Sunday Law: Independent Church Places Ad in San Francisco Paper
by Monte Sahlin
By AT News Team, April 30, 2014
Despite a court order, the Eternal Gospel Church in West Palm Beach, Florida, has identified itself with the Seventh-day Adventists in a two-page ad in the San Francisco Examiner on Sunday (April 27). A news release from the same organization identified it as a “Seventh-day Adventist Newspaper Ad.” It remains to be seen if the denomination will respond with litigation as it has in the past.
The news release also stated that the ad “is stirring up a debate on the Biblical Sabbath,” although Adventist Today has found no evidence of debate. It does not appear that any other religious group has responded to the ad at all. The out-dated design used in the ad and the large volume of verbiage make it difficult to read.
“Because it is so out of sync with today’s standards of advertizing design, it is unlikely that 99 percent of newspaper readers will give it a second glance,” an ad manager at a Midwest daily paper told Adventist Today. “They most likely will not even know what the topic is.”
The paper in which the ad was published has a long and proud history, once serving as the flagship of the Hearst newspaper chain. The publisher, William Randolph Hearst, was immortalized in the movie Citizen Kane. But during the 21st century it has slipped significantly. It is a tabloid that is distributed as a throwaway in the city, with a circulation of about 75,000 during the week and 255,000 on Sundays.
The major daily paper in San Francisco today is The Chronicle, which has the largest circulation of any newspaper on the West Coast. It sells 224,000 copies daily and 286,000 on Sundays.
"The ad is part of a nationwide campaign to educate and warn the public that Sunday laws will become more and more dangerous to religious liberty," said Pastor Raphael Perez, leader of the Eternal Gospel Church, in the news release.
He claims that similar ads have appeared in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Miami Herald and 250 other newspapers, although Adventist Today was not able to confirm any of these.
Perez believes that a Sunday law will be voted because of “efforts to save our culture and family structures from completely deteriorating.” He is identified in the news release as “a former Catholic who once attended a Roman Catholic Seminary” and a "Seventh-day Adventist believer."
The ad concludes with a $1,000 offer to anyone who can produce a Bible verse that states that Jesus or His disciples transferred the solemnity of the seventh-day Sabbath to Sunday. This has been a common, although controversial gimmick used by some Adventist evangelists over the years. “It is generally considered to be among the methods that Ellen White condemned as ‘debate’ these days,” a veteran Adventist evangelist told Adventist Today.
The Eternal Gospel Church is a small congregation not affiliated with any denomination. It has been engaged in legal battles with the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination for over 20 years over the unauthorized use of the denomination’s name.
Someone should make a counter offer: A $1000 prize to anyone who can show from the NT that Christians were given the 7th or any day to worship.
And someone should offer another prize of $1000 to work out why Elaine Nelson appears fascinated with a web site dedicated to a Christian group she left, espousing beliefs she clearly doesn't believe in? I'm been trying to work it out myself for a couple of years, but never quite worked it out. I guess when it comes to religion and religious topics, there really are ongoing unsolved mysteries.
It's great that you have $1000 to throw at what is such a puzzle to you. My belief is not in any religiou institution but in questioning how and why certain portions of the Bible seem so attractive to some religious groups. Also, why there seems to be such an iconic regard for the Bible which was written by humans describing their beliefs about God. They were no more intelligent are devout that humans today but they have been revered and their very words as if straight from God's mouth.
Perhaps others may be confused as to why what was written about God is of so much higher authority than God Himself, about who we know ONLY from human's writing. Now there's a puzzle that needs answering.
But why is that so fascinating to you? That's the question! Why the beef?
The first Christians were (supposed to be) Jews. (Romans 1:16, Romans 3:21-31, Romans 4:13-16, Galatians 3:6-29.) So the money should be given to anyone who finds where a new day was set apart for Christians.
Does the AToday news team possibly have a link to show the ad, so we can see what we are talking about here?
I think I have found a link of the Eternal Gospel Church website for those interested:
http://www.adventmessenger.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/seventh-day-adventist-newspaper-ad.html
And the actual ad is found on pages 12-13 of the San Francisco Examiner, seen here at the link below:
http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?eid=f08dd265-5d72-4ef9-a808-3f21c9078fcd&skip=true
It's pretty big in covering two whole pages!
The eternal gospel church is throwing money at secular business, increasing others profits at their own expense. I wonder how the return is measured. May be it is in increased donations.
Does anyone know the real purpose of the Eternal Gospel Church? Is it to discredit the SDA Church? Or, are they just so focused on the potential for future Sunday laws that they have no idea how to teach people about the love of God so they'll want to worship Him on the seventh day?
Some years ago an Adventist group did a mass mailing of a book warning about potential future Sunday laws to an entire zip code in the northwestern part of the county where I live. The result has been making it very difficult to grow the church in that area. I've heard "You're the people who believe everybody else is wrong" a whole lot of times since then.
Stephen, Send me the $1000. and i will split it with Elaine, she uses logic for her reasoning of the written word, and i agree with her. With no end to religious dogma being printed globally for 3000 years, you haven't a chance of selecting that which (for a certainty) is "God's "written messages to mankind, that has not been "handled",mishandled, and rephrased oer and oer. How we know God is by observation of the heavens which display his glory, by the complexity of life forms of an exquisite nature exhibiting a giant intellect beyond the limits of Earth's atmosphere, and by God's Holy Spirit speaking to our soul. i am not saying the Holy Bible doesn't reveal Jesus Christ, and His saving grace for man, i believe it does, but it is by faith only, that i believe.
Earl,
You brought up logic, not me; but now that you have, let’s go.
First of all, Elaine’s suggestion is illogical. It requires that there needed to be a change of the day of worship for Jews, who were the first Christians.
No one can deny that the apostles were the first followers of Jesus Christ. Nor can anyone deny they were Jews. No one can deny the Jewish Sabbath. Since Elaine herself cited the New Testament, no one can deny that Jesus claimed lordship of the Sabbath the Jews observed.
So logically, it makes no sense for there to have had to have been another statement ratifying the continuation of the Sabbath for Jews; which Jesus’ apostles were, and which the first Christians were also.
You mentioned logic, Elaine mentioned the NT; you said that you agree with her. Please use the NT to rebut my assertion that her $1000 criterion is illogical. Please identify the holes in my logic. Why would there have to have been a statement of reaffirmation for the Sabbath? Do you deny that the first Christians were (and were to have been) Jews? Did you read the texts I cited?
When the Holy Spirit descended on the multitude from all nations on the day of Pentecost, that was the sign that God had adopted them into his Family. They were from every tribe and nation, not just Jews.
If you read the controversy of the first Christians who the Jews were trying to force to obey the Law, it is clear that the gentiles were never expected not told to obey the Torah. They had only several instructions regarding meat offered to idols, blood and fornication. Had they been expected to observe the Jewish Law who instructed them? Where is the record of the apostles teaching them the Torah?
How do you explain 2 Cor 3, Paul's letters to the Christians in Corinth where he writes that Christ has not given them tablets written in stone (what could that possibly be?) but a new covenant of the spirit. The letters written in stone is the ministry of death. Or the letter to the Colossians where he most explicitly lists what we should not judge: food or drink, a festival, new mooon, or a Sabbath day–things which are a mere shadow of what is to come but the substance belongs to Christ.
I doubt I’ll ever hear from Earl. (He is not among my biggest fans:-)
Elaine, we’ve been around this block before. This time you’re practically changing the subject. Once again, the seventh day of the week was sanctified before there were any Jews or any law given to Jews. What matters is the God who made the Sabbath and claimed lordship over it.
He never gave His followers any other day nor did he de-sanctify His day. The day preceded and succeeded the Jews. He didn’t give the Jews/Christians any other day; and that is the only point. The Sabbath is about God, not law.
2 Corinthians 3 means that as we live by the spirit we will live. The law cannot save, instead it condemns. What does 2 Corinthians 5:10-21 mean, Elaine?
I think you will find at Pentecost they were every nations of Jews – i.e. Jews from the Diaspora.
Agree with Stephen.
There will be no legal action taken by the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference. The only claim is that the add was published by a group "Founded in 1992 by Seventh-day Adventist Believers' … and for that claim there is no judge who will take a case as to who believed what and when about anything.
The story I'm intersted in is who are the unnamed sourcdes for the quotes in the news report. It hardly seems necessary to make this a case of underground reporting.
The way this sort of thing is often handled would be along these lines. "The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists did not respond to a request for comment." … unless, of course there was a comment, in which case the comment would be published word for word.
All in all, more news than the ad probably deserves, though a helpful addition to the scope of AToday reporting.
Bill,
I share your concern about identifying the "unnamed sources" but think you've misunderstood something else. The newspaper ad was all the story author needed to request a comment from the church. Saying they received no response was telling us they were following best journalistic practices and report the story completely. Doing that was my practice during my years as a newspaper reporter/editor and a rule I expected my staff to follow. I also required that the source of a quote be identified, if not by name, at least by official function or public office. There were a few times when I had to guard the identity of an informant, but that did not happen very often.
Thank Bill Noel
I should like to know more about your newspaper career … my company counts 1,500 community newspapers as clients … my gmail name is billgarber … actually I'm a bit embarrassed not knowing you by now …
That was a lot of years ago (I left in 1992) and the paper has changed hands twice since I was there, so I don't even know who owns it today. You may have seen some of my work in a few other places like the last issue of Adventist Today magazine (Prevented by the Sabbath?).
To learn more about this chruch, see the following who is on their weabsite:
[quote]~From Professor Samuel Xede Kofi Howusu, a servant of the Lord
Jesus Christ, sent as a prophet according to the plan and prophecies
and purpose and will of God the Father before the foundation of
the world, to receive the books of the Eternal Gospel from the hand
of the Lord Jesus Christ at the command of God the Father before
the meeting of the Council of Heaven and to bring them to the
earth at this time, in the final preparation for the coming of the
Kingdom of God.[/quote]
There is much more about him, but this should give you a start if you are interested.
Pasadena, CA May 3:
HEALTH OFFICIAL ON PAID LEAVE AFTER WEB POSTS
Pasadena's public health director was placed on paid administrative leave while the city completes an inquiry into video and audio statements posted online about evolution, homosexulity and other issues.
The city took the action Thursday against Eric Walsh, a Seventh-day Adventist preaher, after clips were posted on You Tube and other sites, Psadena Star-News reported.
The recording described the theory of evolution as a satanic belief and criticized homosexuality as sinful, reports said.
Walsh has been city health director since 2010. He has not responded to a request for comment by the ssociated Press.
The sermons contrast with Walsh's public speeches, according to the newspaper.
Elaine: 'If you read the controversy of the first Christians who the Jews were trying to force to obey the Law, it is clear that the gentiles were never expected not told to obey the Torah.'
They were not meant to obey the 613 rules of the Mitzvoth, but Acts 15:20 shows they were meant to keep the 'Noah-Alien' portions of the Torah. That includes certain food requirements and the Sabbath. The 4th commandment itself makes clear it isn't Jewish – it is also for 'aliens'.
Yes, aliens could become part of the Jewish family but ONLY after they were circumcised, which is why it was the crux of the controversy between the Jews and gentile Christians.
This was the instruction given prior to the Exodus (Ex. 12:48: "But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. but no uncircumcised person may eat of it."
To become a member of the covenant community the males of every household had to be circumcised (Gen. 17:9-14; Lev.12:3), and all had to observe the Sabbath. If you take away circumcision, then you take away the covenant people. If you take aawy covenant people, then you must take away the Sabbath of Sinai, for it is the sign between God and the covenant people. The Sabbath and circumcision wer closely linked as the signs of the covenant. The two main pointsof separation between Jew nd Gentile were first circumcision and second, the Sabbath. This is the reason that the Jews were so intent on making the gentile converts submit to circumcision: they were unwilling to accept them because to be part of the community of which the Jews belonged, they must first be circumcised before they could observe all its laws, of which Sabbath and circumcision were the major external and observable signs.
'Yes, aliens could become part of the Jewish family but ONLY after they were circumcised, which is why it was the crux of the controversy between the Jews and gentile Christians.'
Elaine, I was thinking a number of ways to respond to you but the thing most important to note is that the key text you are forgetting is Acts 15:21.
The arguments you make above are, ironically, the argument of the Judaizing faction, which was rejected in the Apostolic Decree. What Acts 15:21 demonstrates is that the Apostles didn't invent anything new but simply upheld the longheld understanding of Jewish synagogues throughout the Diaspora.
The four commands in Acts 15:20 were, according to the latest (non-Adventist) scholarship, a summary of the alien-principles applicable under the Torah to Gentiles. This is a point made by T. Callan, The Background of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) (CBQ 55, 1993): 284-97 and R.J. Bauckham, “James and the Jerusalem Church,” in The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 179, 470.
The Sabbath is one of the alien-principle because it explicitly is said to apply to Gentiles. It also has a wider theological significance in being linked back to creation, before sin, and thus is not merely part of the range of ceremonies introduced 430 years after Abraham to point to Jesus.
The majority of Jews during 2nd-Temple Judaism didn't expect Gentiles to undergo full circumcission. The Judaizers were not 'true Jews' but at odds with the what the majority of the synagogues held as the standard for Gentiles. That's James's point in Acts 15:21.
The Torah never expected Gentiles to undergo circumcission as a 'salvation issue' essential to monotheism. Your reference to Ex 12:48 is a reference to Gentiles wishing to celebrate Passover – i.e. a Jewish ceremonial feast. A Gentile could undergo full conversion if they wished, which included circumcission, but it never explicitly required it. The Torah never expected Gentiles to undergo full conversion as a 'salvation issue' and they still don't today. Go ask a rabbi if you are unsure.
And your reference evern to Passover isn't clear. Consider Num 9:14, which doesn't explicitly mention Gentiles requiring circumcission. Num 9:14 demonstrates some of the complexities in this issue.
The Sabbath is very much a different kettle of fish from Passover. It is just like the other basics of monotheism, including worshipping just one god or not making graven images. Like the Sabbath, the Torah always taught that Gentiles had to keep these laws, which explicitly applied to 'aliens' and just Israelites.
'To become a member of the covenant community the males of every household had to be circumcised (Gen. 17:9-14; Lev.12:3), and all had to observe the Sabbath.'
You are somewhat correct in saying the Jewish rites and signs were done away with under the NT. That was the eschatological hope of the Messianic Age recognised by the Apostles in Acts 15:16-18. Under the Messianic Age, both the uncircumcissed Gentile and the Eunuch were made part of the people, being allowed into the Temple (which is Jesus and the Church). That was the raddical message that the Eithiopian Eunuch grasped when he met Philip.
But the Sabbath is not against the eschatological message of the Messianic Age – rather it is affirmed by it. That is the message of Isaiah 56:4,6, which again is the very message the Eithiopian Enuch grapsed, and so did the Apostles in Acts 15.
'The two main pointsof separation between Jew nd Gentile were first circumcision and second, the Sabbath.'
Says Elaine Nelson. What about the Bible? Isn't actually the main point of separation monotheism – belief in one God, and not making graven images? Are they the most 'Jewish' of Jewish signs? What of them – gone also in the NT?
'they were unwilling to accept them because to be part of the community of which the Jews belonged, they must first be circumcised before they could observe all its laws, of which Sabbath and circumcision were the major external and observable signs.'
If the Apostles didn't expect Gentiles to keep the Sabbath, then why not say so? There would be a perfect opportunity to do so given Acts 15:21! Yet Sabbath-keeping was already a widespread practice of believing Gentiles at the time, as numerous passages in the NT attest.
The four commands in Acts 15:21 are mentioned in several places, but there is no mention of either circumcision or Sabbath.
You are trying to prove a negative: Because there was nothing about Sabbath observing a necessity of Gentiles, you are making a leap to claim that because it wasn't mentioned it obviously was taken for granted! This is the fallacy of silence and illogical. Ditto for "If the apostles didn't expect Gentiles to keep the Sabbath then why not say so? Well, if you read Paul's letter to the Romans where he writes about the Law: "For now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by whom we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter."
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to eeryone who believers."
"Who are you to judge the servant of another?" "One man regards one day above another, another regrds every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind."
"Christ…..who also made us adequate as serants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit, for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."
Your claim that the Torah always taught that the Gentiles had to keep these laws. Please quote the text making that statement. The Torah was specifically the covenant between God and the Jews; never were Gentiles included; in fact, each account of the giving of the Law (and there are at least four) were with the Jews ONLY, no other peoples were included.
There are so many assumptions, presumptions, and suppositions in your comment above that I could write a book exposing them.
It is unnecessary to refer to any writings other than the Bible to show that there was never instruction, command, suggestion, or recommendation that the Gentile converts to Christianity should observe other than the commands about food served to idols, blood, and fornication. As the Sabbath had many prohibitions and restrictions given in the Torah for its proper observance, the Gentiles would have to have been instructed in how to properly observe it but again, where in the Bible is this ever given?
You also do not explain how Col. 2:16 could be a call for the Gentiles to observe Sabbath.
That the Gentiles and Jews met in the synagoguge on Sabbath is no more a sign of Sabbath obervance than an Adventist who attends the Catholic church. The synagogue was a communal building, much like a town hall, were people gathered to hear a speaker and Sabbath was the day of rest in Judea, so that is when the mixed group could meet to hear a visiting speaker. Gentiles could not attend temple services, but the synagogues were open to all. Equally, the people met in homes and by the riverside.
Yes, converts to Christianity were meeting on Sabbaths, but the Didache (ca. 50 A.D.) includes that Christians were meeting on the first day of the week in honor of the Resurrection, long before the close of the first century. Roman historian, Pliny writes that on the first day of the week Christians meet to sing and praise.
While the Jews continued to observe their special days, the Gentile Christians were never instructed to observe the Torah, but their requirements were very simple. "Why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? This is when the Jewish Christians stayed in Jerusalem and separated from the Gentile believers, eventually, the Jewish-Christians apparently died out as after the temple was destroyed (70), Christianity became a religion of the gentiles and non-Jews and the first day became the day that they celebrated in recognition of the reason there was Christianity: the Resurrection.
Steve is in for the (seemingly) regularly scheduled circular argument about the seventh day-Sabbath.
Now, Elaine is attempting to make a case for the first day, or Sunday; but never addresses what Jesus claimed about the Sabbath which was not law related. The sanctification of the Sabbath preceded law, the Sabbath was made for mankind, and Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath.
That’s a trifecta that cannot be gainsaid. The sanctification has never been divinely removed.
(In Colossians 2:16 Elaine know that “sabbath days” refer to plural, ceremonial sabbath days; and that one shouldn’t judge another under any set of circumstances, in any case.)
Both the NASB and NIV are translated "DAY" singular. Those are considered two of the most accurate translations. Had Paul meant the Sabbatical Year, it would not have been translated "day" as the Sabbatical Year occurre only every seventh YEAR for the entire year.
Perhaps you will be so kind to tell me how you KNOW that Col. 2:16 is referring to ceremonial sabbath days? As each time in the Bible when the Jewish special days are mentioned they are always either in reverse or ascending order: yearly, monthly, weekly or weekly, monthly, yearly.
If the time were specified rather than the memorial they would read:
"Therefore let no one act as your judge in….respect to a yearly festival; or a monthly, or a weekly (and the NASB is "Sabbath DAY." The seven annual festivals (Lev. 23 begins with the weekly Sabbath and the date and time for the others often depends on the harvest. The Sabbatical YEAR, is to be observed every seven YEARS, for an entire year, not a day which is the word used in Col. 2:16 and cannot be referring to the Sabbatical year.
No, I am not making a case for the first day, nor any day. But the record of the early church has multiple sources showing that the Christians began observing the first day of the week and there is not a single source showing that they considered either Saturday or Sunday to be sacred. What is lacking in all of the discussions about Gentile Christians observing the seventh day as sacred is totally missing
Actually Young’s Literal Translation says “of sabbaths.” (Perhaps someone proficient in Greek can confirm.) “Let no one, then, judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths, which are a shadow of the coming things, and the body is of the Christ;” Colossians 2:16,17.
Contrary to your suggestion “sabbaths” doesn’t appear to be singular, nor is it specific—in other words, doesn’t say “let no man judge you about the weekly Sabbath.” Obviously that’s not to say that we should judge others about the weekly Sabbath; but that wasn’t what was being referenced.
Jesus never evangelized among Gentiles and told his disciples not to go to them. Sabbath was central to the Torah and Jesus faithfully observed all the Law.
Those who refuse to believe that Christianity was a completely new religion and merely a continuation of Judasim and Christianity combined, offer a religion that is part Jewish, part Christian and not wholly either one. Had the Holy Spirit instructed the mixed race at Pentecost that there was much more necessary than its blessing and the Law must also be observed faithfully, it would have taken years and many translators to convey that message. Jewish boys at Bar Mitzvah must be able to repeat from memory long portions of the Law and study for years to be an observant Jew in all the Law. Christianity changed all of this to a very simply Gospel that converts were made in one day! Impossible with Judaism.
The OT was written by and for Jews. The NT was written by and for Christians and is the textbook and guide for Christians; the Hebrew Bible is for history, wisdom, psalms and genealogies, but is not the last word of Christians.
This whole statement is wrong on so many levels.
'Those who refuse to believe that Christianity was a completely new religion and merely a continuation of Judasim and Christianity combined, offer a religion that is part Jewish, part Christian and not wholly either one.'
This is just wrong. The early Church Fathers (who you pick and choose to support when it suits you) affirmed the continuation of the OT because that was necessary to combat the Gnostics, who taught the OT God was evil. Marcion, the first major Gnostic Christian, created the very first NT cannon which deliberately excluded the OT. The 'proto-orthodox' Christians created the NT cannon we have today, which includes the OT, precisely to counter that early heresy. And that heresy is condemned by Paul and John explicitly, as 'anti-Christ', relating to Docetism.
Your whole argumen is just silly. For example, Paul is an absurd hypocrite if he intended the Law has no relevance, status, use or meaning to the Christian, for Paul quotes the Law to argue his primary message, that righteousness comes by grace through faith, not by works: Rom 10:6-8, citing Deut 30:12-14; Gal 3:6-8, citing Gen 15:6; Heb 8:5, citing Ex 25:40.
'Had the Holy Spirit instructed the mixed race at Pentecost that there was much more necessary than its blessing and the Law must also be observed faithfully, it would have taken years and many translators to convey that message.'
First of all, it isn't clear to me Elaine whether you even believe in the Holy Spirit, so your authority is somewhat shot to begin with. Secondly, the 'mixed race' at Pentecost appeared to be a mixed race of Diaspora Jews, which is why they were in Jerusalem to begin with for the Jewish feast of Pentecost; thus, like the Eithopian Eunuch, who seemed to know the Law already when Philip found him, these new converts seemed to be Jews who already knew the Law. But don't take my word for it, it says explicitly in Acts 2:5:
'Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem.'
So this 'mixed race' from every nation were actually devout Jews!
'Jewish boys at Bar Mitzvah must be able to repeat from memory long portions of the Law and study for years to be an observant Jew in all the Law. Christianity changed all of this to a very simply Gospel that converts were made in one day!'
First of all, you can't make an argument from modern Rabbinic Judaism, which doesn't match NT 2nd-Temple Judaism of the NT period.
Second, this statement is historically inaccurate. The Didache, which you quoted earlier, and other early confessions of faith, demonstrates Gentile Christians had to undergo extensive instruction before full conversion. In fact, for a period of time, people were often baptised at the end of their lives, not as infants, as was the case with Emperor Constatine. In fact, historical evidence suggests early converts went through far much more training than Christian converts today do.
'The OT was written by and for Jews.'
Not entirely true. It includes say the covenant of Noah in Gen 9, which was written for Gentiles – not Jews. You should know this Elaine.
Also, it wasn't necessarily written by 'Jews' at all. If we even take your JEDP theory, the E and D were probably written not by 'Jews' from Judah but from Israelites in the northern kingdom.
'The NT was written by and for Christians…'
Actually, it was also written by Jews! All the early Apostles were Jews. As to the identity of some of the later writers, we don't know who they were, but we know the early oral traditions derive from the Apostles, who were all Jews. So you anti-Jewish spin on the NT is false and Gnostic.
Stephen Foster: 'Steve is in for the (seemingly) regularly scheduled circular argument about the seventh day-Sabbath.'
Ha ha – indeed. Like doing mental push-ups. I can expect Elaine to bring this topic up once every couple of weeks or months, and one to get a mental work out.
Elaine: 'You are trying to prove a negative: Because there was nothing about Sabbath observing a necessity of Gentiles, you are making a leap to claim that because it wasn't mentioned it obviously was taken for granted!'
Elaine as I read it you are trying to prove a negative. You are somehow thinking that unless each and every Jewish moral command or ritual practice is explicitly reaffirmed in the NT then it somehow has no relevance or application to Christians.
Do you think the second command against not making graven images still apply, because that is not explicitly mentioned in the NT either? That is a Jewish 'ritual' practice that differentiated them from the foreign nations. Are you saying the Apostles were ok with idolatry?
Elaine: 'The Torah was specifically the covenant between God and the Jews; never were Gentiles included; in fact, each account of the giving of the Law (and there are at least four) were with the Jews ONLY, no other peoples were included.'
Elaine you are getting confused. What is the Law ('Torah')? It is the first five books of the Bible, the Law of Moses. You are confusing the entirel Torah, being those five books, from the 613 rules given at Sinai of the Jewish Mitzvot, given just to Israelites from then on.
The Torah includes a number of covenants, not just the one with Moses. The Torah includes includes the covenant with Noah, who was not a Jew, and prescribed certain laws and requirements for his Gentile descendants.
The covenant with Abraham is actually a Gentile covenant as well, insofar as Abraham never wore blue tassels on his garment or kept Passover or followed a range of other practices. I believe the Talmud itself recognises the Patriachs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were Noahides – not Jews under the Mitzvoth.
Elaine: 'There are so many assumptions, presumptions, and suppositions in your comment above that I could write a book exposing them. It is unnecessary to refer to any writings other than the Bible to show that there was never instruction, command, suggestion, or recommendation that the Gentile converts to Christianity should observe other than the commands about food served to idols, blood, and fornication.'
Elaine you really make me laugh sometimes. Pot really calling the kettle black here.
You are seriously complaining because I was pointing to the latest scholarship from some of the world's best contemporary scholars, who are not Adventists so you cannot claim there to be some sort of circular SDA bias! This is from the person who likes to tottle off JEDP or whatever theory comes to mind at the drop of a hat – all beyond the plain reading of the Bible. You are I are not fundamentalists Elaine, so you and I can refer to other sources, so your claim to only rely in the Bible alone is one of the funniest jokes I have heard in ages.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Apostles in Acts 15:20 only expected Gentile Christians to keep those four commands, and only those four commands, and absolutely nothing else?
So you are saying the Apostles would have been ok with Gentile Christians worshipping other gods, or making graven images, or taking the Lord's name in vain, or dishonouring parents? Again, serious biblical scholarship on this issue (which again is non-Adventist, so there is no SDA conspiracy here) suggests the four commands of Acts 15:20 are a summary of what was well understood by synagogues across the Diaspora of those aspects of the Torah that applied to Gentiles. That is James's point in Acts 15:21, in that he is merely affirming what Jews have been teaching in synagogues for generations.
But if you have now suddenly become a fundamentalist, and won't see reason or listen to reputable biblical scholarship, then I doubt I'm going to get through to you.
Elaine: 'Yes, converts to Christianity were meeting on Sabbaths, but the Didache (ca. 50 A.D.) includes that Christians were meeting on the first day of the week in honor of the Resurrection, long before the close of the first century.'
Hang on, I thought you were only going to read the Bible. To use your own logic, the fact Christians met on Sunday is no more important than Adventists who traditionally meet on a Wed night.
And you only quote some early sources and not others. There is also evidence even centuries later that some Christians were still keeping the Sabbath, at least outside of Rome and Alexandria: see Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 5, 22; NPNF 2nd, II, p. 132.
The truth seems to be a more gradual drift away from Sabbath-keeping, especially as Jews lost their protected status under the Empire and became public enemies with the Jewish Wars. My understanding is at first, both days were effectively kept, with the Sabbath becoming a fast-day and Sunday a celebration day (as occurs still even today in some Eastern Orthodox traditions).
Elaine: 'As the Sabbath had many prohibitions and restrictions given in the Torah for its proper observance, the Gentiles would have to have been instructed in how to properly observe it but again, where in the Bible is this ever given?'
You ask where are Gentiles commanded in the Bible to learn the Law? The answer is black and white in Deut 31:12:
'Assemble the people—men, women, and children, as well as the aliens residing in your towns—so that they may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God and to observe diligently all the words of this law'
The idea of Gentiles coming to learn of the Law, which includes the worship of one monotheistic God, is the very essence of the Messianc predictions found in the OT.
Elaine: 'But the record of the early church has multiple sources showing that the Christians began observing the first day of the week and there is not a single source showing that they considered either Saturday or Sunday to be sacred.'
Sorry, that is just plain factually wrong. From Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 5, 22; NPNF 2nd, II, p. 132:
'although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.'
Sorry and I should just add that was written in something like the mid 400s! And we also have some sources from some Church Fathers and other Church leaders complaining about 'Judaizing' Christians continuing to keep the Sabbath. Bacciochi makes the point that this demonstrates quite a few Christians, even centuries later, must have still been keeping the Sabbath, for the proto-Catholic leaders to still be issuing warning and decrees against it.
Source:
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/sabbath_to_sunday/6.html