Observing the Sabbath

General Christian Theology
Neto
Posts: 4641
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Neto »

Bootstrap wrote:
JohnHurt wrote:If you want a denomination, go to church. If you want Christ, read the words in red.
I agree with that. But the words in red are the light through which I read the rest of the Bible. They are not at odds with Paul, but it's important to read Paul in that light.

I don't see anywhere in the words of Jesus where he tells Gentiles to observe the Jewish Sabbath, become circumcised, or observe the various Jewish feasts that you promote.

I like the way the NLT puts this:
You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!
In general, I think we do better if we read the Scriptures to find Jesus, not to discover hidden things or religious practices or theologies. And it's the same Jesus that Paul preaches so richly.
Largely agree, but I am troubled by the focus of the 'Words in Red' approach. For one thing, it is not clearly known where all of Jesus' words actually end in a given quotation. So how do you decide? (There is only one option: By using the words of men to determine the words of Jesus.) The 'Words in Red' are not The Word. The 'Words in Red' are not The Light. Jesus is the Light. It is he through which we should read the Scriptures, including the so-called 'Words in Red'. I firmly believe that Jesus is the focus of the Scriptures as a whole, both testaments. (Sorry for coming out of my nest. :oops: I really don't think you are doing what I'm speaking against here, I just think that this way of speaking may lead some who hear it to a sort of refined Bibliolatry, where the words of Scripture, even Jesus' words, take the focus of attention away from the Word, Jesus the Christ himself. I am also troubled by the possibility that some will draw the incorrect inference that the whole of Scripture is not 'real Scripture' to the same extent as these few chosen words. As a former Bible translator, I have seen some who handled the rest of Scripture with less care than they did the 'words in red', and I do not think that is warranted, or what God wants of us.)
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
User avatar
JohnHurt
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:04 pm
Location: Buffalo Valley, TN
Affiliation: Primitive Christian
Contact:

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by JohnHurt »

temporal1 wrote:This evening i viewed another episode of Ancient Roads, this was #6 of 6, on Constantine.
http://www.christtoconstantine.com/
Interesting episode. In it, Constantine is credited with establishing Sunday as the Christian day of rest (for the empire.)

This is another source on it:
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-decepti ... onstantine
Sunday actually made very little headway as a Christian day of rest until the time of Constantine in the fourth century. Constantine was emperor of Rome from AD 306 to 337. He was a sun worshiper during the first years of his reign. Later, he professed conversion to Christianity, but at heart remained a devotee of the sun. Edward Gibbon says,
"The Sun was universally celebrated as the invincible guide and protector of Constantine.”

Constantine created the earliest Sunday law known to history in AD 321. It says this:
"On the venerable Day of the sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits: because it often happens that another Day is not so suitable for grain sowing or for vine planting: lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."

Chamber’s Encyclopedia says this:
"Unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the Sabbatical observance of that Day is known to have been ordained, is the edict of Constantine, 321 A.D."
(if this is repeating earlier discussion, i apologize. i have not read every post in this thread.)
Thanks for the information. Constantine and the State Run Church were really the capstone of deciding who was orthodox and who was a heretic. But, the State Run Church in the 1st Century did not like Christ either, so He would have been an heretic too.

But your information brings out that there are really two questions:

1. When did Christians start worshiping on Sunday?
2. When did the Sabbath get changed from Saturday to Sunday?

These are not the same positions, as there are people today that worship on Sunday, but rest on Saturday. (I used to be one of them.)

But it looks like Constantine established Sunday for the day of worship for the State Church, and for a the "Sabbath" day for the State Church.

Constantine also killed his wife and son, and built a column to himself topped by a statute of himself as the "god" Apollo. He put the words "Committed to the Invincible Sun" on the back of all of his coins. He was as much a "Christian" as Adolph Hitler was a Catholic.

But yes, Constantine, along with the State Church, did establish Sunday as the official Sabbath.

And the Catholic church will argue that this same change in day was the result of their own authority, which all Protestants must acknowledge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath#S ... _First-day

----------------------------------------------
An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine:

Q. How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?
A. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.
Q. How prove you that?
A. Because by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin; and by not keeping the rest [of the feasts] by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power.[10]

The Augsburg Confession:

They [the Catholics] allege the Sabbath changed into Sunday, the Lord’s day, contrary to the decalogue, as it appears; neither is there any example more boasted of than the changing of the Sabbath day. Great, they say, is the power and authority of the church, since it dispensed with one of the ten commandments.[11]

A Doctrinal Catechism,

Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her. She could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.[12]

Catholic Christian:

Q. Has the [Catholic] church power to make any alterations in the commandments of God?
A. ...Instead of the seventh day, and other festivals appointed by the old law, the church has prescribed the Sundays and holy days to be set apart for God’s worship; and these we are now obliged to keep in consequence of God’s commandment, instead of the ancient Sabbath.[13]

The Catechism of the Council of Trent:

The Church of God has thought it well to transfer the celebration and observance of the Sabbath to Sunday![14]

------------------------------------------------

So it was the Catholic Church that changed the Sabbath Day to Sunday. And they were doing this long before Constantine.

And they are correct. If you accept that the Catholic Church has the authority to change the Sabbath to Sunday, then the Catholic Church has the authority for establishing Christmas, Easter, Lent, and all of their other feast days and rites. So, we are really all "Catholics" now, for we follow the authority established by the Catholic church over the authority of Christ and the Bible.

This is one place where I agree with the Catholic church.
0 x
"He replaced the teachings of Christ with his own opinions, and gave us a religion based on the doctrines of men."
User avatar
JohnHurt
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:04 pm
Location: Buffalo Valley, TN
Affiliation: Primitive Christian
Contact:

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by JohnHurt »

Bootstrap wrote:
I don't see anywhere in the words of Jesus where he tells Gentiles to observe the Jewish Sabbath, become circumcised, or observe the various Jewish feasts that you promote.
Here it is:

Matthew 5:(17) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

(18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

(19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
0 x
"He replaced the teachings of Christ with his own opinions, and gave us a religion based on the doctrines of men."
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 24202
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Josh »

John,

Do I need to let the people I know who are trying to follow Jesus that they need to get circumcised?

Jewish tradition was that the person who discipled you circumcised you - so in theory it would be my responsibility to do that.
0 x
User avatar
JohnHurt
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:04 pm
Location: Buffalo Valley, TN
Affiliation: Primitive Christian
Contact:

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by JohnHurt »

Bootstrap wrote:
Actually, my point is that most Bible translations do get this correct, they don't use the reading found in the King James. And my other point is that if you don't know Greek better than the translators, you shouldn't think you know enough to "correct" their translations. The guideline I give to people is this: if translations generally agree, you can usually trust a reading. If they disagree, you need to understand why, including the motivation behind each reading, before you can really have much of an opinion. If you start playing word games with a language you do not understand, you're on very thin ice.

Here's a sampling of well-known translations of this verse:

New International Version
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels.

New Living Translation
One Sabbath day as Jesus was walking through some grainfields, his disciples broke off heads of grain, rubbed off the husks in their hands, and ate the grain.

English Standard Version
On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands.

New American Standard Bible
Now it happened that He was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath; and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
On a Sabbath, He passed through the grainfields. His disciples were picking heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating them.
Some of these translations you have listed appear to be derived from the Alexandrian, or Hort and Westcott, or other source texts, which leave out "deuteroprotos" from the text, and therefore leave out "second first" from the translation.

That is why "the second sabbath after the first" is not in these translations. And not that the King James translated Luke 6:1 incorrectly. You are picking translations that benefit your position.

I would suggest staying with translations that rely on the the Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus, Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus, or the Byzantine Majority, all of which have "deuteroprotos" in the source text.

The King James Bible uses the Textus Receptus, which is the best established and most credible source text in the world.

Hort and Westcott have a definite agenda that they push in their source texts and their translations. That would be a good thread in itself. Hort and Westcott are 99% credible. But it is that 1% is what gets you.

I would hold Jerome's translation of the Greek to the Latin Vulgate to be superior to these later Hort and Westcott texts:

Luke 6:1 - Latin Vulgate
factum est autem in sabbato secundoprimo cum transiret per sata vellebant discipuli eius spicas et manducabant confricantes manibus

Jerome has far more credibility as a translator than Hort and Westcott, in my opinion.

Again, we could both say that the other is choosing the translations or source texts that most benefit their positions.

But, there is a lot more worldwide credibility with the King James Bible than any other, for good reason. And the KJV states that it was on the "second sabbath, after the first" when they were rubbing the grain in their hands and eating, which exactly matches the time period one week after the Wave offering / First Fruits. And there are 7 sabbaths between First Fruits and Pentecost (Lev 23:15). So, the King James Bible from the Textus Receptus is providing something that has been eliminated in the later Hort and Westcott texts. Another good reason to stick to the King James Bible, if in doubt.

An estimated that 1 Billion copies of the King James Bible have been sold. There is a good reason for this.

And, 1 Billion King James Bible fans can't be all wrong.

I won't tell you what I think of the NIV and the New Living Translation. But the people that buy these translations, or push them on their churches, do so for reasons just like this. The addition to Mark 7:19 comes to mind, which is an addition that only found in these types of translations after 1881, and not in the earlier source texts or Bibles prior to this date.

It is nice discussing this with you.

John
0 x
"He replaced the teachings of Christ with his own opinions, and gave us a religion based on the doctrines of men."
User avatar
JohnHurt
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:04 pm
Location: Buffalo Valley, TN
Affiliation: Primitive Christian
Contact:

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by JohnHurt »

Josh wrote:John,

Do I need to let the people I know who are trying to follow Jesus that they need to get circumcised?

Jewish tradition was that the person who discipled you circumcised you - so in theory it would be my responsibility to do that.
Circumcision is only for the children of Abraham. Genesis 17:10

You can ignore Jewish traditions.
0 x
"He replaced the teachings of Christ with his own opinions, and gave us a religion based on the doctrines of men."
User avatar
ohio jones
Posts: 5305
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:23 pm
Location: undisclosed
Affiliation: Rosedale Network

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by ohio jones »

JohnHurt wrote:So, the King James Bible from the Textus Receptus is providing something that has been eliminated in the later Hort and Westcott texts.
It's not in WH because it's not in Vaticanus or Sinaiticus (which are earlier than the Byzantine Majority texts on which the TR is based), not because they took it out.

Certainly there are differences between the earlier texts and the more numerous but later Byzantine texts, and which set is more reliable is a relevant question, but to accuse WH of removing things they don't agree with (and thereby inventing a "later" text from a source that is in fact earlier) seems rather spurious. If they did that without a credible textual basis they would quickly have been unmasked and the errors corrected in later works such as Nestle-Aland/UBS. Your argument really should be directed against the Alexandrian text, rather than scapegoating Westcott and Hort.
JohnHurt wrote:An estimated that 1 Billion copies of the King James Bible have been sold. There is a good reason for this.
Yes, there is. For several centuries it was pretty much the only English translation available.
And, 1 Billion King James Bible fans can't be all wrong.
Counting the number of fans by the number of copies sold might be overstating just a bit. :)
I own multiple copies of the KJV and am not a fan.
0 x
I grew up around Indiana, You grew up around Galilee; And if I ever really do grow up, I wanna grow up to be just like You -- Rich Mullins

I am a Christian and my name is Pilgram; I'm on a journey, but I'm not alone -- NewSong, slightly edited
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by lesterb »

JohnHurt wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:
Actually, my point is that most Bible translations do get this correct, they don't use the reading found in the King James. And my other point is that if you don't know Greek better than the translators, you shouldn't think you know enough to "correct" their translations. The guideline I give to people is this: if translations generally agree, you can usually trust a reading. If they disagree, you need to understand why, including the motivation behind each reading, before you can really have much of an opinion. If you start playing word games with a language you do not understand, you're on very thin ice.

Here's a sampling of well-known translations of this verse:

New International Version
One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels.

New Living Translation
One Sabbath day as Jesus was walking through some grainfields, his disciples broke off heads of grain, rubbed off the husks in their hands, and ate the grain.

English Standard Version
On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands.

New American Standard Bible
Now it happened that He was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath; and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
On a Sabbath, He passed through the grainfields. His disciples were picking heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating them.
Some of these translations you have listed appear to be derived from the Alexandrian, or Hort and Westcott, or other source texts, which leave out "deuteroprotos" from the text, and therefore leave out "second first" from the translation.

That is why "the second sabbath after the first" is not in these translations. And not that the King James translated Luke 6:1 incorrectly. You are picking translations that benefit your position.

I would suggest staying with translations that rely on the the Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus, Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus, or the Byzantine Majority, all of which have "deuteroprotos" in the source text.

The King James Bible uses the Textus Receptus, which is the best established and most credible source text in the world.

Hort and Westcott have a definite agenda that they push in their source texts and their translations. That would be a good thread in itself. Hort and Westcott are 99% credible. But it is that 1% is what gets you.

I would hold Jerome's translation of the Greek to the Latin Vulgate to be superior to these later Hort and Westcott texts:

Luke 6:1 - Latin Vulgate
factum est autem in sabbato secundoprimo cum transiret per sata vellebant discipuli eius spicas et manducabant confricantes manibus

Jerome has far more credibility as a translator than Hort and Westcott, in my opinion.

Again, we could both say that the other is choosing the translations or source texts that most benefit their positions.

But, there is a lot more worldwide credibility with the King James Bible than any other, for good reason. And the KJV states that it was on the "second sabbath, after the first" when they were rubbing the grain in their hands and eating, which exactly matches the time period one week after the Wave offering / First Fruits. And there are 7 sabbaths between First Fruits and Pentecost (Lev 23:15). So, the King James Bible from the Textus Receptus is providing something that has been eliminated in the later Hort and Westcott texts. Another good reason to stick to the King James Bible, if in doubt.

An estimated that 1 Billion copies of the King James Bible have been sold. There is a good reason for this.

And, 1 Billion King James Bible fans can't be all wrong.

I won't tell you what I think of the NIV and the New Living Translation. But the people that buy these translations, or push them on their churches, do so for reasons just like this. The addition to Mark 7:19 comes to mind, which is an addition that only found in these types of translations after 1881, and not in the earlier source texts or Bibles prior to this date.

It is nice discussing this with you.

John
Hi John,

You seem to spend a lot of time "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel".
0 x
Adam
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:35 pm
Location: Papua New Guinea
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by Adam »

JohnHurt wrote: I won't tell you what I think of the NIV and the New Living Translation. But the people that buy these translations, or push them on their churches, do so for reasons just like this. The addition to Mark 7:19 comes to mind, which is an addition that only found in these types of translations after 1881, and not in the earlier source texts or Bibles prior to this date.
I would say the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who buy an NIV, NLT, ESV, or any other translation other than the King James do so primarily because they find it difficult to understand the King James Version due to the archaic language. The vast majority of readers are unaware of specific textual problems like Luke 6:1 or Mark 7:19.

As the one who made the original post on this thread, I would request that if anybody wants to continue this discussion over which biblical manuscripts are the best or which English translations are the most faithful that they start a new thread. Personally, I find that such conversations rarely bear any spiritual fruit, but result rather in division and strife, as it is impossible at this point in history to determine with certainty which readings are original since we don't have access to the autographs. The most likely scenario is that some original readings are found in the Textus Receptus/Byzantine Texts and that some are found in the Alexandrian Texts and perhaps even in other texts. But the overwhelmingly vast majority of texts are in agreement across all text types, and, where there is disagreement, the vast majority of disagreements are not differences that are translatable into English. So why don't we agree to disagree, since their are valid arguments on both sides and neither side can be proven to the satisfaction of the other side.
0 x
User avatar
JohnHurt
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:04 pm
Location: Buffalo Valley, TN
Affiliation: Primitive Christian
Contact:

Re: Observing the Sabbath

Post by JohnHurt »

lesterb wrote: Hi John,

You seem to spend a lot of time "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel".
Hi Lester.

I may indeed strain out gnats from crawling all over my food, but the camel is all yours to put on the barbecue. Along with a few other animals.

Thanks for your comments, and I hope you enjoy the discussion.

John
0 x
"He replaced the teachings of Christ with his own opinions, and gave us a religion based on the doctrines of men."
Post Reply