The Instigator
daley
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
CentristX
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Bible Teaches the Weekly Sabbath was Abolished

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
daley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,204 times Debate No: 38210
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

daley

Pro

This debate is for Seventh-day Adventist only to accept. If you are not an SDA please do not accept this challenge. Round 1 is for acceptance only.
CentristX

Con

As the Pro wishes, he can check my profile to confirm my denomination. Hope this is a good debate. :)
Debate Round No. 1
daley

Pro

Instead of arguing many verses, I'm going to go into detail with just one for now and add others if need be. SDAs believe that the sabbaths of Colossians 2:16 were shadows pointing to Christ that were abolished when they were fulfilled in him, but they deny that this list includes the weekly sabbath. Below I will give some of the many reasons why scholars have concluded the weekly sabbath was included here in Paul's list of abolished holydays.

"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival (heortes) or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17 New King James Version)

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival (heortes), a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17 New International Version)

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day (heortes), or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (Colossians 2:14, 16-17 King James Version)

The Greek word translated "holy day" at Colossians 2:15 in the King James Version is "heortes," which means "festival, feast" or "feast day." (W.E. Vine"s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words) This is the word used in the Bible for annual feasts such as the Passover (Luke 2:41; 22:1) and the feast of tabernacles (John 7:2). All annual Sabbaths were part and parcel of the annual feasts, and could not exist apart from them. For example, the feast (heortes) of unleavened bread included the Sabbaths which fell on the first and seventh days of this weeklong festival. (Leviticus 23:6-8) Heortes is the Greek term in the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament embracing all such annual Sabbaths. The "feasts [heortes] of the Lord" (Leviticus 23:4) include the Passover (Leviticus 23:5), the feast of unleavened bread (Leviticus 23:6-8), Pentecost (Leviticus 23:15-16, 21), the memorial of trumpets (Leviticus 23:24-25), the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27-32), the feast of tabernacles (Leviticus 23:34-44), and so on. Thus, when Paul mentioned the annual "holydays" or "festivals" (heortes), and the monthly "new moons" at Colossians 2:16, he already included all yearly and monthly Sabbaths. There was nothing left for Paul to mean by "the Sabbath days" except the weekly Sabbath, because all the other Sabbaths were already mentioned as heortes (yearly sabbaths) and new moons (monthly Sabbaths).

The implication is that the Sabbath being described in Colossians 2:16 is the weekly Sabbath. When Paul here says "Sabbath days," if he meant annual Sabbaths he was needlessly repeating himself. In that case he would be saying, "Let no one judge you regarding"an annual Sabbath, a new moon, or an annual Sabbath," a statement neither logical nor likely!

At Colossians 2:16 the expression "the Sabbath days" has the word "days" in italics because it was not there in the original Greek, but was added or supplied by the translator. Without the added word, the original King James reading would be, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of THE Sabbath." This reading removes any doubt that Paul meant the seventh day, and is supported by the fact the very same word Paul used for the Sabbath at Colossians 2:16 is translated "THE Sabbath" at Matthew 28:1; John 5:9, 10, 16 and other places.

The expression "Sabbath days" at Colossians 2:16 is used 8 other times in the King James Version an in all eight it means the weekly Sabbath. (Matthew 12:5, 10, 12; Mark 3:4; Luke 4:31; 6:2, 9; Acts 17:2) In fact, the term "Sabbath days" is never used for any other day except the seventh day! In every case, not almost every case, but every case without exception, "Sabbath says" means the weekly Sabbath.

Sabbaton, the Greek word for Sabbath at Colossians 2:16, is translated "Sabbath" 60 times in the New Testament. The first 59 times it means the weekly Sabbath. (Matthew 12:1-2, 5, 8, 10-12; 24:20; 28:1; Mark 1:21; 2:23, 24, 27-28; 3:2, 4; 6:2; 15:42; 16:1; Luke 4:16, 31; 6:1-2, 5-7, 9; 13:10, 14-16; 14:1, 3, 5; 23:54, 56; John 5:9-10, 16, 18; 7:22-23; 9:14, 16; 19:31; Acts 1:12; 13:14, 27, 42, 44: 15:21; 16:13; Acts 17:2; 18:4) How strange that for Sabbath-keepers the word "Sabbath (sabbaton)" means the Sabbath 59 times but the 60th time it don"t! Such an interpretation goes contrary to the consistent linguistic use of the word in the Gospels as a reference to the weekly Sabbath, but this is the only way they can save the Sabbath from Paul"s list. Obviously, Sabbath means the same thing in Colossians 2:16 as it means in the other 59 places were the word occurs. In fact, the New Testament never uses sabbaton for any yearly or monthly holydays! All Gospel writers used sabbaton EXCLUSIVELY for the weekly Sabbath!

The usual Greek word for annual rest days is ANAPAUSIS (in Hebrew shabbathon, Leviticus 23:24, 39, not the weekly Sabbath which in Hebrew is Shabbath). Paul would have used ANAPAUSIS in Colossians 2:16 had he meant the annual festivals, but he didn"t, and he couldn"t, for he already mentioned them as festivals (heortes) before he included the Sabbath in his list of abolished holy days. Not only did Paul deliberately use the same word that is always used for the weekly Sabbath, but the exact same for of the word used in the Decalogue: Exodus 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day (Greek, sabbaton, genitive plural) to keep it holy." Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in"the Sabbath days (Greek, sabbaton, genitive plural)." Paul uses the same word, letter for letter, that is used in the fourth commandment, hence he surely meant that Sabbath day!

The only word ever used in the Bible, for the weekly Sabbath is the very one Paul did use, Sabbaton. So if he had meant to name that Sabbath, what else could he have said than just what he did say, the Sabbath days? Why, then, deny that he means just what he says when he could have said nothing else if he had meant the Sabbath?

Paul told his brothers ""So let no one judge you" regarding the sabbath days. Tell me, do not the elders in the church have the right to render judgments in cases of wrongdoing among church members? Paul said, "For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?" (1 Corinthians 5:12) So if keeping the sabbath is a binding law on Christians, will not elders have responsibility to judge as guilty any brother whom they catch willfully breaking the sabbath? Yet, how can they do this when Paul explicitly says we should let no one judge us regarding these days?

I would also like to know what is the difference between the festivals (heortes) and the sabbaths (sabbaton) in Colossian 2:16. If one is yearly, then the other is what?

Respond to John 5:18 which clearly presents Jesus as breaking the sabbath. "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." In the context, Jesus told a man he heal to "take up thy bed, and walk." Damien, was it lawful to carry the bed on the sabbath? Yes or no?

But what settles it beyond a reasonable doubt that Colossians 2:16, does refer to the weekly Sabbaths is the fact that exactly the same list of holy days here given by Paul is given many times in the Old Testament, where we know it means the seventh day. 1 Chron., 23:3O, 31: "To stand every morning to thank and praise the Lord, and likewise at even [daily]; and to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the Lord in the Sabbaths [weekly], in the new moons [monthly], and on the set feasts [yearly], by number, according to the order commanded unto them." Here is a direct reference to the daily offerings, offerings on the weekly Sabbaths, new moons and set feasts, just as ordered in Num. 28 and 29. Can any one doubt that "the sabbaths" here are the weekly Sabbaths, the same as there? Certainly not. Ezek. 45:17: "Offerings in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths." Here are named exactly the same days that Paul gives in Colossians 2:16, and in the same order, yearly, monthly, weekly. It is evident that Paul had in his mind those lists of holy days so often given in the Old Testament, where the Sabbath is included.

I would like to close by asking for one verse where New Testament Christians are commanded to keep the weekly sabbath.
CentristX

Con

CentristX forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
daley

Pro

daley forfeited this round.
CentristX

Con

CentristX forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
daley

Pro

daley forfeited this round.
CentristX

Con

CentristX forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
daley

Pro

daley forfeited this round.
CentristX

Con

CentristX forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Man-ofGod 3 years ago
Man-ofGod
Surely the day has typological significance as do many things, such as baptism. But in this context. he is referring to rites not just the significance of the days. As I said, the identical text found in Eze 45:17 makes that clear.

2 Tim 3:16 says that ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness.

This was written when mostly the old testament existed. Some things are good for doctrine, others simply for instruction in righteousness. No need to separate the law into moral or ceremonial. Just put in context of the whole scripture and you can see what is binding and what is not. For example there were many laws about adultery in the law of moses whose principals are timeless. We do well to follow those principals for our benefit even today. Other things clearly point to better things to come, which did come when Jesus died at the cross. If we chose to do these things, like sacrificing a lamb, this would be an insult to God who sent the Lamb of God to take away our sins (not to save us in sin). His word makes it clear what the purpose was and Paul makes it clear that these things are not binding anymore on a Christian.

Therefore, it would be silly to think that Just because Moses wrote it , we should not do it.

God Bless,
MoG
Posted by daley 3 years ago
daley
The reference to food and drink refers to the daily meat and drink offering, which, by the way, were part of the daily sacrifice. Paul is speaking of the days which required the offerings as shadows of Christ, not just the offering. Are you trying to say that the sacrifices offered on the Passover were shadows of Christ, and not the Passover day itself? So the new moon celebration was not a shadow of Christ, but the offerings on that day were? Is that your claim?

I would also like to know if you believe Christians are obligated to obey the entire law of Moses, or do you believe it was divided into moral and ceremonial parts, the ceremonial parts being abolished to leave the moral?
Posted by Man-ofGod 3 years ago
Man-ofGod
No, this is a logical deduction simply from asking the question, how is food or drink a shadow of things to come? He does not need to be redundant and repeat the word offering since his audience in whom this epistle is directed (the Colossians) would know exactly what he is talking about since many of them were hearing and/or practicing these things,

God Bless,
MoG
Posted by daley 3 years ago
daley
If Paul is talking about sacrifices why does he not mention the very word "sacrifice," or "offering"? You presume to put words in Paul's mouth. Further, when talking about the sabbath, one includes the sabbath burnt offering which was included as part of its celebration. Similar comments could be made about the other holy days.
Posted by Man-ofGod 3 years ago
Man-ofGod
In the vernacular of Paul's day, the festivals would never be called a Sabbath. This is why the word Sabbath in any of its varieties is not used to represent a feast day in the NT. However, Sabbaton in the Septuagint is used for the Day of Atonement, an annual feast in Lev 23:32.

Either way that is neither here or there. What is being discussed in Col 2:16 is not related to days at all nor is it discussing our obligation to (not) keep the Sabbath as Christians. As you said yourself, days is a supplied word in the translation. What is being discussed are offerings. Paul borrowed Col 2:16 directly from the old testament. You can find the sister text in Eze 45:17 in the same order as Paul wrote it where it reads.

"It shall be the prince"s duty to furnish the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the new moons, and the Sabbaths, all the appointed feasts of the house of Israel: he shall provide the sin offerings, grain offerings, burnt offerings, and peace offerings, to make atonement on behalf of the house of Israel. " ESV

The process is explained further on Eze 46:4 and Num 28:9.

This context of this text is about rituals that were creeping in from Jewish Gnostic/mystic believers during that time. I like what Holman commentary says on vs 11-13 concerning circumcision and baptism

No religious ritual can make us alive with Christ. Paul picks two familiar rituals in these verses, but he clearly is not talking about the physical acts of circumcision and baptism. Instead, he is talking about the spiritual reality behind the physical rite
Anders, M. (1999). Vol. 8: Galatians-Colossians. Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference (306). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

This leads us to believe that this text as in many other places of Pauline's epistles he discussing Justification not sanctification. We are not justified by any work or rite, we are justified through faith in Christ alone.

God Bless,
Posted by CentristX 4 years ago
CentristX
Though it is funny, no, your arguments are not too much for me to handle. If I were to fully forfeit this debate I would also delete my DDO account in shame. But anyways, for your convenience, go ahead and post more of your side's arguments for round three, so that on my turn I can argue my side for both rounds in one.
Posted by daley 4 years ago
daley
Looks like my opponent isn't going to post at all. Maybe he can't handle my arguments.
Posted by daley 4 years ago
daley
CentristX, I'm sorry I called you Damien. I was reply to him while typing my argument to you and put his name in by accident. I apologize.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
daleyCentristXTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious reasons.