Should Christians Be Keeping the Sabbath?

[psychoslice]

Well if you are a true so called Christian, then yes, you should be keeping the Sabbath, Jesus kept it, he was taken down for the cross because the Sabbath was nearing, he himself never changed it, so why all the excuses to change it ?.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Page 35, and even I don't remember what I posted thirty pages ago!

That's ok. We'll call it a posting Jubilee and start over. Let those old posts rest! Goodbye posts!

 

[shmogie]

What evidence?

Uh, the fact that many prominent Bible scholars support Paul's authorship. The author seems to have been imprisoned, The theological premise is in harmony with that of Paul, the author refers to "our brother Timothy", The author refers to "Italy", Eastern church tradition cites Paul as the author. No one will ever know for sure, but the case is far, far from closed.

 

[roger1440]

Uh, the fact that many prominent Bible scholars support Paul's authorship. The author seems to have been imprisoned, The theological premise is in harmony with that of Paul, the author refers to "our brother Timothy", The author refers to "Italy", Eastern church tradition cites Paul as the author. No one will ever know for sure, but the case is far, far from closed.

Please quote one of these " prominent Bible scholars".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Uh, the fact that many prominent Bible scholars support Paul's authorship. The author seems to have been imprisoned, The theological premise is in harmony with that of Paul, the author refers to "our brother Timothy", The author refers to "Italy", Eastern church tradition cites Paul as the author. No one will ever know for sure, but the case is far, far from closed.

Name three who are not Christian apologists.

 

[shmogie]

Well if you are a true so called Christian, then yes, you should be keeping the Sabbath, Jesus kept it, he was taken down for the cross because the Sabbath was nearing, he himself never changed it, so why all the excuses to change it ?.

Of course Christ kept the sabbath, he was a Jew, required to do so. Second, He kept the law perfectly, as he said, fulfilling the law.
A Roman centurion, an officer over 80 to 100 men, worked every day, with days off rare. Christ interacted with A centurion of the Italian regiment, a Gentile. This man was called a true man of God, and Christ said he had greater faith than all of Israel. This man could not have been a sabbath keeper, he was on active duty. Christ never said anything to him about keeping the sabbath. Ditto for the centurion Cornelius who interacted with Paul, who was a Godly man. Paul references other Roman army believers, who could not have been sabbath keepers. They could not have been any day keepers. They weren';t required to be.

 

[shmogie]

Name three who are not Christian apologists.

Your point being, what ? Whether Paul did or did not write the book has no bearing on whether it is in harmony with his writings in other books, It is. So then whether a Christian apologist, or non Christian believes one way or another, what possible difference does it make ? The efficacy of the book is not based upon who wrote it, nor does not believing Paul wrote it give any particular advantage to non Christian scholars in whatever competition you imagine.

 

[roger1440]

If Christians are to keep the Sabbath, what day of the week should it be kept and why?

 

[metis]

No, not quite. Biblical scholars are divided as to whether Paul wrote the book. There is ample evidence to support his authorship.

Actually, there is not, and the early church struggled with this when selecting the canon in the 4th century.

 

[roger1440]

Your point being, what ? Whether Paul did or did not write the book has no bearing on whether it is in harmony with his writings in other books, It is. So then whether a Christian apologist, or non Christian believes one way or another, what possible difference does it make ? The efficacy of the book is not based upon who wrote it, nor does not believing Paul wrote it give any particular advantage to non Christian scholars in whatever competition you imagine.

If I quoted 10 people who testify that the United States is the best nation on the planet and fail to mention that all 10 are Americans would you see a problem with that?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Name three who are not Christian apologists.

Your point being, what ?

My point being that anyone who claims, as you did ...

"Uh, the fact that many prominent Bible scholars support Paul's authorship."​

... should be held accountable for the claim and should be willing to defend it. Do you disagree?

 

[shmogie]

My point being that anyone who claims, as you did ...

"Uh, the fact that many prominent Bible scholars support Paul's authorship."​

... should be held accountable for the claim and should be willing to defend it. Do you disagree?

The issue is moot. I don't have the time to research specific names for you. I will refer you to the " Laymans Bible Encyclopedia" by William C. Martin, M.A., B.D., the section on the book of Hebrews. Further, I will refer you to the " Biblical Archaeological Review" I read an extensive article there on the issue. Whether Paul, Apollos, or someone else wrote the book is a tempest in a teapot. It is theologically true to the Pauline tradition. That's all that really counts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The issue is moot.

The issue of your credibility is moot? OK, if you say so.

 

[shmogie]

Actually, there is not, and the early church struggled with this when selecting the canon in the 4th century.

True. But the reasons for the authorship of Paul stand. The world of NT scholarship is divided on the matter. To you and my other friend trying to disprove this, I would ask for some kind of proof that the matter is settled for all prominent NT scholars. Of course, what are the requirements for being prominent. ? Phd's, seminary professor, university professor ? If this turns into a name game, I can match any non Pauline authorship scholars, with Pauline authorship scholars. A rather boring exercise.

 

[shmogie]

The issue of your credibility is moot? OK, if you say so.

Who determines credibility ? You ? I think not. The Roman Catholic Church scholars support Pauline authorship, as do the Eastern orthodox scholars, many Protestant scholars do. The issue of Pauline authorship of the book of Hebrews is no more settled than the issue of what dark matter is. Pretend otherwise, if you choose.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To you and my other friend trying to disprove this, I would ask ...

I would ask that you stop distorting my post. Nowhere have I sought to prove or disprove anything. I have simply asked that you back up your claim. You seem to be overwhelmed by that challenge.

 

[shmogie]

I would ask that you stop distorting my post. Nowhere have I sought to prove or disprove anything. I have simply asked that you back up your claim. You seem to be overwhelmed by that challenge.

I have backed up my claim quite sufficiently as far as I am concerned, and truthfully, to me, that is more than adequate.
If you are not trying to prove anything, take issue in the first place ? You seem to prefer verbal ":gotcha" over a substantive discussion. Play the game with yourself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Who determines credibility ? You ? I think not.

Nor have I suggested otherwise.

The Roman Catholic Church scholars support Pauline authorship, ...

Excerpted from the Catholic Encyclopedia ...

External Evidence

... Clement explains the contrast in language and style by saying that the Epistle was written originally in Hebrew and was then translated by Luke into Greek. Origen, on the other hand, distinguishes between the thoughts of the letter and the grammatical form; the former, according to the testimony of "the ancients" (oi archaioi andres), is from St. Paul; the latter is the work of an unknown writer, Clement of Rome according to some, Luke, or another pupil of the Apostle, according to others.

...

Internal Evidence

(a) The content of the letter bears plainly the stamp of genuine Pauline ideas. In this regard it suffices to refer to the statements above concerning the doctrinal contents of the Epistle (see II).

(b) The language and style vary in many particulars from the grammatical form of the other letters of Paul, as in sufficiently shown above (see III).

(c) the distinctive characteristics of the Epistle (IV) favour more the opinion that the form in which it is cast is not the work of the author of the other Apostolic letters.

Most probable solution

Clement explains the contrast in language and style by saying that the Epistle was written originally in Hebrew and was then translated by Luke into Greek. Origen, on the other hand, distinguishes between the thoughts of the letter and the grammatical form; the former, according to the testimony of "the ancients" (oi archaioi andres), is from St. Paul; the latter is the work of an unknown writer, Clement of Rome according to some, Luke, or another pupil of the Apostle, according to others.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have backed up my claim quite sufficiently as far as I am concerned.

No doubt.

 

[metis]

True. But the reasons for the authorship of Paul stand. The world of NT scholarship is divided on the matter. To you and my other friend trying to disprove this, I would ask for some kind of proof that the matter is settled for all prominent NT scholars. Of course, what are the requirements for being prominent. ? Phd's, seminary professor, university professor ? If this turns into a name game, I can match any non Pauline authorship scholars, with Pauline authorship scholars. A rather boring exercise.

The reason why Hebrews was controversial was over the issue of authorship, and this was also partially the reason why "Revelations" was debated even though it says "John on Patmos". One of my sources is Dr. Hanson in the best book I have ever read on the early church, entitled "Tradition In the Early Church". However, there's plenty of other sources that have covered this as well.

Even though this source is certainly not "the final word", nevertheless it does pay to read this segment at least:

The Epistle to the Hebrews of the Christian Bible is one of the New Testament books whose canonicity was disputed. Traditionally, Paul the Apostle was thought to be the author. However, since the third century this has been questioned, and the consensus among most modern scholars is that the author is unknown...

In general, the evidence against Pauline authorship is considered too solid for scholarly dispute. Donald Guthrie, in his New Testament Introduction (1976), commented that "most modern writers find more difficulty in imagining how this Epistle was ever attributed to Paul [instead of] disposing of the theory." Harold Attridge tells us that "it is certainly not a work of the apostle". Daniel Wallace, who holds to the traditional authorship of the other epistles, states that "the arguments against Pauline authorship, however, are conclusive." As a result, although a few people today believe Paul wrote Hebrews, such as theologian R.C. Sproul, contemporary scholars generally reject Pauline authorship. As Richard Heard notes, in his Introduction to the New Testament, "modern critics have confirmed that the epistle cannot be attributed to Paul and have for the most part agreed with Origen's judgement, 'But as to who wrote the epis tle, only God knows the truth.'"

Attridge argues that similarities with Paul's work are simply a product of a shared usage of traditional concepts and language. Others, however, have suggested that they are not accidental, and that the work is a deliberate forgery attempting to pass itself off as a work of Paul. -- Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia