[ndigila]

Originally Posted by reggie_woic

do you think the day we choose for sabbath matters, ndigila?
which one do you follow?

I believe that Christians meeting on Sunday was a tradition began by the apostles to commemorate the resurrection, and the highlight of this gathering was the Eucharist. I don't think we can just decide to change this willy-nilly.

[grip_daddy]

Ndigila,

So there are confusion in the historical evidences because everyone wants to believe what their fathers, or pastors or whoever, tell them.

OK, to me Sabbath is important so as to remember creation. It was spoken by God as part of His ten holy laws. It will be observed in heaven and the new earth. God who spoke it valued it throughout the centuries, and blessings are promised even to the strangers who will honour it.

All this is documented in the Old Testament.

If I choose to keep the nine commandments, I wont break one of them without evidence that keeping it is breaking it.

Do you think God values Sunday communion? Dont you think if Sunday was highly valued and cherished by God to remember resurrection as a day then explicit directions from God or Jesus could have been told us especially during the last Supper? Jesus directed the apostles to always eat and drink His body and blood, how come a day wasn't tied to the festivity? How come Paul never mentioned a specific day in regard to this to the Corinthians when expounding its essence for worship?

Since the bible recognises the Sabbath from presin (just as "thou shalt not kill" was a valid commandment presin), and that it also recognises it postsin (just as "thou shalt not have any god before me" shall be valid postsin), so it must be equally valid all through the ages just as the other nine.

This is my humble conclusion.

[ndigila]

It's probably a good idea to end this discussion since we're looping in circles.

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Ndigila,

So there are confusion in the historical evidences because everyone wants to believe what their fathers, or pastors or whoever, tell them.

Yes. Those who deny Sunday worship as a Christian practice are forced to believe that the church fell into apostasy as soon as the apostles died and never recovered. People need to understand that the disciple's main focus was to establish churches with very competent people capable of being able to teach as well as preserve Christ's teachings for future generations, and not to write stuff down. Saying the church fell into apostasy as soon as the apostles died is a huge insult, not only to the church but also to the Apostles and to Jesus. Many people have provided very flawed arguments as to why the scriptures weren't changed despite this church being entrusted to preserve them. They treat the Bible as if it was some book that just dropped from the sky (kind of like the way Muslims treat the Quran). There's also various flawed and illogical interpretations of Jesus' words "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against his church.

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

OK, to me Sabbath is important so as to remember creation. It was spoken by God as part of His ten holy laws. It will be observed in heaven and the new earth. God who spoke it valued it throughout the centuries, and blessings are promised even to the strangers who will honour it.

All this is documented in the Old Testament.

Just as you've said you won't take revelation literally, why should you take sabbath worship in heaven and in the new earth literally?

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

If I choose to keep the nine commandments, I wont break one of them without evidence that keeping it is breaking it.

Grip, Colossians 2:16 clearly teaches that sabbath was abolished, but you insist that it was other sabbaths that don't include the one in the Ten commandments. If you're going to follow the sabbath, you should also follow the strict liturgical style of it as described in the Old Testament.

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Do you think God values Sunday communion? Dont you think if Sunday was highly valued and cherished by God to remember resurrection as a day then explicit directions from God or Jesus could have been told us especially during the last Supper? Jesus directed the apostles to always eat and drink His body and blood, how come a day wasn't tied to the festivity? How come Paul never mentioned a specific day in regard to this to the Corinthians when expounding its essence for worship?

Once again, Grip, you are using the Bible only approach. John records in the end of his Gospel that Jesus did many more things not recorded in the book. How do you know that that's not one of them? How do you know that the teachings on the Eucharist are not part of the Oral Tradition that Paul tells the Thessalonians to keep practicing in 2 Thess 2:15?

With regards to the Corinthians, Paul was writing to admonish them from straying away from what they had already been taught. He wasn't teaching them for the very first time. So his exposition on communion in Corinthians is not the complete final teaching on it, it was simply correcting where the Corinthians had already strayed.

[ndigila]

Since the title of this thread is "Scripture vs Tradition" let me ask you this, when two people can make valid scriptural arguments for two contradicting dogma, and both are claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, by what standard do you determine who's right and who's wrong?

[grip_daddy]

Originally Posted by ndigila

Since the title of this thread is "Scripture vs Tradition" let me ask you this, when two people can make valid scriptural arguments for two contradicting dogma, and both are claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, by what standard do you determine who's right and who's wrong?

I have found many (bible alone mentally minded people) claiming to follow biblical doctrines but cannot provide satisfactory answers as to why they cling to such doctrines even from the bible itself.

For example, debating with someone about rapture; when the quoted texts have been shown to mean something else, or could have a different meaning scholarstically, they cling to the Holy Spirit and such like excuses. Personally if it is scriptures alone, I stick to that and explain my stand rationally and consistently by valid inferences as I did on the seal of God post.

On this concluded argument, I would also say that it was the traditions of the apostles to meet on the Sabbath day according to the commandment, and because no one can prove that they profaned the Sabbath, through scriptures, history, or otherwise, I can also say that the Sabbath was important to them.

PS. I believe in the new earth's Sabbath from Isaiah, not Revelation.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

I have found many (bible alone mentally minded people) claiming to follow biblical doctrines but cannot provide satisfactory answers as to why they cling to such doctrines even from the bible itself.

For example, debating with someone about rapture; when the quoted texts have been shown to mean something else, or could have a different meaning scholarstically, they cling to the Holy Spirit and such like excuses. Personally if it is scriptures alone, I stick to that and explain my stand rationally and consistently by valid inferences as I did on the seal of God post.

I agree. I went through a similar encounter when debating with someone about tongues, prophecy and the whole charismatic movement in general. And nobody was willing to accept the possibility of the other side being right, in fact, a better biblical argument against tongues exists rather than for it, yet people aren't willing to admit the possibility that they could be wrong.

However, if you actually run into someone who could actually biblically back up their beliefs, then you more often than not run into stalemates. Especially the Calvinist vs Arminian (Predestination vs Free will) debates. Also the Pre-trib vs mid-trib vs post-trib debates. Here's a good place to find discussions from people who are very educated about their faith.

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

On this concluded argument, I would also say that it was the traditions of the apostles to meet on the Sabbath day according to the commandment, and because no one can prove that they profaned the Sabbath, through scriptures, history, or otherwise, I can also say that the Sabbath was important to them.

Perhaps it would help understand where I'm coming from. When I came to college, I met this one Orthodox Christian who stands outside this one building and engages students in public debates every Monday-Friday during the semester. One day, he offered a challenge to Protestants to defend their beliefs, about sola scriptura faith alone, and he also offered the challenge to show where the Orthodox church went wrong. I had little knowledge of Orthodoxy at that time, and having grown up near the Coptic Orthodox church on Ngong' road, I simply assumed they were "Catholics gone wild" but anyway, having done some research (which took about a year), I was unable to show a significant difference in the Orthodox tradition that could be labeled as a "falling away from the faith". The Reformation was infact a response to the additions to the faith that the Catholics made. I read this one source that said if Martin Luther looked east to the Orthodox Church, there may have never been a reformation. This is why I trust the doctrine of the Orthodox church, because they have historical evidence to back up their claims.

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

PS. I believe in the new earth's Sabbath from Isaiah, not Revelation.

Doesn't matter, it could just as well be symbolic too.