The Decline of the Sabbath

So you don't judge others as "disobedient" for not keeping the sabbath? That's the entire premise and MO of the SDA. If you werent judging others over the sabbath, we would never have these debates. So now, it seems you will stoop to total denial even of your own premise.

You cited ONE single commentary that denied that the weekly sabbath was intended in the passage. About TWO others that mentioned the annual days "particularly" (NOT exclusively!), but do not exclude the weelky sabbath. And a couple of others on the OT passages not even discussing or mentioning Romans 14 at all.
And absolutely NOTHING from scripture or scholarship saying "only three annual days are 'mandatory', the other days (including the actual PASCHA and DAY OF ATONEMENT) were 'optional'",
Why do you think that is such an impressive argument?

your statement PRESUMES for GRANTED that esteem=observe. If esteem means "to DECIDE the VALUE of" a day, then we DO "esteem" 365 days a year. We esteem most of them as ordinary days, and we seteem some as special "ABOVE" the others.
This is why it's hard to argue with you. Your arguments take your POV for granted, and acts lie it is already "proven" or "self-evident". That's why you're so overconfident that the "objective readers" are all seeing it your way. But you haven't proven anything. Your handful of commentaries don't prove your position at all.

You put so much stock in these handful of commentators, who as I've shown, with one exception, do not even support your view. You're the one who wrenches scripture (like your "list of only three mandtory days" argument), and then quotes yourself as proof for your view, as we've seen right above. You just try to add a couple of "scholarly" references to it. But what about all the other scholars in Christendom? How do you think one single scholar who agrees with you on one point, and two or three others you interpret as agreeing with you, proves your position correct?
And scholars can be good, but what about a person reading the scriptures for themselves in their proper context? Do we need scholars to read it for us? Are you now like the Catholics and Orthodox who claim we can't read the Bible for ourselves, but must follow some magisterial tradition?

 

From post 152

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1062407&postcount=152

And yet these commentaries DO reference Romans 14 AND DO point to the fact that this Rom 14 reference to DAYS is in refence to the ANNUAL days of LEV 16 -- your objections not withstanding

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthre...61#post1063661
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...&postcount=171

 

The summation --

EVEN by pro-Sunday anti-Sabbath commentary standards --

1. Romans 14 DOES address the issue of the LEv 16 list of HOLY DAYS given IN SCRIPTURE - and read BY Christians in the NT age both Jews AND Gentiles. ALL these commentaries AGREE that the LIST of days from which some are being selected HAS a CONTEXT from which to select and that context is SCRIPTURE!!

2. Romans 14 DOES show that OBSERVING the day comes from holding the day in ESTEEM or high "REGARD".

3. NO OBSERVATION of days is allowed in Rom 14 for PAGAN holy days of any kind! FOR in the case of Rom 14 OBSERVATION of those days is always "UNTO THE LORD".

4. Neither D.L.Moody NOR Jamieson Fausset Brown allow the Annual days given in Romans 14 could possibly apply to WEEKLY observances for either Sunday OR Christ's Sabbath.

5. IF one took ERIC's spin that the only two BIBLICAL choices are between OBSERVING ALL DAYS in that list or "selecting ONE in the list OVER the others" then NOTHING of what Eric has argued here in favor of "DISREGARDING ALL DAYS" alike can be spun into the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

And that was in response to posts of yours where you gave commentaries on LEviticus, Exodus and Deuteronomy. Once I pointed that out, THEN you went and dug out the commentaries on Romans 14. Maybe you had posted them before; but at the time I was saying this, you were using the commentaries on the other passages to prove your point. You were trying to prove the three pilgrimmagesas being the only mandatory days, and then claiming that those commentaries proved Romans 14 was pointing to that. Take things in CONTEXT, please!

Does Romans 14's addressing of days INCLUDE the "Lev. 16 list". Yes. Does Romans 14 itself have its own exclusive "list" of "mandatory and optional annual days", or does it give any indication that it is referring to annual days only? NO! But that is what you have been trying to argue. So don't go accusing me of denying Romans 14 includes the anual days, and that the commentaries agree. That is not what I have been arguing against. I'm arguing against the claim that "esteem one day OVER another" means some distinction between "mandatory" and "optional" annual days, which is not taught anywhere, and does not make any sense regardless.

It does not show that. That is what you have to do all of this twisting and turning to try to get it into that passage.

Again, I never said anything about "pagan days", so I don't know why you keep going back to that. Probably just another diversionary red herring.

Well, that's good for them! There are a lot of different commentators and interpretations out there. So who would say something different. Why do you claim to prove your whole view on just two or three commentators? Again, do we need them to read the Bible for us, like the Catholics say about their leaders?

I never gave "only two Biblical choices". I have always maintained, you can observe all of the days over others, you can observe some of the days over others, or, like the passage says, you can esteem (Gk: "DECIDE the VALUE of") all days [alike], which in your idea, is "Disregarding all days". Nowhere in the New Testament is anyone ever judged (called "disobedient", etc) for failing to keep any days. This passage and others telling us not to judge over days goes right along with this. Why can't you just do what it says and stop arguing against it?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
From post 152

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...&postcount=152

And yet these commentaries DO reference Romans 14 AND DO point to the fact that this Rom 14 reference to DAYS is in refence to the ANNUAL days of LEV 16 -- your objections not withstanding

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthre...61#post1063661
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...&postcount=171

From post 171 - showing just how EARLY the Romans 14 commentary data was brought into this thread

 

Originally Posted by BobRyan
The summation --

EVEN by pro-Sunday anti-Sabbath commentary standards --

1. Romans 14 DOES address the issue of the LEv 16 list of HOLY DAYS given IN SCRIPTURE - and read BY Christians in the NT age both Jews AND Gentiles. ALL these commentaries AGREE that the LIST of days from which some are being selected HAS a CONTEXT from which to select and that context is SCRIPTURE!!

Now see? We finally agree on something!

The LIST of days being identified in Romans 14 is in fact the BIBLE LIST that is given in Lev 16!

SOME are picking ONE of those days to esteem - OBSERVE ABOVE the others while ANOTHER picks EVERY day to ESTEEM (even you argue that the Jews would be OBSERVING ALL of them).

in Christ,

Bob

 

And I said, above "Maybe you had posted them before; but at the time I was saying this, you were using the commentaries on the other passages to prove your point. You were trying to prove the three pilgrimmages as being the only mandatory days, and then claiming that those commentaries proved Romans 14 was pointing to that."

And that's where you jump the track, because while it is true that the "days" are referecing scriptural days from the OT, it does NOT specify a "list" of annual days ONLY. That is where you are adding to the text!

Because point 2 is what you are using to justify your point 1 notion of what esteeming one day "OVER" another means, as we see above. That it is some "list" of annual days only, and only three of them were mandatory to begin with. That is totally unscriptural, and not even mentioned in Rom.14. It makes no sense either.
So you use one faulty point to substantiate another, in order to fill in a hole in your theory as to what the words mean.

 

That is wrong on two counts.

#1. You can't take the texts/sources given for point 2 and try to spin them back as IF they are the argument being made for point 1. Just respond to them as they are given for point 2 rather than pretending they are given as documents on point 1.

Obviously BOTH Points are being used to support my POV. That is a given.

2. The documents ON Romans 14 DO SHOW that the CONTEXT for the list is "THE BIBLE" and in this case the LIST of days in Lev 16 -- not "all days of the year" as you seem to imagine.

You simply duck this inconvenient detail hoping the reader will forget.

#1. The BIBLE LIST OF DAYS given in Lev 16 IS NOT UNSCRIPTURAL!!

#2. The commentaries fully AGREE that these days are the ones GIVEN in scripture -- not "every day of the year" as you seem to imagine.


#3. Your OWN argument is that the JEWs were obligated to "esteem" ALL the days in the Lev 16 list which means it is only the GENTILES that even COULD be selecting out ONE of those days to OBSERVE ABOVE the others -- and the Jews had to be highly regarding "esteeming" ALL of them (in the argument you keep making).

This is so simple and obvious so far - I am shocked that you keep circling back to duck these key points

in Christ,

Bob

 

#1. I already SHOW where the commentaries DO point to this BIBILCAL LIST OF DAYS as being in Lev 16.

#2. By admitting to this glaringly obvious fact AND THEN noting that IN Romans 14 the TWO groups are divided between those who pick ONE of those in that LIST ABOVE the others to OBSERVE (and so NOT observing the ones NOT PICKED) vs those who select them ALL as highly esteemed. (something YOU claim ALL Jews must do). You have unwittingly exposed the glaring flaw in your own argument!

Why pretend that the reader does not notice this??

in Christ,

Bob

 

John Gill

http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/romans/gill/romans14.htm
Rom 14
Verse 5. One man esteemeth one day above another,.... This is another instance of the difference of sentiments in this church, about the observation of rituals; and is not to be understood of days appointed by the Christian churches for fasting, or abstinence from certain meats, either once a year, as the "Quadragesima," or Lent; or twice a week, as Wednesdays and Fridays; for these are things of much later observation, and which had never been introduced into the church of Rome in the apostle's time; nor were there any disputes about them: [b]much less of days of Heathenish observation,[/b] as lucky or unlucky, or festivals in honour of their gods; for the apostle would never say, that a man who regarded such a day, regarded it to the Lord; nor would have advised to a coalition and Christian conversation with such a man, but rather to exclude him from all society and communion: it remains, therefore, that it must be understood of Jewish days, or of such as were appointed to be observed by the Jews under the former dispensation, and which some thought were still to be regarded; wherefore they esteemed some days in the year above others, as the days of unleavened bread, or the passover; particularly the first night, which was a night to be observed throughout their generations; and in their service for it to this day, use these words, twlylh lkm hzhhlylh hntvn hm, "how different is this night from every other night" {n}? and the feast of tabernacles, especially the last and great day of the feast, and the day of Pentecost;

 

So if you're trying to say the "sources" for point 2 had nothing to do with point 1, then why did point 2 even need to be brought up, then? Obviously, just another red herring distraction.

And "the Bible" has MORE than just a "list" of annual days. There are weekly days, monthly days, and some other occasions. Now, unless you can find IN ROM 14 itself, a qualifier saying that it is the annual days ONLY, then you cannot claim that is what it refers to exclusively.

No, but you're claiming that this list is specified to the exclusion of all other holy days in Romans 14 IS unbiblical. Find the reference in Rom.14, then tell me anout what is not Biblical

You gave ONE commentary that specifically excluded the weekly sabbath. And the only thing I said about "every day of the year" is that those were what the "observed" days were being ESTEEMED "above". I never said anyone observed every day of the year, so why do you keep "responding to" that.

You forget that Romans 14 is in the NEW Testament, and that both of us even agree that NONE of the annual days are any longer mandatory, INCLUDING the three pilgrimmages. They are ALL "optional". The Jews, and the gentiles that had been proselytized by them kept all of the days; annual and weekly. The gentiles who had been pagan previously kept NONE of the biblical days. They "ESTEEMED" ("DECIDED the VALUE of") ALL days the same. Notice; I did not say they OBSERVED all 365 days of the year. That is YOU again with your "esteem=observe" insistence. Don't read that into my statements as if I believe it. (Another tactic that makes it tiring debating with you).
So of course, keeping some or all of the days would also be allowed. Just as long as noone JUDGED others for not keeping them.

Se response to Gill quote, below

That makes no sense. If they're observing one day, and ignoring another, they are not observing, or "picking" it ABOVE the other. They are not observing the other day at all, so there is no comparison for "above" to refer to. You don't "observe ABOVE", you ESTEEM above, and all that is, is a DESICION of the VALUE of the day compared to another, not an already decided VALUING of the day to observe it.

But even if your interpretation were correct, you still have never proven that Romans 14 is referring to annual days ONLY. The Bible they referred back to contained more than just annual days. There is a "list" of annual, weekly, monthly and other special days. If you can find in Romans 14 (and NOT manmade commentaries) where it refers to annual days only, THEN you will hape proven something.

And why don't all of these "readers" who hypothetically agree with you come and say something? As I have discussed on the other thread; I'm not in this discussion to convince readers. I'm trying to get something across to you.

I have no problem with this. It shows the issue was Days observed by the Jews, and which they thought were still mandatory. Those were annual, weekly and others. This quote does not say it is only the annual days

That right there shows that what the "others" days which "esteemed above" days were being compared to were all days in the year. Nothing about esteeming some annual days above other annual days, or esteeming "mandatory" days above "optional" ones. The annual days were of course esteemed above all other days in the year. So were weekly and monthly days.
Right here from your own commentary reference we see exactly what I am saying!All of this is so simple.

 

NOT sure how I go the ref here to Lev 16 -- but it should be Lev 23.


You almost have it righ. The ISSUE Paul is addressing is between those who OBSERVE one day ABOVE another in the Lev 23 annual holy day list and those who OBSERVE EVERY DAY in that LIST of annual holy days.

1. But there is no mention in Rom 14 "any days the JEWS pick"...

2. There is no "JEW vs GENTILE" issue listed in Romans 14 as there is in Romans 2 where that issue IS addressed.

3. D.L.Moody AND Jamieson Fausset Brown HAVE pointed out that this CAN NOT apply to the weekly Sabbat -- and NO Weekly day of worship (Sabbath nor even week-day-one) is mentioned in this text.

4. Commentaries were given that DO Show even the Lev 23 annual holy days to be devided between required and optional.

5. Your OWN argument (if we can spin this to just Jew vs Gentile as you have suggested) is that ALL the annual holy days were mandatory so in the Romans 14 example the ones who ESTEEM ALL of them are those you claim MUST OBSERVE ALL -- that leaves only the GENTILES (in your model) to OBSERVE ONE OVER the others and thus esteem one above the others.

This is glaringly obvious to the objective unbiased reader.

in Christ,

Bob

 

And of course JFB argues like D.L.Moody that the the text of Romans 14 can NOT be bent to be directed against Christ our Creator's weekly Holy Day - the Sabbath.

 

[from Gill]it remains, therefore, that it must be understood of Jewish days, or of such as were appointed to be observed by the Jews under the former dispensation, and which some thought were still to be regarded;

REminder - you say ALL of them are mandatory for Jews - that leaves the "JEWS" in your model as those who OBSERVE THEM ALL who ESTEEM THEM ALL.

It then leaves the GENTILES (in your model) as those who select ONE above the others to esteem -- to OBSERVE.

Your own argument is unraveled by your conflicted positions.

MY VIEW -

Since Paul makes NO reference to "Jew vs Gentile" arguments in Rom 14 I show that these are BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS of all stripes who READ their Bibles and SEE what God wrote in HIS WORD regarding annual holy days in Lev 23. I then argue the obvious point that SOME ESTEEM one of those days in that list of holy days ABOVE the others - while another ESTEEMS or OBSERVES them ALL (by contrast you claim ALL Jews must esteem - OBSERVE them ALL) -- I differ in that I don't see Paul limiting this to just Jews who might make that choice. (A rather minor difference in the long run).

But then you wrench your OWN argument onto its head by claiming that those who ESTEEM ALL of the Biblical holy days are "DISREGARDING ALL"!!

Observing the deatils of just How astoundingly self-conflicted your position is - remains as an "exercise for the reader".

in Christ,

Bob

 

What have I said to indicate that I have forgotten that??

That is YOUR claim - Paul seems to argue that they VARIED in what they kept -- some keeping ALL and some selecting ONE ABOVE the others in the list.

You have yet to show that ALL Bible believing Jews kept all OR that ALL the Jews AND Gentiles kept ALL. In fact the commentaries show that even among the Jews ALL the Jews were not obligated to keep ALL of the annual Lev 23 holy days.

The gentiles in Acts 13 who were formerly pagan DID not do as you say. However in terms of PAGANISM I agree that pagans did not observe GOD's Holy das listed in Lev 23. IF the intent was to include "pagan arguments" then "esteeming NO day" from the Lev 23 list should have been listed in Romans 14. But that is not a point even being remotely addressed in Romans 14.

So you are arguing that they valued ALL HOLY days as having no value but DID NOT make that evaluation of all the OTHER non-holy days in the year? - only the HOLY days had "no value" and were "NOT to be esteemed" ??

How far out on that limb are you going Eric??

After having argued that the Jews should be listed as those who "ESTEEMED ALL the days" in those Biblical list of holy days (which now even you admit that this is in the context of a Biblical LIST of Holy days) you now want to IGNORE that this is what Paul addresses in His "ESTEEM EVERY DAY" in that LIST??

And if they HAD to OBSERVE and ESTEEM ALL the days in that List as Holy -- then they CAN NOT be the case list in Romans 14 of those who "SELECTED ONE" of those days to ESTEEM and so to OBSERVE above the others.

in Christ,

Bob

 

There doesn't have to be a "Jew vs. Gentile" issue. Where did the "days" in question come from? Not from the Gentiles' religion. But that is besides the point. To reiterate, without mentioning the Jews, "it is talking about ANY biblical days some Christians esteemed esteem or judge as holy over others

And that's just their opinion. I do not read the Bible in light of them.

You say there is no "Jew versus Gentile", but neither is there any "MALE vs FEMALE in Romans 14. The PILGRIMMAGE was optional for women, but if they didn't go, they still had to stay home and keep the day as a SABBATH! (Lev.23:7, 24, 25, 27, 28, 36. It was STILL "observed". Paul makes no distinction there. Why do you keep ignoring these verses in the Leviticus chapter? Is God's word contradicting itself?
And since this is your earlier "point #2", which you kept asking ME why I kept responding to it in conjunction with point 1, and you yesterday virtually denied it had any relevance, why do you bring it up again? All you're doing is wasting my time going around in circles with this stuff.

THIS:

You have twisted my argument beyond recognition! I said they were ALL optional NOW in the NT. They were all mandatory in the OT. But you always twist eveything around. You're the one who says if they esteem all, they must observe all, so esteem must mean observe. I'm showing you why that uis not so. Stop filtering everything through your own preconceived definitions!

And they also read in those same Bibles about weekly days and others. Nowhere does Romans 14 make any distinction.

But there is no comparison between one annual day over another. It does not even specify which days were being discussed. You just read that in there. Even one of your commentaries showed that the days were being compared to any day in the year. I see you dropped that now!

The only one wrenching anything around here is you. You filter my position through your unfounded unscritural assertion that esteem=observe, and then have me claiming therefore that the Jews "Esteem all days in a LIST of annual days" that I have consistently denied, and then hold that up as a contradiction to the claim that esteeming all is disregarding all. I believe "Esteeming all days [as the SAME]" means regarding all days as average and not special. To esteem one over another means to regard it as a holy day to be observed. Even one of your commentaries supported that, in the end. YOU believe that whatever is esteemed is observed. No me. Don't force that on my argument. It is your argument.

Any "objective reader" who buys into your arguments is not objective at all, but rather just as brainwashed and stiffnecked as you are.
You are even having the same issues with Darron in his "motivation to serve the Lord" poll, which you hijacked into another of these kinds of debates, and you have had the same issues with DHK in the past. HOG perfectly captured your tactic over there, though he unfairly hurled accused Darron of it instead:

It's like if you were to ask me what I think is the best color for a car. So, I say "red". Then, you were to come back with, "So you say all cars are red?!?"....

Now whose tactics will any REAL "objective reader" see as flawed?

 

The point remains.

There are only TWO cases addressed in Romans 14.

A. Those who ESTEEM and observe ALL days in the Biblical list of holy days. (no matter how exhuastive your list of Biblical holy days is)

B. Those who SELECT ONE of them to observe ABOVE the others instead of simply observing ALL.

YOU claim that the Jews had NO CHOICE but to OBSERVE THEM ALL. AND you claim that Romans 14 is dealing with a "Jew vs Gentile" approach to that Biblical list of Holy days.

So that means the Jews (using your definition for what they were observing) could NOT be cast into "scenario B" choosing ONE day in that list to observe and esteem but not the others.

There is just no escaping this Eric.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to see to what lengths Eric will go to try and get out of this.

Meanwhile

in Christ,

Bob

 

Though Romans 14 doesn't say "esteem AND observe", or "to esteem IS TO observe", thanks for admitting the list can be more exhaustive. The point is, do not judge over days!

And you still twist what I said even after I just answered it. Again, the Jews observed all days in the OT. In the NT, they were ALL optional. To the Gentiles they had NEVER been required. So to ALL CHRISTIANS they were now OPTIONAL. Therefore, they were NOT to JUDGE each other over them! Stop confusing this point!

 

You have argued this as a Jew vs Gentile issue -- if the Jews are those who MUST esteem-ALL who MUST value and OBSERVE ALL then it is only the GENTILES who could possibly be "Observing one ABOVE the others".

How can you possibly hope to escape that??

In these TWO groups you have -

1. Those esteem ALL - who OBSERVE ALL as you say Jews would be doing.

2. Those who esteem ONE ABOVE the others. Those who OBSERVE one ABOVE the others. (Since you claim this can not be Jews - then that only leaves Gentiles).

Hint: that is the part we agree on.

in Christ,

Bob