongs to the day proceeding it - not the next day.

The instructions for Passover are even more clear in that "the night" of the 14th day of the month is still considered the 14th day of the month - NOT the 15th day of the month. 

"And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire." Exodus 12, 6

 

Starting Sabbath observance on the evening before the 7th day is simply a Sacred Tradition implemented by the Jewish Religious Authority - it helps protect the Sabbath from profane activity and extends the hours of the Sabbath. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this at all - what I'm trying to show is that not all Traditions are BAD - some are actually good and helpful. 

If a person can't find a command or instruction that they should observe the Sabbath early (such as is found for the Day of Atonement) it stands that starting Sabbath observance on Friday evening is what Jewish and other Scholars claim it is - a Rabbinical Tradition of Talmudic origin. Again, I am not alleging this is wrong or evil, it's simply Tradition in the sense the Catholic Church has always understood Sacred Tradition.

 

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

As I recall, the Jews have had both a civil calendar and a religious calendar.  So, it would seem reasonable to me that they might, following the return from Babylon, have a civil calendar that began the civil day  in the morning, while retaining the Sabbath as a religious day that began at sundown.

 

Its actually the reverse order.