Rabbi Thiel
"Yes, trumpets are blown on the Feast of Trumpets–which Jews later changed the name for their observance to Rosh Hashana.
It should be mentioned that some Jewish sages have pointed to the first day of the seventh month of the calendar, which begins at sunset September 29, 2019, as the day the earth was created. Others, like those the Temple Institute referred to, point to it being the day Adam and Eve were created. However, since Hebrew calendar rules do not allow the first day of the seventh month to be on what we now call Friday (since the Sabbath is the next day), their sages pointing to human creation on that day makes no sense. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day of the week (cf. Genesis 1:26-30), the day we call Friday. Thus, some of their sages are in conflict with that.
Speaking of conflicts and dates, although the Jews claim the year 5779 ended at sunset today, that is actually off by a couple of centuries."
"New Covenant? New Testament? Don't see no New Covenant. ?What is this "New Testament" you speak of?"
"All that being said, the Feast of Trumpets runs from sunset September 29th through sunset September 30th in 2019. And we are about 2 centuries closer to the end of the 6,000 years than the Jews are proclaiming."
Rabbi Thiel
"200,000? Nope... Don't see no 200,000. 6000...That's it...6000."
"Ok, I got Good News and I got Bad News.
The Bad News is that we are 150,000 years to early and Salvation is unavailable to us. There is no "plan" for us.
The Good News is we don't have to give up to 30% of our hunt to other tribes, walk to the coast for the Feast of Crude Dwellings during hunting season or, as single men, bring a watermelon to the tribal gatherings or go without food for a day to show the gods we are humble men. We go enough without food anyway...
We also, so I hear, are lucky we are too early for something called "Dearlordnotthisagainwe'veheardthisathousandtimes!?"
So we should rejoice in our misfortune."
using "new covenant" as a defense shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
ReplyDeleteI'm well aware of the New Covenant as filtered thru the Jewish Christian view of the Jerusalem Apostles and the Gentile Pauline view. The COGs filter the NT thru the Jewish Christian view and mainstream Christianity thru the Pauline Gentile view. The are incompatible but the COGs can't see that. Any good Rabbi will also tell us they are two different views with Paul slaughtering the Old Testament to make it mean what it never meant.
ReplyDeleteBob's insurance om the 6000 year tale is simply ignorance of human history he and others will not accept due to their faith restrictions
Yes, but what is the scriptural basis for having the International Dateline in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, instead of the Atlantic?
ReplyDeleteIn the Western Hemisphere, are all of the Churches of Armstrong celebrating, observing the Sabbath a day late? Native Americans, descended from those on the Ark, would have had to keep the Sabbath every week as they migrated over centuries to the east, eventually to North America, never missing or adding a day.
Then, in 1492, comes into North America some Spaniards, whose ancestors descending from those surviving on the Ark also should have observed the Sabbath each week, without adding or missing a single day.
So, who’s got it right in this Hemisphere? If it’s the Native Americans, the true Sabbath is on Friday. If, somehow, it’s the Spaniards and the rest of humans from the Old World by way of the Atlantic, it’s a Saturday Sabbath.
Some have been getting it lethally wrong for centuries (if the Sabbath observance yet retains necessity in the New Covenant). Can’t have it both ways. Biblically, where should the authentic International Dateline be? Accurate, precise observance of all of the Sabbaths depend on this.
Please. If this is an important matter, give us the scriptural texts that resolve the matter.
If there are none, is Sabbath-keeping still required for salvation?
Are the Churches of Armstrong blowing their horns on the wrong days? Does it even matter?
103 The ministry will probably tell you that the Sabbath is when it comes to you in the weekly cycle of earth rotation. "When the Sun goes down" is a bit of a misnomer as it should be "When the earth rotates into the unlit side of itself and comes around again in the morning". The Sun didn't go anywhere.
ReplyDeleteTo some it matters, to others not so much. Someone said to me once "How do we know which day is even Saturday?" All I could think of is that I know which day is Sunday so just go back one day. lol. Those how to or what's the difference questions can be boggers.
What's the difference between getting your appendix out and getting a root canal?
Answer: None. Except the opening for the root canal is already there.
What's the difference between an alcoholic being put out of church and a fat person not. Proverbs has much to say about gluttony.
Answer: None except I'd rather have a fat person coming at me on the hwy than a drunk.
The Law/Grace/New Covenant debate has been raging since the early church got itself in the Works/Faith mess as we see in James and Romans. James is the "show me your faith without works and I'll show you my faith by my works" rebuttal to Paul's somewhat confusing, "Is he for it or against it?" book of Romans.
Ignorance is not just what you don't see. It is also what you won't see so the debate is endless and people will divide up into denominations and cults accordingly based on their zealotry and perspectives.
As with cars, there is a seat for every butt in religion.
And too...There is no One True Church. There never has been. Not in the New Testament. Not through history, not now and not ever.
ReplyDeletethe above discussion - talk about straining gnats.
ReplyDelete1:03pm I was wondering when we'd get a hint at just who on this blog is William Hohmann. Why not sign your post?
ReplyDeleteKevin
1:03pm, er. I mean William Hohmann, please show me which Native American tribe kept any kind of sabbath. Or where any of the Spaniards that came to America were sabbath keepers.
ReplyDeleteI've never claimed that sabbath keeping is "required" for salvation. Though I believe 100% that not keeping the sabbath is a sin, I believe that only sinners will and can be saved. Yes, even in our sins because while flesh we'll never be perfect. Which is why it's the heart that God judges.
Next, whether you or anyone else likes it or not the New Covenant in Jesus' blood requires nothing but faith in the fact that Jesus died for the remission of our sins. The very idea that a covenant, which sole purpose is to forgive law breaking, aka sin, also has laws to be kept is totally ignorant.
The New Covenant in Jesus blood was not given to give us a new set of laws it was given to save us from the laws which we've broken. And no, I don't mean the old Mt. Sinai Covenant laws, only Israel was under that covenant. But we need to understand why God made that covenant with Israel. Paul tells us that it was made because of transgressions.
Transgressions are disobedience.
It doesn't say that God added laws because of transgressions plus a few others for identification purposes. He added laws that were already being broken. He didn't create a new set of laws just to be broken by Israel. The laws that God added had existed long before Sinai whether you understand that, or whether you want to admit that. Added doesn't mean they came into existence at Sinai. But what did he add? What did he add it to?
God had made a Promise to Abraham, a covenant that Jesus would come from his lineage. Why? Because Abraham obeyed God, he obeyed his voice, laws, commands, statutes etc. etc. Where did all those "rules" that Abraham obeyed come from? Many assume that since Genesis doesn't have a systematic list of laws and commands that God didn't give any to Adam and Eve. That is utter bullshit. It's not that hard to figure out which laws, commands, voice, judgements, statutes, etc. that Abraham obeyed. God called them my laws, my statutes, my voice, etc. etc. Just do a search in the bible to find God telling people to obey "my" whatever.
God did not tell Abraham that in order to receive the covenant promise that all his children had to obey his voice, charge, commands, laws, etc. The Promise covenant was unconditional, God would perform it no matter what. It wasn't until 430 years later, because of disobedoence that God had to make an """additional""" covenant, to go alongside the Promise covenant since one can't add to an already agreed upon covenants if one of the party's is dead.
So God made another covenant with Abraham's kids because they were transgressing his laws and commmands. Does it make sense that he'd add laws that weren't being transgressed? I don't think so.
Coming is something that I wrote a while back.
Kevin
Part 1 of 3
ReplyDeleteWhy I Keep God's Sabbaths
The heart to obey is what God desires (Deut. 30:2, Deut. 5:29) and the blood of Jesus Christ is the only means for the remission/redemption of sin, not law keeping.
I personally have been a Sabbath and Feast (moedim) day keeper for over 50 years. I believe there is much misunderstanding about keeping the Sabbath, even among Sabbath keepers. I have tried to remedy that among Sabbath keepers as best that I can but way too many are Old Covenant legalists, though they'd vehemently deny it. I can assure you that I'm not.
Way too many Sabbath teachers teach that we are to keep the Sabbath because God commands it in the fourth commandment. Their problem is that the bible clearly says that the Ten Commandments are the words of the Covenant, the Old Mt. Sinai Covenant is the context of that verse. (Ex. 34:28) To claim to keep the Sabbath because the fourth commandment commands it is placing oneself under that Covenant which ended at Jesus' death according to Gal. 3:19.
Now you're probably thinking "If you understand that, then why do you keep the seventh day Sabbath?". Easy, Jesus said the Sabbath was made for man (Greek 'anthropos'), meaning all of mankind. The Sabbath wasn't made at Sinai it was made, and sanctified, in the garden of Eden. It will also be kept by all flesh in the millennium according to Is. 66:23.
Now the question is, "Is the Sabbath a command "required" by the New Covenant in Jesus' blood?" Luke 22:20, the answer is no. However, the New Covenant, as a "requirement" doesn't command against murder, stealing, lying etc. either. If the New Covenant "required" obedience to these things then the first time that we break any of them would mean that we've broken the covenant.
Don't get me wrong, as Christians we are to obey God's/Jesus' commandments but we're not to keep them because they're "required" by any Covenant, we're to obey them because they're "required" by our Creator, God/YHWH, and they've been required by God from creation and to not obey is sin. It is a sin to break any of God's laws. The New Covenant, as a "requirement", doesn't command any law, because its sole purpose is to remove the penalty of breaking the law. The law demands our death, both Jew and Gentile, for we have all sinned or broken God's law. Sin is the transgression of the law. (1John 3:4) Jesus died to redeem us from death which the law demands when broken. The wages of sin is death. (Rom. 6:23)
The erroneous idea that God had one set of laws for the Jews and another set of laws for the Gentiles is not biblical and it's caused nothing but confusion. God has one set of laws which he gave at creation. How else did Abraham know God's laws, statutes, commands, etc? Gen. 26:5
It is only logical that at creation God gave Adam and Eve laws and commands to obey, and that he taught his kids, and they taught theirs, but eventually over time they forgot or just refused to obey. While this is nowhere stated in the bible it would be irresponsible of God to condemn mankind without telling him why. The fact that there's no evidence of this proves nothing, we have no records from creation other than what Moses wrote 2500 years later. Do we really know that Adam and the people prior to the flood had no writings? No. The laws of God were remembered, at least in part, (probably because Adam wrote them down) by Abraham's parents and they taught him. Because of his obedience God made a covenant of Promise with him that Jesus would come from his seed. After Abraham's initial obedience, God, as a condition of that Promise covenant, didn't "require" continual obedience from Abraham's kids. God would fulfill the Promise no matter what, solely because of Abraham's faithful obedience. However, obedience was required for the simple fact that God was their Creator. As he is ours.
Part 2 of 3
ReplyDeleteHowever, 430 years later, because disobedience/law and commandment breaking (transgression) got so bad, (Gal. 3:19) God made a separate covenant with Israel. It had to be separate because God couldn't add to the original covenant because it was already ratified years earlier. (Gal. 3:17) This second covenant was only to last until the Seed should come. (Gal. 3:19)
God gave Israel his laws, statutes, judgements etc. at Mt. Sinai and also made a way to be physically forgiven if they sinned, (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35) the priesthood and sacrificial system was this physical system. Those sacrifices did not forgive Israel completely, they pointed to Jesus.
The question though is, why would God add laws that weren't being transgressed if that was the main purpose of the Mt. Sinai covenant according to Paul in Galatians 3:19? (added because of transgressions)
Obviously the Sabbath was a law of God long before Sinai and as I've shown will continue to be a law for all flesh during the millennium. Is. 66:23
The problem now is the misunderstanding/confusion that most have about the New Testament scriptures. Most have been taught that Jesus was resurrected on Sunday because of a mistranslation. Where the bible says "First day of the week" the Greek says, transliterated "mia ton sabbaton" translated precisely as "First the sabbaths". Proper exegesis is needed to understand this phrase.
One must understand that Jesus died on Passover, the 14th day of the first biblical month, (Ex. 12:1-6, Lev. 23:5) next one must understand that seven Sabbaths were to be counted (Lev. 23:10-16) from the morrow after the Sabbath during the days of "unleavened bread" (while the bible doesn't say this, Jesus' resurrection during the days of unleavened bread is our example), which most in error call the entire eight day feast Passover. This was the count to Pentecost. The correct understanding of "mia ton sabbaton" is the "first day of the weeks" (plural) which is also the first day which started the 50 day count to Pentecost. First day of the weeks or sabbaths because seven sabbaths/weeks were to be counted from that day.
The "first day of the week" or more accurately "First day of the Sabbaths" is not the biblical name for every Sunday of the year, it's the biblical name for one Sunday a year. The day the wave sheaf was to be offered. Lev. 23:11 This wave sheaf pictured Jesus as the first of the firstfruits. (1Cor. 23, James 1:18, Rev. 14:4) That was the day that Jesus was resurrected and it had been celebrated by Israel for 1500 years before Jesus came to earth.
Part 3 of 3
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely no biblical reason to keep Sunday, the day that Jesus was resurrected had been a special day of God's from at least Lev. 23. (truthfully God's feasts, Hebrew word moedim, are first mentioned in Gen. 1:14) Should we keep this day yearly? Sure. Weekly? No.
We are to keep the seventh day Sabbath. Not because of the Old Covenant or the fourth commandment, we're to keep it because it was made at creation for mankind. Jesus said so. He also said that he's the Lord of the Sabbath, making the seventh day Sabbath the Lord's Day, not Sunday.
We don't obey God to be saved, we all have earned death. Thankfully Jesus has given the only way to be forgiven, his shed blood. Do we now go out and sin because we're under grace? Sabbath breaking is still a sin and not because the fourth commandment says so. It's a sin because God, at creation, set that day aside (sanctified, made holy) by ceasing and made that day for us, mankind. (Jesus said so!) Yes, it pictures our rest in Jesus, it has for almost 6,000 years, and that rest won't completely take place until he returns to establish his reign in the millennium, the 1,000 years that the seventh day Sabbath pictures. Col. 2 This is why all of God's Sabbaths are shadows of things to come. Foreshadowing future events in God's plan of salvation for all of mankind.
But most importantly the seventh day Sabbath reveals exactly which God we worship. Ez. 20:12 The seventh day Sabbath is a sign that the God who created all things, the God who ceased on the seventh day of creation, the same God that sanctified the seventh day also sanctifies us.
In Lev. 23:2 God says these are his feasts, the weekly Sabbath and the annual Sabbaths, but we don't keep them because Lev 23 commands them, we keep them because they are appointments with God, His appointments. Appointments is the meaning of the Hebrew word moedim.
If you had an appointment with your Doctor would you be free to choose a different time or day?
That is why I keep God's Sabbath and Feasts!
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
PS to Dennis, no I can't prove the 7,000 year plan of God.😉
ReplyDeleteKevin
Thanks for that discourse.
ReplyDeleteBut it in no way answered the crucial question, "Where should the International Dateline be?"
In the Western Hemisphere, that determines which day of the calendar week is to be observed as the Biblical Sabbath. If the dateline is in the Atlantic, the Sabbath begins on the present calendar day Friday. If in the Pacific, it's Saturday.
Or, does the absence of any Biblical clarification of this conundrum indicate that observance of a Biblically-designated Sabbath is simply no longer required under the New Covenant? Is the New Testament consistent with this in specifically mentioning all of the Ten Commandments except the Fourth? So it is.
I do like the 1:03 riddle.
ReplyDeleteIt's like a magician show.
Lots of confusing contradictions but fairly easy to solve when one knows the answer.
A gem of philosophical questioning. Typical freshmen question for young lawyers in a bar discussing it for hours. Next day a professor gives the answer in a minute.
Nck
maybe that's why the commandment begins "Remember the Sabbath..."
ReplyDeleteit was already in existence.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeletemaybe that's why the commandment begins "Remember the Sabbath..."
it was already in existence.
October 1, 2019 at 6:32 AM
No I believe it is the answer to 1:03's riddle.
The bible anticipated on the finding of the "lost continent of atlantis." For those immigrating savages who were a day behind in crossing the Bering Strait or with the Mayflower from the other side it was an admonishment to "remember" it well since the Eurasian Continent ONLY held the keys to the oracles....no?
nck
Where the international date line is, is far from a crucial question. It might be for the legalist, but for one simply wanting to obey God to the best of their understanding, insignificant indeed.
ReplyDeleteHow do we determine today which day is the sabbath? Six days after your protestant neighbor goes to church. 😉 If we're wrong one day God will show us and his amazing grace will forgive us.
And, if in his heart that protestant neighbor is also trying to obey God, God in his amazing grace will forgive him too if he's wrong.
Isn't it wonderful not being a legalist, just individuals trying our best to obey God as best as we understand?
We were all once in a legalistic cult but there are some of us who still keep the sabbath who refuse to be judged by the legalists, and are willing to let others disagree without judging them.
Kevin
"Are the churches of Armstrong blowing their horns on the wrong day?"
ReplyDeleteWhat any church need do is form a committee, which does its due diligence on such technical matters. Its findings are to be regarded as acceptable to God on the matter. Which is why the "what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven" statement is found in both the old and new testament.
"Which is why the "what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven" statement is found in both the old and new testament."
ReplyDeleteSorry but, WRONG. That statement by Jesus was meant solely for the twelve, just as his statement that if they ask anything on his name that he'll do it.
Many think that promise of Jesus' to do anything asked in his name was for the whole church, it wasn't, which is why it's used as cheap fodder by atheists.
You also say: "Its findings are to be regarded as acceptable to God on the matter."
Wrong again. That's the same type of bullshit that the unbiblical WCG clergy class tried to pass off on us. Do really think a committee can tell God what is right for the group and God be ok with it? If so God must be ok with the Pope and his Cardinals.
Now a committee decision would most certainly be regarded as acceptable by church members willing to follow such decision, and our graceful God would most likely forgive a wrong committee decision, but to claim that he'd accept a wrong conclusion just because a committee made it is laughable!
Kevin
nck said...
ReplyDelete"Lots of confusing contradictions but fairly easy to solve when one knows the answer."
Why does that sound like an odd statement and reasoning to me? lol
Bob really wastes a lot of verbiage on the less significant things.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, the Biblical reference to the Feast of Trumpets is actually yom teruah which translates as the day of loud shouting or blasting, or simply, the day of blowing.
Hi Dennis. It's an adaption of a press statement by a famous coach and sportsman. Kinda master Ochai after showing an amazing move. The coach said: "It's really easy, when you know how to do it."
ReplyDeleteI think it sounds odd too, like many people do, because it's truth.
Nck
"And too...There is no One True Church. There never has been. Not in the New Testament. Not through history, not now and not ever."
ReplyDeleteDennis, you need to come to Wadsworth for an attitude adjustment... Prepare to be amazed, staggered and stunned.
Well, Hoss, I think you have finally explained the crux of the whole phenomenon. Bob blows.
ReplyDeleteSo Kevin do you know of any extra-Biblical sources that define "mia ton sabbaton" as you do i.e. it refers to the day of the wavesheaf and not to Sunday as the first day of the week? Is this phrase used as you believe it is and explained as such anywhere like the Greek Septuagint or the Apocrypha or other Jewish or Greek documents BC or AD?
ReplyDeleteKevin
ReplyDeleteYou've done a straw man argument on my 8.31 AM post, big time. You're addicted to attacking people. I have a relative like you. Such behavior makes you come across like a Pharisee.
5:56am, do you even know what a strawman argument is? I did not misrepresent your statement. I showed how your statement was erroneous plain and simple. Thanks for the diagnosis.
ReplyDeleteLevi n
10:19pm, if there is it would be very hard to find since it goes against the status quo that it means Sunday. Personally I don't care what others think, the only time the phrase is used in the bible (In the gospels, in Acts 20 and in 1 Cor. 16) is just before Pentecost. So my explanation that it only refers to the first day of the fifty day count to Pentecost has biblical support. There is no such support that it means 52 Sundays a year. Believe what you want though, I don't care.
ReplyDeleteKevin
"You're addicted to attacking people."
ReplyDeleteI didn't attack you, I "attacked" your comment. But I'm not opposed to attacking people if they need attacked.
Kevin
5:56 >>You're addicted to attacking people.<<
ReplyDeleteI agree! Why does Kevin have to be so nasty all the time? He needs some therapy for his anger issues.
I didn’t keep Trumpets for the first time In decades. Didn’t miss it. Do kinda miss not knowing everything.
ReplyDelete9:50am On second thought you're exactly right and you'd better hope that we never meet face to face or I'll kick your fucking ass!
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of abominable poopy-bomb would imply that a keeper of the sabbath could be nasty, or might need anger management classes? What a terrible theory to advance in the blogosphere!
ReplyDeleteKevin said: "10:19pm, if there is it would be very hard to find since it goes against the status quo that it means Sunday. Personally I don't care what others think, the only time the phrase is used in the bible (In the gospels, in Acts 20 and in 1 Cor. 16) is just before Pentecost. So my explanation that it only refers to the first day of the fifty day count to Pentecost has biblical support. There is no such support that it means 52 Sundays a year. Believe what you want though, I don't care. Kevin"
ReplyDeleteI'm not looking for a fight Kevin just genuinely interested in the subject. At present, my understanding is that it means the first day of the week as I've read various material in support of that conclusion and there is various historical documents in the early centuries of Christianity that have used that phrase in that way. Of course I, and others like me, could be wrong and the way it was meant by the gospel writer and Paul is as the first of the sabbath count as you believe. But, there has to be documentary evidence for that view imho. It also makes me wonder about Luke 6:1 and if it's related to it in some way since the latter verse has mystified Christians for an adequate explanation for centuries too. Anyhow I guess it's an area for further study...
There is absolutely no biblical reason to keep Sunday
ReplyDeleteA few weeks ago I told a local Protestant preacher I had a three-page list of Catholic claims that Sunday worship was entirely their doing - with their unique authority to make such changes.
The preacher came out with a lot of lame excuses to show that the women at the tomb, Paul wanting to gather money on the first day of the week, etc, were "proof" of sanctification of Sunday. He had earlier given a sermon that virtually ridiculed Sabbath observance...
I think the Pope Francis made a statement that claimed the NT justifies Sunday worship. Where in the NT? As Homer Simpson said, "Somewhere in the back..."
11:03pm I apologize. I responded to your 10:19 post after I responded to 5:56's post, which pissed me off.
ReplyDeleteWhile historical documents certainly do use the phrase first day of the week to mean Sunday, how do we know that's how the earliest documents meant it? Could the earliest documents not have meant the first day of the 50 day count and then later documents changed the meaning? Kinda like the meaning of the word gay over the years?
Without looking up Luke 6:1 I'm assuming it's the scripture that says the second sabbath after the first and indeed I do believe it's talking about the second week and or sabbath in the seven week count. It only makes sense.
If you looked up the examples of the phrase first day of the week as I suggested, you saw that in the bible it's only used prior to Pentecost. The usage in the gospels is a given as it was after Passover. The usage in Acts 20:7 is just before Paul hurries to be in Jerusalem by Pentecost in verse 16.
The usage in 1 Cor. 16:2 is before Paul says he'll tarry in Ephesus until Pentecost in verse 8.
So as you can see the bible supports the first day of the week phrase "mia ton sabbaton" as either being the first day of the fifty day count or the first week count in the seven week count to Pentecost, it does not support the teaching that it means 52 Sundays out of the year. No matter what historical documents say.
Again sorry for the aggression but some folks here assume they can come across aggressively without it being reciprocated as the strawman dude above. I don't put up with anyone's shit any more and if people don't like it tough.
By the way is your initials VS?
Kevin
no biblical reason to keep Sunday
ReplyDeleteAnd it was that kind of statement that prompted me to finally get Dr Bacchiocchi's "Sabbath to Sunday" book. He puts up a fairly good case that the decision was from Rome and not Jerusalem.
Kevin said: "11:03pm I apologize. I responded to your 10:19 post after I responded to 5:56's post, which pissed me off."
ReplyDeleteApology accepted :-) and many thanks for expanding on your understanding of the issue! I do believe I've learned something new and it's very possible your view is actually correct even though it's in the minority. I'll definitely have to research this further in future.
Kevin said: "By the way is your initials VS?"
No they ain't mine :-)
ReplyDeleteOne other thing that you might want to consider is that the word sabbaton is a Hebraism they used a Hebrew word in a Greek document, much like if we were to use the word casa for house in an English document. Why did the do this if it was merely a name for every Sunday? They had a perfectly good Greek word that meant seven. In Greek today the word for week merely means seven.
Go to blueletterbible.org and search the phrase "seven days", they use hepta hemera every time it's used. Why? Especially in Acts? A mostly gentile book. Why didn't they use sabbaton if it only meant a week? In reality it doesn't mean a week, it means either a day or a period between two sabbaths.
If they were meaning Sunday I would think they could have said "mia hemera ton hepta hemera" or "first day of seven days". But they didn't, they used a Hebrew word because they were dealing with a Hebrew festival period. It was the first of the sabbaths (or the first period of seven days) in the seven sabbath count to Pentecost.
So much for weekly Sunday gathering.
Kevin
Kevin
ReplyDeleteStrawman dude here. A straw man argument is "refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent." Your threats and rage attacks are not going to intimidate me from calling a spade a spade.
1:18pm Good you know how to google. As I said I did not misrepresent your argument, I stated plainly that your argument was wrong. That a "committee" decision does not mean that God regards that decision as correct. And that Jesus' statement that what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven was meant solely for the Apostles and not some church "committee" or some church minister, or some church "government". My elaborating on your statement by adding church minister and church government does not make it a strawman, whether you like it or not. Your statement was flat out wrong and your calling my argument a strawman was wrong also. Get over it!
ReplyDeleteYou're the one that started the rage and attacking by stating:
"You're addicted to attacking people. I have a relative like you. Such behavior makes you come across like a Pharisee."
When all I did was disagree with your comment. Now who's the one who is addicted to attacking? If you can't handle someone disagreeing with you and showing where you're wrong then why are you commenting?
What, you didn't like my saying that your comment was the same type of bullshit that the WCG clergy class tried to pawn off on us? Was the language too colorful for you? Or what, was it not "Christian"? Reminiscent of the old WCG judgemental mentality if you ask me.
Or did you get upset because I said your committee comment was laughable?
Maybe you need to put a pair of big boy pants on and grow up, and maybe take a break from a blog that calls a spade a spade if you can't handle it.
Kevin
For anyone who thinks that I was too hard on strawman dudes comment I just want to say don't forget that we were in a cult that expected every member to let the minister/hireling do the thinking for them.
ReplyDeleteSo, are we now to let a committee do it instead? The comment was stupid. Especially since the topic was when is the sabbath and who decides.
The very suggestion that God would accept a committee decision about when to keep the sabbath just irritates the hell out of me (No, I don't give a rats ass whether you like the language or not) especially when we have all most likely been bible students for years and now we're being told just to let others decide. Being told that what is bound on earth by a committee will be bound in heaven? Amazing. Yes, I call bullshit.
If one is going to keep the sabbath, and if one has God's Holy Spirit, shouldn't they be able to decide such matters?
This "group think" mentality is exactly what the organizations want, and whether anyone likes it or not it's not of God!
Grow up people and learn to think for yourselves!
Kevin
Kevin
ReplyDeleteA good example of loosing and binding was the controversy of circumcision. In Acts 15:6 "the apostles and elders met to consider the question. After much discussion Peter got up and addressed them..."
So yes, a committee was formed, the issue discussed, and a binding decision made. Just like with today's holy days. Alternatively, members can do a solo like James Malm, resulting in thousands of members coming to feast sites on dozens of different days. Try organising that!
4:19pm As I said, Jesus' comment about binding and loosing was meant for the Apostles, so your example in Acts 15 has absolutely nothing to do with a committee today having the same authority that Jesus gave them.
ReplyDeleteYou'll notice my comment in the original post:
"Now a committee decision would most certainly be regarded as acceptable by church members willing to follow such decision, and our graceful God would most likely forgive a wrong committee decision, but to claim that he'd accept a wrong conclusion just because a committee made it is laughable!"
If someone chooses to place themselves under such an unbiblical system then I say go for it, but to use Jesus' statement about binding and loosing as biblical support is misapplying scripture.
Concerning the Holy Days, a group or committee making decisions about Holy Days is completely different because one can choose not to go to their site. If one agrees to go to a site organized by a group they should abide by the groups decisions. But that's far from binding and loosing. And very far from God binding in heaven the decisions made by the group/committee.
Is it really that hard to understand? Wow!
Kevin
"Just like with today's holy days. Alternatively, members can do a solo like James Malm, resulting in thousands of members coming to feast sites on dozens of different days. Try organising that!"
ReplyDeleteWe independents/anti-denominationalists have been doing just fine for decades, even when we disagree on the calendar. Many go to Feast sites who are using the Hillel calendar even if the calendar they use is a day or two off. They just keep the first and last days with a small group who use the same calendar and then get together with the larger group on the other days. No problem. One can keep the feast days at home, so what's the big deal about "organizing" anything?
Kevin
Hi Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI would like to suggest based on this chronology:
Ac 20:6a And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread
Ac 20:6b and came unto them to Troas in five days;
Ac 20:6c where we abode seven days.
Ac 20:7a And upon the first day of the week
Ac 20:7c ready to depart on the morrow
that “mia ton sabbaton” does not refer to “either being the first day of the fifty day count or the first week count in the seven week count to Pentecost”;
and that it also does not refer to it if 20a refers to the first day of unleavened bread.
6:08 Very observant of you and yes I know of the problem. I generally give the simple explanation that "mia ton sabbaton" means the first day of the 50 day count because it takes less writing to explain. And in the gospels it clearly is referring to the first day when the wave sheaf was cut. So I plead guilty for the simpler explanation though I believe the phrase means any time during that first week.
ReplyDeleteTo get more technical I believe mia ton sabbaton can refer to any of the seven days in the first week count of seven weeks/sabbaths. So that means that the day that we call Tuesday during the days of unleavened bread is still part of the first sabbath/week/seven days of the seven week/sabbath count to Pentecost. Even a Tuesday after unleavened bread can still be within the first sabbath/week count. Explanation coming up.
Now let's consider that time period in Acts 20 and remember that (at least the way most of the cog's believe) that the cutting of the wave sheaf is after the sabbath during unleavened bread.
What if the first day of unleavened bread in Acts 20 was on what we call Sunday? The last day would be on the sabbath, and the wave sheaf would have been cut on the "Sunday" after unleavened bread. That would be the first day of the fifty days count.
Now let's say they left Philippi on that wave sheaf "Sunday" after the days of unleavened bread. Sailed five days and arrived in Troas on what we call Thursday. That "Thursday" would still be within the first week/sabbath count to Pentecost. So, still within the "mia ton sabbaton".
So Paul could have preached to them Thursday night or Saturday night. The seven days that they stayed in Troas are irrelevant because the "we" are those who sailed because Paul had already left on foot. I personally think the context tells us that it was a sabbath and that sabbath was still within that first week/sabbath count.
It's a little complicated, which is why I usually take the lazy way out in explaining it but I believe that "mia ton sabbaton" can refer to any of the seven days in the first week count to Pentecost.
Hope this helps, and good job in seeing the "apparent" contradiction.
Kevin
Here's an interesting discussion of mia ton sabbaton and why it’s translated as "first [day] of the week"--- https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/27997/in-acts-207-why-is-the-phrase-τῇ-μιᾷ-τῶν-σαββάτων-translated-the-first-day-of
ReplyDeleteAnother study here showing that although the translators of the NT didn't use the correct words in the translation, they got the meaning right, because "the first day of the week" is equivalent to "one day from the Sabbath." Accordingly John 20:1 would be translated thus: "And on one day from the Sabbath, Mary Magdalene comes early to the tomb, it being still dark, and sees the stone had been removed away from the tomb" since the Jews didn't name the days like we do today, except for the Sabbath and instead counted the days from the Sabbath---https://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_study/452-sabbaton.htm
And another more brief article---http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2022
It seems that the consensus of majority opinion based on historical records from both Judaism and Christianity sides with "mia ton sabbaton" referring to the "first day of the week" or "Sunday." It's like Occam's razor I guess in that regard i.e. the simplest explanation is most likely the right one.
Kevin said: What if the first day of unleavened bread in Acts 20 was on what we call Sunday? The last day would be on the sabbath, and the wave sheaf would have been cut on the "Sunday" after unleavened bread. That would be the first day of the fifty days count."
So does this mean you follow the view the wavesheaf can occur outside of the days of UB Kevin? I don’t agree with this belief since for me our Lord, who was the wavesheaf, rose on the day after the weekly Sabbath during the days of UB, which was also the 16th Abib imo and thus by His example this practice of some who count from a wavesheaf Sunday outside of the days of UB is disproved imo.
8:21pm There is absolutely no biblical evidence that the wave sheaf has to fall anywhere near the days of unleavened bread. Lev. 23 simply says when the harvest is ready to reap to offer a sheaf on the morrow after the sabbath. That's it. It says nothing about the days of unleavened bread.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with your disagreeing with the wave sheaf falling outside of UB, but understand that you have no biblical proof for that (and I have no proof it did). Technically the wave sheaf could fall before or after the days of UB according to Leviticus because the harvest was determined by how ripe the grain was, while Unleavened Bread is determined by the moon after the grain was in abib.
Consider two scenarios, what if there was a new moon just two days after the grain reached abib, that would put the first day of unleavened bread about seventeen days after the grain reaching abib.
Now what if the grain was two days shy of abib at the new moon, that would mean the next new moon was some 27 days after abib and the first day of unleavened bread some 42 days after abib. Seventeen days vs. forty two days after abib, when did they begin the harvest? I have no clue but there is nothing in Leviticus saying they had to wait until the days of UB.
Therein is one of the problems if one wants to get into the ridiculous technicalities of the calendar, much like the guy who asked about the indians who came from Mongolia and travelled east to north america and the spaniards who travelled west. Theoretically if they were sabbath keepers and counted sunsets during their journey, when they met in north america they'd be one day off from each other keeping the sabbath.
The fact is that neither one of us knows for sure how they determined UB and the wave sheaf back during Acts 20 events and it would be foolish to claim that we know for sure.
The only thing that I do know for sure is that the seven times that "mia ton sabbaton" and the one time that "proto ton sabbaton" is used in the bible is before Pentecost so it's not illogical to conclude that it "probably" has something to do with Pentecost.
However to conclude it means Sunday it would be necessary to believe what documents centuries later said. If we were to rely on that method then in a hundred years if someone found a document referring to the "gay" 1890's then they'd conclude a great number of people then were homosexual.
You can't rely on how a word or phrase is used based upon information derived hundreds of years later.
I respect your right to disagree.
Kevin
One other thing to consider, the cutting of the wave sheaf began the harvest, if what we call "Sunday" was the first day of Unleavened Bread, and a Holy Day, would they cut the sheaf and begin the harvest on that day or would they wait to the next Sunday? I don't know but I doubt that they'd cut the sheaf, symbolizing the beginning of harvest season, on a Holy Convocation.
ReplyDeleteKevin
8:21~Not to mention that all three of your links are biased toward Sunday keeping.
ReplyDeleteI find it amusing how people love to push their views into things where there is absolutely no evidence. The first link that 8:21 uses isn't even asking the same question that I'm asking. They asked why mia ton sabbaton isn't translated "the first sabbath". Meaning the Mary's came to the tomb on the "first sabbath".
ReplyDeleteThere's actually a movement out there trying to say that this is proof that God changed the sabbath to Sunday. Their explanation is that it says "after the sabbath, as it began to dawn on "the first sabbath, Mary came to the tomb".
They claim this was the first Sunday sabbath. It's amazing the ideas that people will try to push.
Rather than using the historical evidence that the day that the Marys came to the tomb began the count of seven sabbaths, they use every argument under the sun to push an agenda.
I'm not writing this directly to 8:21, I'm not saying that is his intent, I'm just writing my thoughts.
I still respect your disagreement. Though obviously I don't agree. ☺
Kevin
Kevin 6:06 said: I have no problem with your disagreeing with the wave sheaf falling outside of UB, but understand that you have no biblical proof for that (and I have no proof it did).
ReplyDeleteKevin 6:21 said: ...the cutting of the wave sheaf began the harvest, if what we call "Sunday" was the first day of Unleavened Bread, and a Holy Day, would they cut the sheaf and begin the harvest on that day or would they wait to the next Sunday? I don't know but I doubt that they'd cut the sheaf, symbolizing the beginning of harvest season, on a Holy Convocation.
The main reason for my favoring the day of the wave sheaf or omer being the first day of the week (ie Sunday) AFTER the weekly Sabbath DURING the days of the Feast of Passover/Unleavened Bread is Christ's own example as given in the NT. He is the true wave sheaf and rose on Sunday AFTER the weekly Sabbath DURING the Passover/FOUB week and was accepted by the Father on the selfsame day.
Another piece of evidence for me is that imo during the year of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection 14th Nisan fell on Friday, 15th Nisan fell on the weekly Sabbath and 16th Nisan fell on Sunday. I also believe that year opposing religious groups would've observed the wave sheaf on the same day since one view holds the omer falls on 16th Nisan after the annual Sabbath and another view holds the omer falls on the day after the weekly Sabbath. That year imo both the weekly and annual Sabbaths fell on the same day.
Also, the fact that Jews circumcise their sons on the 8th day even if that day is a weekly Sabbath (which Christ Himself pointed out to them in John 7:22) demonstrates imo that if Sunday was the 15th Nisan it would most likely be approved as the wave sheaf and tbh I follow the practice of Christians today who if 14th Nisan falls on Sabbath and 15th Nisan on Sunday observe the latter as wave sheaf day. Of course, we won't know what God actually wants us to do in this regard until Christ returns since even at present Jews observe the wave sheaf on 16th Nisan never on 15th which is Passover to them.
Kevin 7:43 said: Not to mention that all three of your links are biased toward Sunday keeping.
That's irrelevant to the issue at hand imo and no offense Kevin, but this kind of attitude is reflective of the self-righteous Armstrongist cultish mentality, which I honestly dislike in a lot of Christians with a WCG background since it predominantly leads them to automatically block out everything Christians who happen to be Sunday keepers say on a matter (unless of course they're supporting what Armstrongists already believe to be true).
Anyway thus far I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree. Peace brother :-)
"That's irrelevant to the issue at hand imo and no offense Kevin, but this kind of attitude is reflective of the self-righteous Armstrongist cultish mentality, which I honestly dislike in a lot of Christians with a WCG background since it predominantly leads them to automatically block out"
ReplyDeleteI'm honestly trying hard not to take offense in that "statement" (I wanted to say crack) but it shows that you don't know me very well. Even while in the WCG I always made sure that I read opposing views. How can anyone truly understand what they believe if the don't know the other side?
That's probably why, at 27 years old, while having grown up in the WCG from two years old, in 1991 I recognized that the supposed "New Truth" coming from Pasadena was nothing but Protestantism. Yes, I had been studying protestant teachings long before the Tkachs.
I love the old protestant songs and I would sing them as often as I got the chance, yes even I'll Fly Away, because we will ascend into the air at Christ's return, so the story goes.
So when I said those links come from Sunday keepers it wasn't because I don't read what "Sunday keepers" say, it was because they have a bias in their explanation. If mia ton sabbaton means the first week of the seven week count, and Jesus arose on the wave sheaf day, they have absolutely no biblical reason to gather every Sunday of the year.
Also, circumcising on the eighth day when it falls on the sabbath is very different than starting the harvest on a Holy Convocation imo, and there's nothing that says the wave sheaf has to fall within the d.o.u.b.
As you said we'll agree to disagree.
Kevin
PS
Just wondering, exactly how does your scenario work when the 16th of Nisan falls on a Tuesday? Do you acknowledge Jesus' resurrection on that day, a Tuesday? Or the next Sunday?
Hi Kevin,
ReplyDeleteJoshua 5:10-12 is often used to support the exception to the rule, where the sheaf is elevated during Unleavened Bread but after the Sabbat which does not fall during these days - therefore it is argued, Abib 14 is the Sabbat and Abib 15 is mian sabbaton in Joshua.
What is your critique of this proposition?:
... but perhaps technically the time between the "two evenings" is from "two thirty o'clock" to "three-thirty" o'clock. So that Joseph of Arimethea begged Pilate around three-thirty o'clock, that is, when the second "evening now having arrived" (Mt 27:57). Christ being killed in the middle of the two evenings.
Ex 12:6 ... all the assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it between the evenings (IHGEB).
Dt 16:6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun...
Nu 9:11a The fourteenth day of the second month between the evenings they shall keep it, (AV & IHGEB)
Nu 9:13 But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he brought not the offering of the LORD in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.
From the above the expressions "between the evenings" and "at even" maybe used interchangeably for 'keeping' the Passover, in the sense of the killing of the Passover/the offering of the LORD.
Jos 5:10 And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho.
Ex 12:18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.
"on the fourteenth day at even," in Ex 12:18 and Jos 5:10 are identical in Hebrew. Ex 12:8 refers to the fifteenth day of the month that begins at 'even' on the fourteenth.
Jos 5:11 And they did eat of the old corn [abur, that is, produce ("passed from off")] of the land on the morrow [mahorat] after the passover, unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day.
Nu 33:3 And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow [mahorat] after the passover...
"The dating here can be confusing... It can be interpreted as three separate days in vv.10-12, or vv.11-12 may be the same day, or even vv 10-12 could be one twenty-four period from sunset to sunset" (Trent C. Butler, Joshua 1-12, 2nd ed., WBC, p.337).
Ex 12:8 And they shall eat the flesh in that night [layela], roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
Jn 18:28 ... and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
Lev 23:27 Also on the tenth day of this seventh month ... ye shall afflict your souls
Lev 23:32 and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even...
Jos 5:3 And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel...
Ex 12:48b for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
"The narrative does not mention either Egypt or the lamb [or goat] in this account, nor does it describe in detail the Passover liturgy or meal. Instead, it focuses on eating the feast and then eating bread made from the produce in the land" (J. Harris, C. Brown, M.Moore, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, NIBC, p.42).
It would appear that the "passover" was kept in Joshua, in the sense of eating, based on the identical phrases of Ex 12:8 & Jos 5:10, on the night [layela] of the fifteenth day that began at the evening of the fourteenth and that Israel ate of the [fresh?] produce of the land in the day-time of the fifteenth, on the morrow [mahorat] following the night [layela].
Reread your comment and saw that you answered my PS, that you keep Sunday during ub whether 16th or not. That's fine but as I said Leviticus doesn't say that wavesheaf has to fall during ub.
ReplyDeleteKevin
For anyone who thinks the wave sheaf absolutely has to be during unleavened bread here's another scenario for Acts 20.
ReplyDeleteThe last day of unleavened bread being on what we call Monday with wave sheaf cut the day before. They hopped a ship after sunset Monday, sailed five days, remember inclusive counting of days, and arrived in Troas on Friday. Then Paul, already in Troas (vs.5) before they arrived by ship, preached to them on sabbath, mia ton sabbaton, still within the first sabbath/week count. Again the comment "where we abode seven days" is irrelevant to Paul because the "we" is referring to those who sailed (vs. 13) on to Assos, not to Paul who walked.
Again, the greatest proof is that every time mia ton sabbaton is used in the bible it's just prior to Pentecost. Look it up yourself if you disagree with that point.
Just because 200 years later writers started using the phrase to mean the day after the sabbath proves nothing. Like they use Lord's day in Revelation for Sunday, there's no biblical evidence that that is what John meant, but there's tons of "historical documents" saying the Lord's day is Sunday. Totally irrelevant!
Honestly, I have no clue about the timing of Acts 20 but the claim that they couldn't leave Phillipi after the d.u.b and Paul preach the next sabbath on "mia ton sabbaton" is completely false.I
Kevin
YNHWA, Personally I don't think Joshua 5 gives us enough information to make any hard and fast rules.
ReplyDeleteWere they eating of the lands granaries from last years crop? Were they going out and harvesting the fields which they didn't plant? I don't know. I do think that those who use this to prove wave sheaf has to fall during u.b. are reading more into it than what's there.
As far as keeping the Passover in Joshua 5, the Passover isn't a day, the Passover is a sacrifice. It's the lamb. So even if the scripture doesn't site a lamb, as I understand Passover, there had to be one, and I believe it was to be killed at the end of the 14th, between the evenings, which Jesus' death tells us exactly when that is. Or else he's not our Passover.
Some claim the Passover of Joshua 5 was in the second month. I see no evidence of this but who knows for sure?
km
Kevin 3:00 said: I'm honestly trying hard not to take offense in that "statement" (I wanted to say crack) but it shows that you don't know me very well. Even while in the WCG I always made sure that I read opposing views. How can anyone truly understand what they believe if the don't know the other side?
ReplyDeleteMy apologies to you Kevin as I don't mean to be disrespectful to you at all. I guess I read your comment and it made me think of some friends of mine who were in the WCG and still follow Armstrong's teachings today. They get me all riled up as there's been a few times when I've suggested a book for them to read on this or that topic and when they find out the author is a Catholic, Protestant, Sunday-keeper, Trinitarian etc. they'll get all hoity-toity and refuse to read it just because of that. Even one of these friends told me that she doesn't like to look at anything that disagrees with what she already has proven to herself to be true. It just makes me angry and sad for them at the same time. So I'm sorry for lashing out at you. I guess I just wish I could tell them that they can be just as biased as those they're accusing.
Kevin said: I love the old protestant songs and I would sing them as often as I got the chance, yes even I'll Fly Away, because we will ascend into the air at Christ's return, so the story goes.
I have nothing wrong with singing Protestant or Catholic songs either Kevin. In fact, I'd so much rather sing or listen to the metrical Psalms than Dwight Armstrong's hymns tbh.
Kevin said: So when I said those links come from Sunday keepers it wasn't because I don't read what "Sunday keepers" say, it was because they have a bias in their explanation. If mia ton sabbaton means the first week of the seven week count, and Jesus arose on the wave sheaf day, they have absolutely no biblical reason to gather every Sunday of the year.
I believe first-day Sabbath keeping Christians have no biblical justification whatsoever to keep Sunday as the Sabbath Kevin even though I believe "mia ton sabbaton" in the context of the gospels refers to the first day of the week or Resurrection Sunday when Christ rose from the dead on wave sheaf Sunday.
Incidentally I recall corresponding with the late Richard Nickels of Giving & Sharing in the late 1990s who still followed Armstrong's erroneous earlier teaching that Pentecost was Monday and I told him plainly that he was wrong. He argued that Sunday was the "mark of the beast" so Pentecost could never fall on it! I posed a question to him like, "So if Christians observed Monday as the Sabbath day would you argue Monday could never be Pentecost then?" To me, like the friends I already mentioned, his attitude reflected ignorance and indoctrination, and it was just an illogical argument to make imo especially since God's holy days can fall on any day of the week.
It is good that we can agree to disagree.
ReplyDeleteSo for the record, my 'take' is that
the “mia ton sabbatwn” of Acts 20:7 is the second sabbatwn from the elevation [henip] of a sheaf (‘omer) of the firstfruits”.
In Ac 20:6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.
the “we” of verse 6 is Luke and Paul; and in
Ac 20:13 And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul: for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot.
the “we” is Luke and Sopater, Aristarchus, Secunus, Gaius, Timotheus, Tychicus and Trophimis (the travelling companions named in Acts 20:4).
So a suggested chronology, with Sunday being the seventh day, was that the last day of the UB was a Wednesday. Paul and Luke sailed away from presumably Neapolis, the port of Philippi, on the Thursday and arrived in Troas on a Monday (with Monday being the fifth day of the journey be sea and the first of the seven day stay in Troas).
But this scenario has one problem, it appears that in AD 57 the last day of UB was on Thursday, April 14, putting the above chronology one day later, with Sunday being the last full day.
An aside:
Ac 20:5 These men went on ahead and waited for us at Troas.
Ac 20:6 But we sailed from Philippi... (NIV).
“Towards the end of winter the delegates from the contributing churches gathered at Corinth to be ready to sail with Paul to Judea when navigation started again. It may have been their first intention to take a pilgrim ship from Cenchreae [the eastern harbour of Corinth] (cf. 18:18), which picked up at the principle ports those who wished to be in Jerusalem for the forthcoming festival. But Paul got wind of a plot to kill him, when once he was on board this ship, so he changed his plan, and decided to go back to Macedonia and sail from there. The delegates set sail as arranged, disembarked at Troas, and waited there until Paul should catch up with them” (F.F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, Rev., NICNT, p.382).
"even though I believe "mia ton sabbaton" in the context of the gospels refers to the first day of the week or Resurrection Sunday when Christ rose from the dead on wave sheaf Sunday. "
ReplyDeleteI believe there's no doubt that Jesus arose on the "morrow after the sabbath". I think it was at sunset ending the weekly sabbath or just moments after but who cares he arose, and he arose on the day of the wave sheaf, the symbology fits too well. But the question is, is mia ton sabbaton the name for that one day, or the name for that entire first week count Pentecost?
For me the evidence suggests the latter.
It's been good talking. Have a great Atonement.
Kevin
YNHWA the problem that I see is that according to verses 3-5 Paul wasn't on the ship to Troas. Verse 3 says that Paul, from Greece, returned through Macedonia, and verse 5 says from Macedonia Sopator and the others accompanied him into Asia where the city of Troas was. Paul, Sopator and the others according to verse 5 arrived in Troas and waited for Luke and his party who sailed from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread. Nothing says that Paul left Troas after the days of unleavened bread.
ReplyDeleteIt was Luke and his party who left Philippi after the days of unleavened bread from the way I read it, they are the "we" of verse 6, not Paul.
As I read it the "we" of verse 6 are the same "we" as in verse 13, both parties sailing without Paul.
Also I don't see where the seven days of verse 6 has to be counted toward mia ton sabbaton, that's just a time reference of how long Luke and his party stayed in Troas before they left for Assos to meet Paul who had already left the day after preaching to them most of the night. A 5 days after unleavened bread plus 7 days to reach mia ton sabbaton is not necessary as I understand it.
No big deal though.
Kevin
11:50 I do not believe that Sunday is the mark of the beast. I do however believe that any kind of central organizational church government is a version of the image of the beast.
ReplyDeleteKevin
Also, no need to apologize, but thanks.
Kevin said: I do not believe that Sunday is the mark of the beast. I do however believe that any kind of central organizational church government is a version of the image of the beast.
ReplyDeleteThat’s interesting so what do you think is the mark of the beast?
Thanks Kevin! I hope you and your family have a spiritually rewarding Atonement too! :-)
6:07 Honestly I don't know, but when the time comes that Christians can't buy or sell unless they have some kind of identifier then I guess we'll know. ☺ That's the purpose of prophecy, not to try to guess at the future, but to prove God's existence when you see it happening.
ReplyDeleteKevin
6:07pm I was wondering what's the main reason that you believe in a Friday crucifixion rather than a Wednesday?
ReplyDeleteIs it the historical record? Or perhaps Luke 24:21? I know that I never agreed with the WCG's amateurish explanation of Luke 24:21.
Luk 24:21 - But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
Just wondering what's your main reason? I'm certainly willing to consider differing views.
Kevin
Hi Kevin,
ReplyDeleteWhile the question is not directed to me, I would like to comment that, for me, there is not one major reason for believing a Friday Crucifixion...
Lk 24:7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
Lk 24:8 And they [the women] remembered his words
“... third day. In the Hebrew idiom, this means the day after tomorrow” (S. Goldman, Samuel, Soncino Commentary, p.122).
"The account is unique to Luke and contains key themes of the Gospel: the importance of the promise of the word, the status of Jesus as prophet, and his messianic role..." (Darrell L. Bock, Luke, NIVAC, pp.612).
Luke 24:21, while a good one, is one of many; and the WCG explanation of the third day butchers what Luke is promoting in this vignette. What would one who had not a copy of Matthew’s account have thought about this?
One thing I have learned is to not accept the explanation of the opposite argument by the one who is promoting the counter argument - I check out the opposite explanation for myself.
I once thought that the booklet “The Crucifixion was not on a Friday” was in the top two produced by the WCG. The argument seemed convincing and so was accepted.
Ac 10:30 And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
It was not until some thirty years believing the Wednesday Crucifixion that the above Scripture came up on a forum, close to Passover, from a contributor who noted and gave a reference to check it out, that people in the ANE counted time different to today.
This was the trigger to look at the opposite argument for myself. Below is a quote that came up in the investigation:
"Having seen what we know, we now need to look at what we may be assuming erroneously... we may be assuming that first-century Jews thought about time in the same way that we do. In fact they did not. Any part of a day could be counted as if it were a full day, much as in Canada and the U.S.A. a child is deductible for income-tax purposes at the full year rate even if he or she was born at 11 p.m. on December 31. The "three days and three nights," then may simply refer to three twenty-four hour days (sunset to sunset periods), and Jesus was in fact in the tomb parts of three different days..." (Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfreed T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible, pp.380-381).
So I came to understand, some may some erroneously, that the booklet “The Crucifixion was not on a Friday” was not a great booklet, all it was just a great story - a reconstruction based on misunderstandings and misapplications of Scripture.
The first sentence in the quote above is a pillar of exegesis:
“Having seen what we know, we now need to look at what we may be assuming erroneously”.
It seems to me that the promoters of a Wednesday, or even a Thursday Crucifixion have it backwards.
It appears that they have read the Hebrew idiom and assumed that the people of the ANE thought about time as we do today, (the host of the forum actually made that comment), and have taken three days and three nights as 72 hours or close to it, have applied this as the basis of their exegesis.
Instead of saying three days and three nights means 72 hours today and then asking, and investigating, did it have this meaning in the ANE?
It was through weighing all the Scriptures, as I have come to see, that Sunday-keepers came to this conclusion not because of associating the resurrection with the day of the sun.
But, as you say, it is not a support for Sunday-worship, but the fulfilment of wave sheaf typology.
I believe that it is likely that Christ was resurrected in the morning watch before sunrise around the time of the earthquake, not at the time after sunset after the first day of UB as recorded in the Mishnah.
For an amateurish presentation of my investigation see http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/id114.htm
YNHWA ~ How deeply have you studied Luke 24:21?
ReplyDeleteKevin
YNHWA ~ I noticed that in your study that you talk about the prophetic week. Is this only in relation to Daniels 70 week prophecy or do you believe that God has a seven thousand year plan?
ReplyDeleteKevin
Hi Kevin, in regard to your question on Luke 24:21 all I can say is that
ReplyDeleteI agree with S. Goldman’s observation that the third day is a Hebrew idiom for “the day after tomorrow”.
This idiom is seen in:
Ex 19:10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes,
Ex 19:11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
and
Lev 19:6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if aught remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.
and weighing all the points and events around the crucifixion and resurrection I find that the idiom was still operative in the time of Christ - so applicable to Luke 24:21.
In regard to Walter Kaiser Jr.’s, and et al, note on child deductions, that 1 hour can be claimed as a full year, that is 1 part in 8760 can be considered a full year for income tax purposes I have no problem with say 1 hour in 24, being considered a full day; with that hour or so being the first day in the tomb.
Hi Kevin, in regard to a seven thousand year plan I can only offer a few speculations.
ReplyDeleteIt may turn out that a seven thousand year plan applies to a part of the over-all plan pictured by the Holy Days; that part being the time from Adam to the end of the Millennium.
(I lean towards the proposition that there were other human beings contemporary with Adam - just as the flood did not kill all the people on the earth outside the ark - and that Cain did not marry his sister, but one of those other human beings; but that is another story).
“The two Sabbath[on]s may picture the Millennium and the Eternal Rest” (Bible Believers Commentary).
I also speculate that the first day of Tabernacles pictures the Millennium and the six non holy days picture the Great White Throne Judgment; and the Last Great Day pictures the Goal of God’s plan.
Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
The three-part covenant formula in 21:3 reaches its fulfilment when God can dwell with His children when there is no more sin and physical uncleanness.
Lev 23:42 Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths:
I also speculate that not dwelling in booths on the eighth day also pictures God and Christ literally dwelling on the earth, without the need of temporary dwellings such as the Mosaic Tabernacle/Solomonic and Ezekielian Temples; also the Church (1 Cor 3:16).
The typology of the marches around Jericho and the following battle may also give a picture of the consecutive events in the plan of God:
The six days, of one march each day, frames the first six thousands years and the seven marches around on the seventh day pictures the Millennium(1 thousand years) and the Great White Throne Judgment (six thousand years) with the battle occurring after the marches frames the time for both God and Christ dwelling on the earth.
Rev 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Compare also the seventh seal - six trumpet plagues followed by the seventh comprising seven plagues and then follows the battle of the great day of God Almighty.
(Six seals precede the Day of the Lord, which starts with the opening of the seventh seal, so are not included in the typology).
The shout/probable earthquake causing the collapse of the walls occurred before the actual battle with the inhabitants of Jericho seems to have a parallel between the shout (1 Thess 4:16; Rev 16:17) and the earthquake and collapsing cities (16:18, 19) that precedes the battle with the inhabitants of the earth.
The retro-prospective prophecy of Rev 17:1-19:10 interrupts the chronological story line with the battle beginning at 19:11.
There is the seven (13 parts) + one beginning the occupation of Canaan, the seven (13 parts) + one beginning the occupation of the earth (with the three-and-a-half year return of Christ); and the seven (13 parts) + 1 of the plan of God with God and Christ beginning the occupation of the new earth.
Second Temple Exegesis at its worst in the end times :)
Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth:
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem...
“Why does John see ‘a new heaven and a new earth’ in Revelation 21:1 and yet in 21:2-3, 10-22:3 he sees a city that is garden-like, in the shape of a temple? Why does not John see a full panorama of the new heavens and earth? Why does he not see the many forests, rivers, mountains, streams, valleys and the many other features of fertile worldwide creation?” (G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, p.23).