some good stuff, but... (Christian Sunday Worship)

Cecil,

I have enjoyed reading many of your thoughts; don’t always agree – or disagree for that matter.

While you are probably not Christianity’s biggest fan if your writing is any indication (and that’s ok; I respect everyone’s right to choose, but i don’t necessarily respect their choices :slight_smile: I find that some biblical topics have been dealt with in a fair and balanced fashion with some answers even being pretty right on (albeit those may have been by “guest responders”), but I was a little surprised by your response at:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_140.html

Usually, it seems that you do a little legwork in terms of research, which is then reflected in your response. But that is clearly not the case with the above.

The argument for the change from the Sabbath (which is the 7th day and not the first) to the first day is actually cumulative. The resurrection is salient but hardly the exclusive plank in the argument.

Christianity is not just some religion that some guy started up (as is the case with Islam, Buddhism, et al), it is the new covenant promised by God (Jer 31.31-32) and established by God (Acts 2.1ff, i.e., the day of pentecost was the first day of the week, Sunday).

You will also find reference to the coming church/covenant in Joel 2, Daniel 2, and Acts 2.

He chose to establish the church on the first day rather than the Sabbath.

He had promised a new covenant (that would not be like the covenant he made with their forefathers when he led them out of Egypt – a clear reference to the Mosaic Covenant, which would then become the “old” once the “new” was established.)

Christians assembled together to worship on Sunday from the beginning (day of pentecost) as is recorded in both the new covenant and extra-biblical/historical writings (e.g., 1 Cor 16.2; Acts 20.7 where Paul waits 7 days at Troas so that he could meet with the church on the first day of the week, not the day before, Saturday, but the next day, Sunday).

The old covenant was nailed to the cross (Col 2.14).

The first day is in some early writings referred to as the “eighth day.”

The early Christians were virtually all Jews, among whom there were also many priests (Levites). There is almost no way that they would have changed the day of the main weekly meeting from Saturday to Sunday – unless…

It was on authority from God via “apostolic authority” that made them willing to accept and embrace this change.

There is also the fact that you mentioned, the resurrection. Jesus the Christ was raised on the first day of the week, the beginning of a new day, a new era, a new chapter in human history, a new covenant.

The argument goes on. But I didn’t come to write a book or display my tendency toward the prolix. Just wanted to note that your abbreviated and flip response hardly did justice to the question.

I want to emphasize again that I have enjoyed reading some of your other stuff, and have read a more than a few. This one just stuck out as unusual, more like an arrogant wave of the hand.

Cheers

PS – Will that be crackpot enough for ya, dropzone, there, eh :smiley:

Where in the Bible does Jesus say, “OK, from now on, we’re going to have the Sabbath on Sunday”?

He doesn’t?

Then your post doesn’t hold water.

Well, it’s crackpot enough from me. Your argument is heavily “faith based”. That is, you assume that one person’s interpretation of a text that some people regard highly (but differ greatly in interpretations) is The One Correct Truth.

OTOH, there are things called facts.

In particular, you really, really need to read “Sunday: a history in seven parts” by Craig Harline, 2007, which will clear up all of your misconceptions about Sunday. It was a long process, taking many centuries. Many Catholics still held some Saturday Sabbath observances well into the Middle Ages (there were many recorded bannings of such observances).

Also, there are many Christian groups who today still observe Saturday Sabbath such as the Seventh Day Adventists. Note: Same text, different reading. Jesus left no quotes whatsoever indicating a change in date. (Just a change in some of the Sabbath rules.)

One person’s interpetation is not the same thing as a fact.

Did you mean to put this in comic sans on purpose? It doesn’t help.

Also, although I’m not positive, I think Cecil is a Catholic.

Um, excuse our impoliteness.

jojoschmo, welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board. We hope you take off your shoes, put your feet up (watch out where, though, as we aren’t the cleanest bunch), and stay a while. You will find we grow on you (so does fungus, but I am NOT making that comparison :smiley: ).

As a rule, you will find that we are pretty much into facts around here. Thus, while your interpretation of the theological basis for an observation of the Christian service day a day after the Jewish Sabbath may be spot on, it doesn’t really address the implied question that was answered by old Unca Cece in the article, namely, why do we have services on Sunday, not Saturday? Thus, the response from some of our less welcoming members… :dubious:

jojoschmo writes:

> Just wanted to note that your abbreviated and flip response hardly did justice
> to the question.

Have you read very many of Cecil’s columns? This was one of his less flippant ones.

Does it actually say anywhere in the Bible that Pentecost is on Sunday? I couldn’t find anything that specific in the verses cited in the OP.

Actually, the Biblical account makes it quite impossible that the first Pentecost was on a Sunday. But the Jewish Pentecost (Hebrew name Shavuot) always comes fifty days after Passover, so when the decision was made to celebrate Easter on the Sunday after Passover (complicated by the fact that Christians and Jews use different astronomical equations to decide when Passover should fall) the Christian Pentecost was moved to be 50 days after Easter.

From:

John W. Kennedy
Charter Member

Where in the Bible does Jesus say, “OK, from now on, we’re going to have the Sabbath on Sunday”?

He doesn’t?

Then your post doesn’t hold water.


My response:

I didn't intend to get this involved, but I will try to respond as time allows.  

And while I am readily given to polemic, when necessary, I try to avoid it when not (I am explicitly implying and would that you necessarily infer -- that it is *not necessary* for me to take a stand, dogmatic or otherwise, here in the straight dope forum).  But this is an important topic for those that are interested in Christianity and truth.  It deals with a fundamental tenet of Christianity and has salvific ramifications.  I have entered the fray so I will be unashamedly polemic but try to keep the tone moderate.  Regardless, from the outset I want all to know that I intend no harm or grievous offense to anyone.

I'd like to respond to all of the responses in one post, but knowing our modern preference for shorter bursts of info I will deal with them one at a time.  That'll make it easier to read and easier to focus on a given point raised.

John

You are correct that Jesus nowhere says explicitly in the NC that the Sabbath, or the date of formal assembly/worship should be changed to Sunday from Saturday.

He also didn't explicitly say anything specific about the apostles replacing Judas (Acts 1.20; albeit we are to necessarily infer it from the way Peter quotes Ps 109.8b having been led by the Holy Spirit to do so), or about them casting lots to select Mathias to replace Judas (Acts 1.26), or about the criteria they were to use even to nominate those that might be acceptable for that post (Acts 1.21-22), or about a host of other things that are recorded in the NC regarding how the church should be set up, taught, overseen, worship, etc, etc, etc.

He left people behind to take care of that for him (the apostles, see also Mt 28.18-20, Acts 1.8, et al).  And he promised them that they would be guided in what to say and do by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1.8, 2.4, 4.8, etc; see also Mt 10.19).

(They were also guided by angels under God's command at times (Acts 5.19-20)).

(I am using a minimal number of references rather than many or even an exhaustive set to keep this shorter, less time consuming, and because a minimal number to make the point is sufficient to establish the point a/o principle.)

Further, you may be making an error made by many, most people (or you may not, but let me point it out and you can self-determine that).

The "Gospels" (Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn) are a historical record of the life of Jesus, the Christ.

They (those 4 books) are grouped within the NC because they were roughly contemporaneous in time (i.e., his life and times, and more importantly his death, burial, and resurrection immediately preceded the establishment of the NC on the day of Pentecost.

In other words, what many don't know, and many others forget or fail to realize and synthesize is that from his birth to his death on the cross, throughout the entire time that he was "God with us" (Mt 1.23) and spoke explicitly to men in the pre-resurrected body, Jesus lived under the Old Covenant (OC).

Jesus followed the law of Moses, which was at that time the law of God, and went to either the temple (at least on required feast days) or synagogue for the designated weekly public assembly on the Sabbath, a/o otherwise observed the Sabbath and its regulations every Sabbath prior to his death.  And the Sabbath is and was Saturday, *not* Sunday.

The OC/Mosaic Law was in effect until his death on the cross (Col 2.14, Heb 8 & 9 with emp at 8.13; 9.16ff).

The OC was nailed to the cross with him at his death, it was at that point in time fulfilled, filled full.  It had served God's purposes up to that time.  But a new covenant (NC) was soon to come, and it would not be like the covenant that he made with the forefathers when he led them out of  Egypt (Jer 31.31-32, again a clear reference to the 80 days, 40 days twice, that Moses spent on Mt Sinai when he received and wrote the ~613 written ordinances and regulations inclusive of the ten commandments written by God on the tablets of stone).

In short, it was not necessary for Jesus to explicitly say, "OK, from now on, we're going to have the Sabbath on Sunday" because...

A)  The Sabbath is the Sabbath, the Sabbath is on what has long been referred to by the Roman designation, Saturday.  The Sabbath was not then and it is not now the day called by the Romans, Sunday.  Jesus didn't then and hasn't now changed the Sabbath.  

We just don't observe it anymore because we are no longer subject to the Mosaic Law. 

We do observe 9 of the 10 commandments still today but not because they were given to Moses and the Hebrews of that time.  We observe them because they are reiterated and some even amplified in the NC.  They are now given by Jesus (the mediator of a new and better covenant *only after* his death) and are part of a better covenant (Heb 8 & 9), a covenant that is no longer given exclusively to the Hebrews/Jews (as was the Mosaic Covenant; this is another MAJOR point that many don't know or forget and fail to synthesize) but to all peoples on the planet.  The Law of Moses was given to the Hebrews, their descendants, and those that were on occasion converted to Judaism.  It was never given to nor intended for any one else! (Ex 19.3-6; 20.22; 34.27, et many al)

(If anyone wants to have the discussion about why God made the Hebrew/Israeli/Jewish people from one man, Abraham, why he made them "special" or why they were "chosen," and why he gave them a separate law, different from the gentiles, we may be able to pursue that at a later date.  But while it is still relevant in some sense, it is not as germane to the discussion at hand as are some of the other points I'd like to make in this post.)

and...

B)  While he yet lived among us, in the flesh and before the cross, the time had not yet come for him to officially institute the NC and with it the change of the designated day of public assembly for worship from Saturday (the Sabbath) to Sunday.

Jesus didn't say everything, that he would ever say, during his time on earth (e.g., Acts 9.4,5,6,10,11,15, et al).  Nor did everything he explicitly said or did, during that time or since, get recorded in the NC (Jn 20.30; 21.25).

The guys he left behind, the apostles and those upon whom they personally laid their hands, were equipped to convey his message.  And they conveyed his message and *all* that he would say through them to man in the 27 books that we call the NC, by the close of the 1st century.

(That is not to disregard the 22 or 39 books of the OC, the contents of which are both equal to the same number of words but are divided or lumped together into a different number of books by some.  They are an integral part of the whole revealed word of God (66 books; the so called "deutero-canonical" books are *not* canonical), and without them we could not nearly as fully understand the NC.)

Having said all that about what Jesus explicitly said during his time here, let me say this:

Jesus is the word, he is the word of God, he is God (Jn 1; 14.6; Heb 1, et many al).  As THE WORD he is the source for every word in the book from Genesis one to Revelation done (Gen 1.1 - Rev 22:21).  Therefore, every word written between page one and page done is his, and should be understood as said explicitly by him, regardless of which man he chose to use for making the written record.  Regardless of whether it came from God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), or God the Holy Spirit, they speak as one and are the three that are one source, one mind, one will.

In anticipation of objections from our "unitarian" friends, we may or may not take up the discussion of the plurality but unity of the one God at some later date.  As for our friends that don't believe in God, or the God of the Bible, or the Bible, or the NC -- the topic under discussion, as evinced by Cecil and his original questioner, is Christianity (in the macro view) and why Christians worship on Sunday instead of Saturday more specifically (any disputes that are not relevant are irrelevant).  The final answer to that question must come from the Bible primarily as the ultimate source for all things Judeo-Christian.  Most of the facts to be considered now are based on documentary evidence to which we must apply hermeneutical knowledge and skill, and logic. Secondary sources such as extra-biblical a/o historical documents are also valid for introduction (but of necessity given less weight than scripture).

Even Jesus himself pointed us to the written word (scripture, the Bible).  Again and Again he asked those that thought they were close students of the word, "have you not heard (referring to the hearing of the written word being read), have you not read (referring to the reading of the written word), is it not written?"  He also spoke in the positive sense on many occasions saying, "It is written."  His very simple and very, very clear point being -- find the answers in the book, it is sufficient for all that we NEED to know for life, about our relationship with God, to understand his purposes for our lives, and all of the big questions men ask (Jn 12.48; 5.46-47; 14.6-7; 1 Tim 3.16-17; 2 Tim 2.15, et al).

No one with any sense would or should argue that it contains all we WANT or would LIKE to know, hence our love and appreciation for the sciences and technology, and the general pursuit of knowledge :-)

There's more to be said on this but...this'll do, this'll do fine.

Sorry, John, but I say that it is your argument that doesn't hold water.  Of course, you haven't made a real argument or offered much support for what you seem to have implied in your post above.  Perhaps you will say more.  We would that you would, if you would.

Cheers (be ye of good cheer :-)

PS -- I did post earlier in comic sans intentionally.  I find it easier on the eye and easier to read.  I assume since the board makes it available, it does not interfere with code, html, xml, etc.  I would prefer to use it in later and shorter posts if there are no objections.  But if it bothers anyone, or makes the text more difficult to read for anyone, for any reason, I will be just fine using the default font as in this post.

From:

Wendell Wagner
Charter Member

Wendell says:

jojoschmo writes:

> Just wanted to note that your abbreviated and flip response hardly did justice
> to the question.

Have you read very many of Cecil’s columns? This was one of his less flippant ones.


jojoschmo responds:

Wendell

I have read many dozens of Cecil's posts.  And, as I stated in the first and last lines of my original post, thoroughly enjoyed them for the most part.  And the three things that I enjoy most about most of them is that they are usually well written (and concise too :-), fairly well thought out and researched when need be, and his flip (or flippant if you will) style.  

I just thought that this subject deserved to be treated with more gravity, or at least with a more reasoned and reasonable response.

There is nothing wrong with a little levity, would that we all had more of it.  And some measure of flippancy would be fine in his response on this topic or any other.  But for those that may have taken what he said as something approaching a realistic answer, I thought it appropriate to weigh in with something a little closer to reality.

Thanks for the heads up though.

OK, I think I’m getting the hang of some of the board’s features now (like inserting quotes).

Yes, Larry, I did. But if you have reason that it would be better not to (and will share it), I will defer to the default font without qualm. I’m never opposed to changing my mind just for the sake of being opposed, but I have a skeptical nature and like to deal with facts, evidence, supported arguments, reality, and reason.

Whatever you think Cecil is (and he may well be a Catholic) has no bearing on what I said. A fan can be one that hoots and hollers for something/someone, one that financially supports something/someone, one that is a close student of something/someone, or any other of many more meanings. My intention was to say that he could stand to study the subject more, and (my intention was) to offer a fuller, more accurate response. I thought the readers here (including the lurkers, like me until now, and his original questioner, if s/he is still around) deserved more.

Thanks

This is factually incorrect.

It is, of course, a tenet of your personal faith that it’s true. Unfortunately, that personal faith is not binding on anyone else.

All of your argument depends on your belief in your religion rather than any outside fact. The Bible, despite your belief, is not the source for extra-biblical events. It’s not even a good source for events depicted within the Bible, as the existence of thousands of Christian sects, each with a differing interpretation about the events within and the meaning of the Bible, attest. (Some Christian sects don’t even observe the Sabbath on Sunday, yet they justify that by recourse to the same pages of the same Bible as you.)

The early Church is not the Bible, nor it is Christianity. They were humans with a human - secular and political - agenda. The history of Christianity is in its entirely a history of human - secular and political - decisions. They - all the “they’s” throughout history - obviously defended each of their decisions by recourse to the Bible, even if that directly contradicted another set of decisions pronounced to be biblically authorized.

You are apparently no different than your predecessors, but the cold light of history tells a very different story. Witnessing is not history, however, and those here who believe in history - some of whom have personal faiths and some of whom do not - will tell you so in no uncertain terms. Readers come here for history, not witnessing. “The Bible says so” will never prevail on these Boards. You’ll need to remember that if you continue to argue in that fashion.

And nobody who witnesses is a skeptic. That is an insult to skeptics everywhere.

Yes, dtilque, it actually does.

It requires reading (in the right place) and a little simple math. And you will quickly recognize that when you see it. And this in no way implies idiocy on your part; sometimes we just need a little help to find what we are looking for (in future, you could use a good concordance, or BAG, TDOT, BDB, or any one of several more widely known and highly respected biblical reference works that are usually available at your local library or university; the internet also has many free bible search sites now, and some of those tools are available on them as well).

The short answer: Yes, the bible says that Pentecost/Feast of Weeks was on a Sunday, and further that it has been on a Sunday every year for 3400+ years, and will continue to be every year until the last day, the end of the earth/world, the day of judgment. Where does it say that? Lev 23.15-16, et al. (probably ought to move this to the top where you can see it right off, then wade through the rest if you like)

For perhaps the best and clearest example, look at Leviticus 23, beginning at verse 15 and ending at verse 16 (Lev 23.15-16).

Actually, as I look back at this particular reference, it’s even clearer than the one I had in mind that required math; this one requires no more than a simple straight forward reading!

The “Feast of Weeks” was one of the three great annual festivals at which all Israelites were required by God (Mosaic Law) to go up to the temple in Jerusalem and offer various sacrifices, every year. More on this below.

The “Passover” was the first of these great feasts every year. It began on the 14th day of the first month (according to the Hebrew reckoning derived from God’s word). The first week of every year ended with a Sabbath (the 7th day), as did the second week (the 14th was also a Sabbath 7 days later).

The “Feast of Weeks” is also called Pentecost. Greek began to become more common and was widely used for speaking and writing from c. 300 BC (more so as time drew near to the time of Christ). Prior to ~250 BC a Greek translation of the Bible was produced commonly referred to as the Septuagint or LXX (note, the Greek translation was extant long before Christ was born, died, was buried, raised again, or the day of Pentecost on which the church/NC was established). That translation already has the word (actually a very similar form of the word, derived from the same root and having the same meaning) Pentecost. Pentecost is derived from the Greek, “pentekonta hemeras” meaning literally “fifty days.” If the board supports a Greek font, you could see it in Greek, but that is not so important to the point.

Anyway, the text (whether in the original Hebrew, in Greek, in English, or any other translation) clearly says that they were to count 50 days after the day the Passover began. The Passover always begins on a Sabbath. From the following day, count 7 full weeks of 7 days (49 days) and you are back to the Sabbath. Add another day for the 50th day. You are now at the day to celebrate the “Feast of Weeks,” which was always on the 1st day of the week rather than the 7th. The text says clearly “count off fifty days up to the day after the seventh Sabbath…” So even if you were bad at math, you could still get it right by knowing it was the day after the Sabbath or the first day of the week (also referred to as the eighth day, the Lord’s Day, and now most commonly called Sunday).

And this is always true because it was reckoned most specifically in days (and according to 7 day weeks).

The OC Feast of Weeks, always celebrated on Sunday, was intended as a shadow or type of things to come in the NC and later still in heaven as were so many other things first revealed then but revealed more clearly now (type/antitype – shadow*/seen more clearly – the passover lamb was a shadow or type of Jesus the Lamb of God, the Christ, the Saviour, the Messiah; if your door posts were covered in the blood of the lamb, those inside would be saved from the defeat/destruction of death – that was another shadow/type of the Lamb of God, those covered in the blood of the Lamb, those that are “in” Christ will be saved from the defeat/destruction of death, and it goes on and on; there are many dozens, hundreds of these shadow/seen more clearly, type/antitype analogous relationships between people and events of the OC and the NC.

You’ve already received another response to your Q from John. I say that his answer is not only inadequate and incomplete, but also wrong in some regards. I suggest you look to the book (like Jesus said) and be more like the Bereans (Acts 17.10-11) rather than just listening to me or any other man that claims or pretends to know the things of God. Nothing wrong with giving men a listen, but you need to then compare what they say with what God said (wrote).

This is one of the main problems with any and all religions today (including, most importantly, Christianity), too many people are listening more or only to the teachings of men and holding them in higher regard than the teachings of God, and not comparing the teachings heard from men to the teachings of God (the written word of God in the Bible). And that is a big no no (e.g., Judges 17.6, 21.25; 2 Ki 22.8-13; 2 Ch 34.14-33; Mt 15.6b-9; Mk 7.7-9,13; Acts 17. 10-11; et many many al)

The short answer: Yes, the bible says that Pentecost/Feast of Weeks was on a Sunday, and further that it has been on a Sunday every year for 3400+ years, and will continue to be every year until the last day, the end of the earth/world, the day of judgment. Where does it say that? Lev 23.15-16, et al. (probably ought to move this to the top where you can see it right off, then wade through the rest if you like)

*shadow – The concept can perhaps be better understood as foreshadow or foreshadowing or forerunner or inkling or precedent (albeit somewhat veiled, not yet clearly seen or understood at its earlier viewing.

Take for example the Pharaoh who dreamed but could not understand its meaning. All of the info was there but he just couldn’t see it or understand it clearly, the ultimate meaning was there but veiled. Joseph then came along having a clearer knowledge of God’s word, meaning, and purpose and was able to make the meaning far clearer to Pharaoh.

This is how the NC compares to the OC – more info, made clearer.

There is also a nifty little ditty that those interested may want to commit to memory, if you haven’t already:

The new is in the old contained and the old is in the new explained. (new = new covenant, NC; old = old covenant, OC)

Again, there is more – but that oughta do; it’s way more than enough :smack:

PS – John did get the Hebrew name of the Feast of Weeks/Pentecost right (it is actually “[hag ha] shavuot” when transliterated; also note that vowels were/are not written in biblical Hebrew, we do some “fairly educated guessing” on those following the diacritical marks/vowel “points” assigned by the very rigorous masoretic scribes).

But with regard to “Easter,” he missed the boat. Neither the word “Easter,” nor any form of it exists in the original Greek of the NC (or the Hebrew of the OC for that matter). It is an addition, a scribal insertion, based on tradition, not scripture, and found among major English translations only in the KJV (and perhaps NKJV, both being based on what would come to be known as the Textus Receptus (TR, or “received text” tradition). The KJV relies far more on the Latin Vulgate than the Greek documents. But then, many more Greek documents are more readily available now than there were then.

Christians celebrate the first day of the week (and the resurrection of Christ among other thiings) not just once a year, but 52x, every first day of the week.

Passover does not always begin on a Sabbath; it starts on the full moon.

I don’t know what it is that you’re trying to sell here, but it is neither Judaism nor Christianity. It isn’t even any heresy that is known to me; as far as I know, you’ve made it up yourself.

So you say, EM, and it must therefore be so (although you didn’t introduce a single fact or piece of evidence to support your contention, but hey, we all just “hold forth and pontificate” from time to time). This post of mine may be lacking in evidence and simply informative. But say, hey, I’ll show you mine if you show me yours :smiley:

I didn’t come to “witness” per se, but I do, of necessity when discussing biblical topics, do some of that. It can’t be helped if one has regard for the book. I just don’t think of it as much in those terms. But I guess if you want to put it like that exclusively, Cecil gave his witness when he responded and I am apparently a different witness that sees it a different way. And you just gave us your witness/testimony as well. Go figure.

I already anticipated your response and others like it, and responded in my response to John above:

“In anticipation of objections from our “unitarian” friends, we may or may not take up the discussion of the plurality but unity of the one God at some later date. As for our friends that don’t believe in God, or the God of the Bible, or the Bible, or the NC – the topic under discussion, as evinced by Cecil and his original questioner, is Christianity (in the macro view) and why Christians worship on Sunday instead of Saturday more specifically (any disputes that are not relevant are irrelevant). The final answer to that question must come from the Bible primarily as the ultimate source for all things Judeo-Christian. Most of the facts to be considered now are based on documentary evidence to which we must apply hermeneutical knowledge and skill, and logic. Secondary sources such as extra-biblical a/o historical documents are also valid for introduction (but of necessity given less weight than scripture).”

The “cold light of history” (and archeology, botany, biology, molecular genetics, physics, etc) has actually been very kind to the bible and less so to its skeptics of which I was one for most of my life.

The bible has yet to be falsified in any point of history (or science, or anything else). It has on the other hand been exonerated on many occasions to the dismay and falsification of their (less than) critical claims against it.

And just because I don’t know all the answers to every Q that may come my way doesn’t mean that someone else doesn’t. There are Qs to which none of us have answers, but just because we don’t know the answers today, doesn’t mean we won’t know tomorrow or 5 or 50 or 500 years from now. There is still much dirt for the archeologist’s spade to turn (not to mention many more indubitably amazing discoveries in myriad other disciplines) :eek:

I am a skeptic in regard to most things. But you can bet your bippy that I’m not as skeptical toward the bible as I used to be.

Bring whatchya got; come and let us reason together.

PS – Of course my personal faith is not binding on anyone else, nor is THE faith (to which I hold), nor is the word of God – every one has the right to reject it and believe whatever they like. Please don’t feel bound to anything on my account.

This is where, I think, there is serious disagreement. The bible is NOT the ultimate source; there are roughly 2000 years of tradition since the Bible was codified and closed. You can’t look to the bible for (let’s say) Christmas trees, or Santa Claus. Those are customs that arose later. Similarly the use of Sunday as the day for religious devotion; that’s a custom that arose later.

<mod>

This started as a column comment. It’s moving towards a Christian discussion real fast.

Let’s move this to Great Debates.

COCC > GD

</mod>

Sigh.

This is an exceptionally tedious debate that has been played out on these boards many times.

The inerrancy of the bible is again something that is believed to be true only by the minority of professed Christians. If you can’t persuade fellow believing Christians of this “truth,” how can you possibly hope to witness to outsiders?

jojoschmo, welcome, but I have to tell you you’re in over your head here. This is not a sunday school. We don’t just take faith based pronouncements at face value. Some of your statements are simply factually incorrect (Passover does NOT always start on the Sabbath, the Gospels are NOT historical records in the academic sense of the word, the Old Testament makes no reference to Jesus, the Bible is eminently and endless falsifiable as history), others are wildly interpretive and faith based. The Bible is not a valid or reliable source of answers to historical questions, especially since even believers can never find universal agreement on how it should be interpreted.

I don’t know how long you’ll stay around (my guess is not long), but if you really want to pursue a discussion of the Bible’s alleged “inerrancy,” I’d be happy to educate you.

[QUOTE=jojoschmo]

The bible has yet to be falsified in any point of history (or science, or anything else). It has on the other hand been exonerated on many occasions to the dismay and falsification of their (less than) critical claims against it.

QUOTE]

If you haven’t been persuaded that the first handful of verses are in obvious error, perhaps the best we can say is, “God bless” and pat you on the head.

That you would consider a Sunday v Saturday argument to have a “salvific” consequence probably needs some additional pats but I suspect you may find that the tedium of defeating the sincere witnesser is not worth it for most of us.

Which Bible, by the way? Are you at least educated on its history and the histories of the various contributors who wrote it, translated it, compiled it, canonized it and continue to argue over which version is Correct?