The Instigator
dsjpk5
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
willemtoerien
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The day of worship for Christians is Sunday

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...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 701 times Debate No: 72759
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

dsjpk5

Pro

I would like to thank willemtorien for suggesting the topic of this debate. I look forward to reading his response. I won't be making my affirmative case as of yet. I'd rather simply illustrate how I plan on approaching this discussion. My opponent is free to either make his initial negative case this round, or simply accept the debate.

Both me and my opponent will be quoting the Bible (sometimes even the same verses). The key, I believe is deciding which approach is the best way to interpret those verses.

I NEVER SAID YOU STOLE MONEY

To better illustrate this, I am going to share something I heard
Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid say once:

Let's say you are at a garage sale and you come across a 100 year old
book. It looks interesting, so you buy it. You take it home and begin
to read it, but find it difficult to understand. Now let's say that the
author has passed away, but you still have access to his son, who was
in the room when the book was written? All things being equal, wouldn't you trust him over someone born 80 years later who didn't know anyone even remotely connected to the author? Especially when trying to interpret the following phrase:

I never said you stole money.

Now, at first glance, this may seem easy to understand, but there may
be more than one way to I interpret it. What if the person who wrote
that meant

I never said you stole money... He said it. Or...

I never SAID you stole money... But I sure thought it. Or...

I never said YOU stole money... I said she stole it. Or...

I never said you STOLE money... I said you borrowed it. Or...

I never said you stole MONEY. You stole a car.

Now take that verse, multiply it by 10,000, and you have the Bible. You
have dozens of different books, written by different authors, for
different audiences, for different reasons, in different languages, at
different times. So you tell me whose interpretations you can count on
to be most authentic? Those who knew the authors personally, or someone doing their best, 2,000 years later?

Development of doctrine.

Now of course, over time, we can understand better some of the
implications of a particular teaching. This is something all Christians
recognize. The doctrine of the Trinity didn't become crystallized until
some 300 years after the death of Christ. The key to determining the
difference between development versus departure is this... Is the
teaching in line with what the original Christians believed? No one
expects an elderly man to look like his baby picture. He's much taller
and has gray or white hair. You expect to see this. What you don't
expect is to see a third eye, or a foot growing from his hip.
Development versus departure.
willemtoerien

Con

I would like to thank the PRO for inviting me to this debate. I choose to have round 1 of my argument to be just a introductory round.

Worship day vs. Holy day

First, I am a bit confused as to the topic of this debate and would like PRO to clarify. Do you perhaps mean the Holy day is on Sunday now for Christians? I ask this as there is a difference in keeping a day holy and worshiping on a day. For example, I can worship on a day and not keep it holy. It is of my understanding that everyone who worships the Redeemer is to do it every day, not just once a week.

Every day will I bless thee; and I will praise thy name for ever and ever. - Psa 145:2

...he (Daniel) kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God... - Dan 6:10


Emphasis

Nehemiah Gordon, a Karaite Jew, has a fantastic video available on YouTube called "The Greek Jesus vs. the Hebrew Yeshua". In it he explains this exact thing you are talking about. Take the following verse:

Ye shall not swear by name falsely... - Lev 19:12

So Nehemiah explains what the Pharisees did in Yahushua's day; they reasoned, "Oh I can swear falsely, just don't use God's name when I swear falsely."

Though I do not agree with many of Nehemiah’s view points, I do agree with him on how doctrine is not to be in contradiction with scripture as the Pharisees has done.

Development of doctrine

It is true that doctrines develop and should develop. But the question is, is the developing of the doctrine in the correct direction? And on that note, what is truth as we see there are 40k Christian denominations all having their own idea of what truth is. So when it comes to development of doctrines, again I must stress that a doctrine cannot put the scriptures to be in contradiction and has to be in line with the rest of scripture.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. – 1 Thessalonians 5:21

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: – 2 Timothy 3:16


Argument

I will now await for PRO to give clarity on the topic and put forth his argument.

Debate Round No. 1
dsjpk5

Pro

I will be happy to clarify what "day of worship" means for the purpose
of this debate. It is the day when Christians worship corporately.
It's the day referred to in the Bible when Christ's followers/disciples
met for "the breaking of the bread" or "came together to break bread".

While it's true that we are to worship God every day privately, we
worship corporately on Sunday. As for a day we are to be holy, that is
every day too. There is no day when we're not supposed to be holy.

As for the 40k Christian denominations, there is only one that can
trace it's origins to the time of the Apostles. It is this one alone
that has maintained the teachings handed on to them since the time of
the Apostles. Therefore, it is to this group where we should look for
the development. [1]

I agree that all scripture is profitable, but that gets us back to the
question of who decides the correct interpretation. Which takes us
back to my "I never said you stole money.", and the importance of
looking towards how the early Christians interpreted the Bible.

AFFIRMATIVE CASE

Acts 20:7 "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came
together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on
the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." [2]

So here we see Christ's disciples coming together on the first day of
the week (Sunday) to "break bread" and hear preaching. With this in
mind, I assert this is clear biblical evidence that Sunday is the day
of worship for Christians.

HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN FORMAL WORSHIP

As a matter of history, we know that the day of worship for Christians is Sunday/Lord's day:

"107AD IGNATIUS: let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days of the week. (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, chp 9. Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 62-63.)

130AD BARNABAS: Moreover God says to the Jews, 'Your new moons and Sabbaths 1 cannot endure.' You see how he says, 'The present Sabbaths are not acceptable to me, but the Sabbath which I have made in which, when I have rested [heaven: Heb 4] from all things, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.' Wherefore we Christians keep the eighth day for joy, on which also Jesus arose from the dead and when he appeared ascended into heaven. (15:8f, The Epistle of Barnabas, 100 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 147)

150AD JUSTIN: But Sunday is the day on which we hold our common assembly, because it is the first day of the week and Jesus our saviour on the same day rose from the dead. (First apology of Justin, Ch 68)

150AD JUSTIN: And on the day called Sunday there is a gathering together in the same place of all who live in a city or a rural district. ... We all make our assembly in common on the day of the Sun, since it is the first day, on which God changed the darkness and matter and made the world, and Jesus Christ our Savior arose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified him on the day before Saturn's day, and on the day after (which is the day of the Sun the appeared to his apostles and taught his disciples these things. (Apology, 1, 67:1-3, 7; First Apology, 145 AD, Ante-Nicene Fathers , Vol. 1, pg. 186)

190AD CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: He does the commandment according to the Gospel and keeps the Lord's day, whenever he puts away an evil mind . . . glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself. (Vii.xii.76.4)" [3]

Back to you, Con. I look forward to reading your response!

Sources:

1. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

2. http://biblehub.com...

3. http://www.bible.ca...
willemtoerien

Con

Truth

PRO is depending on tradition to dictate what truth, in other words, right and wrong, is. But scripture plainly shows what truth is, the law and the testimony:



Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth. – Psa 119:142


Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. – Psa 119:151


Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. – Joh 14:6


For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: – 1 Peter 2:21



PRO is in danger of doing exactly what Jesus exposed the Pharisees doing…



But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? … Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. – Mat 15:3,6



And the law is not up for change according to scripture:



The works of his hands are verity and judgement; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever and are done in truth and uprightness. – Psalms 11:7-8


And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. – Luke 16:17


Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Yahuwah your God which I command you. – Deuteronomy 4:2


What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. – Deuteronomy 12:32


Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. – Proverbs 30:5-6



The law is also light and those speaking against it has no light in them:



For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: – Pro 6:23


To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. – Isa 8:20



So if I interpret scripture that makes void the law or the testimony of God, I have no light in me.


Gathering on Sunday

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. – Act 20:7



PRO’s first problem is there is no specific command to worship on the first day here, but a mere something that is done. The fourth commandment isn’t to gather together to break bread. It’s to keep it holy by not doing any work in it.



But the seventh day is the sabbath of Yahuwah thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: – Exo 20:10



PRO’s second problem is that the Hebrew counting of days states that the day ends after sunset [1] not at midnight.



And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. – Luk 23:54



So it basically reads like this:



And upon Saturday evening, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on Sunday morning; and continued his speech until Saturday midnight. – Act 20:7



PRO’s third problem here is he’s putting the scriptures in contradiction. The law and the prophets has stated clearly the law is not up for change and that to speak against it, you have no light in you. If the apostles did indeed change the law then you either have of the following conclusions:


A: The apostles has no light in them.


B: The law and the prophets is not truthful.


C: The interpretation of the apostles’ words has no light in them.


D: All scripture is to be rejected as it is in contradiction.


Personally, I choose C.


Some Catholic Admissions

If Protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church. – [2]


I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' The Catholic Church says: 'No. By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day and command you to keep holy the first day of the week.' And lo! The entire civilized world bows down in a reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church. – [3]



I have many more sources if you want… The Protestants also lost the reformation because they kept Sunday and not Saturday:



Now the Protestants' claim, that they stand upon the written word only, is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, is false. PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold the Scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of 'Scripture alone as the standard,' fails; and the doctrine of 'Scripture and tradition' as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges." – [4]



Lord’s day

There is nowhere in scripture which explicitly links the phrase, “Lord’s day” with Sunday. The reference to try and link these two phrases is in Rev 1:10, but Rev 1:10 is not pointing to a physical day. All scripture points the phrase, “day of the Lord” to the day of His coming, not Sunday.



For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low: – Isa 2:12


Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come. – Joe 1:15



Even in the New Testament:



The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: – Act 2:20


For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. – 1 The 5:2



Thus Rev 1:10 means that John is at the day of the Lord, in other words, the time of His coming. He’s about to reveal what is to come. But even I were not to look at it this way, the other thing that is explicitly mention the phrase of being the Lord over the day is the Sabbath day.



If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: – Isa 58:13


For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. – Mat 12:8



Sources

[1] http://www.torahcalendar.com...


[2] Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the Cardinal, in a letter dated February 10, 1920.


[3] T. Enright, C.S.S.R., in a lecture at Hartford, Kansas, Feb. 18, 1884


[4] Romes' Challenge, p. 25-27


Debate Round No. 2
dsjpk5

Pro

I want to thank my opponent for his timely response. Having said that,
I have to say it seems like he is confused as to what we're debating.
I will be capitalizing for emphasis only.

WHAT WE'RE NOT DEBATING

We're not debating what day Con says SHOULD be the day of worship for
Christians. As anyone can see by reading the debate resolution, we're
debating which day IS the day of worship for Christians. Voters should
ignore any comments arguing for the moving of day from Sunday to
Saturday, as they would be irrelevant.

Con also seems confused about something else.

Despite what my opponent spent most of last round talking about, were
not debating which day is the Sabbath. I agree that the Sabbath is
Saturday. However, the Sabbath was given to the Jews alone. No one
else was expected to corporately worship on Saturdays. We know this
because God never told the gentiles to worship on Saturday. God also
told the Jews to circumcise their infant male children, but I doubt if
Con would argue Christians need to do that. The Apostle Paul was clear
that Christians were not required to keep the Sabbath:

Colossians 2:16

"So don't let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not
celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths."

What we ARE debating

*This next point is enough to settle this debate*

We are debating which day of the week IS the day of worship for
Christians. In round one, Con said he wasn't sure what we're debating.
To quote Con directly, he said, "First, I am a bit confused as to the
topic of this debate and would like PRO to clarify." In return, I
said, "I will be happy to clarify what "day of worship" means for the
purpose
of this debate. It is the day when Christians worship corporately.
It's the day referred to in the Bible when Christ's followers/disciples
met for "the breaking of the bread" or "came together to break bread".

So the voters can plainly see my opponent was looking to me to
define/clarify what the definition of "day of worship" was for the
purpose of this debate. The voters can also plainly see that I it was
defined as the day when Christ's disciples "came together to break
bread." With that in mind, I clearly showed how the Bible records them
coming together to "break bread" on the "first day of the week", which
is Sunday. Con trying to say Acts 20:7 is describing Saturday as the
"first day of the week" is not biblically accurate. Time and time
again, the Bible says Saturday is the seventh day, not the first
(Exodus 31:15, Leviticus 23:3). [2]

REBUTTALS

TRUTH

My opponent overlooked one thing the Bible says is the truth... The
Church:

1 Timothy 3:15 "so that if I am delayed, you will know how people must
conduct themselves in the household of God. This is the church of the
living God, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth." [3]

So we see from the Bible that the Church can be trusted to provide us
with the truth. And what does the Church tell us??? It tells us the
day of worship for Christians is Sunday.

Did Jesus Condemn All Tradition?

Despite my opponent's claim, I am in no way in danger of violating
Matthew 15:3ff. I say this because Jesus didn't condemn all
traditions. He only warned against "traditions of men". (Mark 7:8) [4]

As a matter of fact, the Bible commands us to follow the tradition
handed down to us from the Apostles:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the
traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
[5]

Contradictions??

I have not put scripture in contradiction. It's true that the Law doesn't change... it just doesn't apply to Christians:

Galatians 5:4 "You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." [6]

Con's $1,000 Challenge

Con's challenge is based off a false premise. It's based on the premise that everything a Christian is to follow got written down in the Bible. But that itself is an unwritten tradition, and as such, is self-refuting.
Actually, the Bible gives the Christian Church the authority to establish new practices:

Matthew 18:18 "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." [7]

This is all one needs to look to when wondering if the Church Christ began has the right to establish it's own day of worship.

Lord's Day

The reference to the Lord's Day involves historical evidence that the early Church established Sunday as its day of worship. This fact has gone unchallenged by my opponent.

Remember, we're debating what day IS the day of worship for Christians, not what anyone thinks it SHOULD be.

Sources:

1. http://biblehub.com...

2. http://biblehub.net...

3. http://biblehub.com...

4.http://biblehub.com...

5. http://biblehub.com...

6. http://biblehub.com...

7. http://biblehub.com...
willemtoerien

Con

Off topic

These are just some of the things PRO mentioned. I am happy to debate them on another time.


Col 2:16-17

PRO has stated that the Sabbath was given to the Jews only. This is false in these verses: [Ex 20:10;Isa 56:6;Mark 2:27;Ecc 12:13;Gen 2:3]. PRO’s quote on col 2:16 is false. This is what the quote is:



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; Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body of Christ. – Colossians 2:16-17



In short, if you take out the examples given it reads: “Let no man therefore judge you … but the body of Christ.” If you read the whole chapter, you’ll find those with spoiled principalities and powers were judging the early Christians on how they eat, drink, keep holy days, new moons and the Sabbath. These judgements are a shadow of things to come. Again, Paul did not speak against the law. It’s either that, or you’re not allowed to tell someone it’s bad for eating food that is very unhealthy or telling a man he should stop drinking alcohol, thus making yourself a hypocrite in your own doctrine.


Circumcision

Circumcision is liken unto a wedding ring. Not wearing the ring doesn’t make you single again and wearing one doesn’t make you married… If you wear the wedding ring, it’s a token that you are married. In like manner, if you are circumcised, it is a token that you will keep the law. Therefore those who are young in the faith does not need to be circumcised. Kind of like, “I’m engaged”…



For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law – Romans 2:25a



Should vs Is

If I say to my child, do not play in the high way. He then should not play in the high way. But if he is playing in the high way and says it is okay, does that make it okay? Likewise, if the day of worship is on Sunday, but should be on Saturday, does that make it okay? Contrary to what PRO accused me of, my first debate was to establish what truth, that which is right and wrong, is, so as to see that if the day of worship is (is it right) on Sunday. To PRO, the church says it is on Sunday and that their worship is on Sunday. However, just because the church is doing something doesn’t make it okay. To Yahuvah the day of worship is on the Sabbath day.



And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. – Isaiah 66:23



In the quote I gave on the reformation’s losing against the council, the Arch Bishop clearly states that the day to observe is Saturday, not Sunday according to scripture. But the church has its day of worship on Sunday according to tradition. Thus declaring that tradition overrules Yahuvah's law and testimony (truth).


Sabbath vs day of worship

PRO says I’m confusing the terms the Sabbath with the day of worship, but am I really?



Sunday is a Catholic institution and its claim to observance can be defended only on Catholic principles..... From beginning to end of Scripture there is not a single passage that warrants the transfer of weekly public worship from the last day of the week to the first." - [1]


"The civil authorities should be urged to cooperate with the church in maintaining and strengthening this public worship of God, and to suzpport with their own authority the regulations set down by the church's pastors. For it is only in this way that the faithful will understand why it is Sunday and not the Sabbath day that we now keep holy." - [2]


"Protestants...accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change. But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that.in observing the Sunday, in keeping Christmas and Easter, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church--the Pope." – [3]


"If Protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church." – [4]



Throughout all the sources I have, the church says, and I quote above, “Sunday and not the Sabbath day that we now keep holy.” In other words, Sunday is the new Sabbath day to the church, Sunday is the new day of worship.


Acts 20:7

PRO went to say that I am biblically inaccurate to say Acts 20:7 is describing Saturday as the first day of the week. I am not saying the first day is Saturday as a whole. PRO is ignoring the counting of Hebraic days, sunset to sunset. The first day of the week begins Saturday evening at sunset, not twelve midnight. They broke bread on Saturday evening, preached until midnight and departed on Sunday morning.


Truth

As I have shown, the Biblical definition of truth is the law and the testimony, so 1 Timothy 3:15 can read:



But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the law and the testimony. – 1 Timothy 3:15



In other words, if the church says X and the Bible says Y, you’re in the wrong church irrespective if they claim a lineage to the apostles, because the church should be the pillar of Y. The scribes and Pharisees claimed the lineage of Abraham and was denounced. In other words, if you truly want to hold to the lineage of the apostles, then you would do Y and not X.


Tradition

Contrary to PRO’s claim, my emphasis was on tradition of men overruling or becoming the law. There are traditions that I do keep, for instance, the tradition of washing your hands. Yet PRO’s claim is in reality more than tradition, it is pushed as a law according to the sources [2] and [4].


PRO then uses Matthew 18:18 to say that Christians’ practices are outside the Bible and based on tradition. But this is contrary to what scripture says,



All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: – 2 Timothy 3:16



If we were to look at customs, why the customs of mere mortal man? Why not to Christ Himself.



And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. – Luke 4:16



Matthew 18:18 in context is speaking about sinning against your brother, not that the church can do as it pleases it.



Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. … Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? – Matthew 18:16,21



The phrase of binding and loosing here is, if someone doesn’t keep the law like the fourth command, in other words someone who is sinning, and even after the church has spoken to him, the church has the authority to reject the man as not part of the body of Christ. If the man repents of his sin and wants to start keep the law, like honour the Sabbath day, the church has the authority to accept the man back as part of the body of Christ.



And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. – Matthew 18:17



Contradictions

Let me quote Galatians 5:4 using PRO’s logic.



Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever you are justified by the law in honouring your parents or not murdering or keeping the Sabbath; ye are fallen from grace. – Galatians 5:4 (PRO)



But let me give you my interpretation.



Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever you are justified by the law in sacrificing animals again; ye are fall from grace. – Galatians 5:4 (CON)



I don’t know about you, but I don’t know of a verse in the Old Testament where people had to keep the fourth commandment or the fifth to have their sins atoned for. Again, PRO says the law doesn’t apply to Christians, by definition he is saying Christians can sin as they please, for sin is the transgression of the law. The law applies to all mankind [Ecc 12:13] And PRO contradicts Jesus’ statement:



Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. – Matthew 5:19



Either PRO is correct, that Jesus was lying because Christians doesn’t need to keep the commandments and Paul says you can do what you please because you have grace, or PRO’s interpretation of Galatians 5:4 is wrong and Paul was speaking of people doing sacrifices again. If you are back doing sacrifices, you basically deny the Jesus came in the flesh to die for you.


Lord’s Day

I have challenged this. If you want to worship on the Lord’s Day, according to Scripture you have two options…


A) You have to wait until His coming to worship Him, or


B) You have to worship Him on Saturday.


Nowhere is here a reference in Scripture pointing to Sunday as the Lord’s Day, but of people making it up and putting it down as tradition.


Conclusion

The day of worship is the Sabbath day according to Yahuvah and the holy writ. The day of worship is Sunday according to the church and tradition.


Sources

[1] Catholic Press, Sydney, Australia, August 1900


[2] Roman Catechism, 1985


[3] Our Sunday Visitor, February 5, 1950.


[4] Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the Cardinal, in a letter dated February 10, 1920.



Debate Round No. 3
dsjpk5

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent again for his response. Having said
that, I still have a few issues with what he said.

REBUTTALS

Off Topic???

I don't see how the fact that God ONLY gave the Law to the Jews is "off topic". If it was only given to one group of people, we wouldn't
expect any other group was required to obey it. God gave the ten
commandments to Moses alone so he would take them to the Jews. The Bible doesn't record God giving them to any other people. Only the Jews were part of the covenant. All other peoples were outside of the covenant. If you're not part of the covenant, you can't get in trouble for not following the rules of the covenant.

Logical Fallacy

As for the verses Con alluded to without quoting, I ask the voters to
disregard them until he quotes them and offers interpretations for
them. Until he does, they're just what is known as "bare assertions.".

A bare assertion is when someone makes a claim without offering any
evidence. [1]

Questionable Quoting of Scripture

Colossians 2:16-17

I would like to ask my opponent which translation of scripture He is
leaning on when he offers us a version that indicates Christians can
judge one another. I've looked the passage up in the following
translations of the Bible, and none of them say that. Rather, they
support the idea that the Law foreshadowed the coming of Christ. It was a sign. Signs are great until you get to your destination, but once you get there, you no longer need the sign. Here are some of the
translations I researched:

NIV, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, New American
Standard Bible, International Standard Version, Holman Christian
Standard Bible, American Standard Version, Jubilee Bible, and the King James Version

Again, each of them supported my claims that Christians are not
expected to worship on the Sabbath. For example:

"New International Version
These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality,
however, is found in Christ.

New Living Translation
For these rules are only shadows of the reality yet to come. And Christ
himself is that reality.

English Standard Version
These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to
Christ.

New American Standard Bible
things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance
belongs to Christ.

King James Bible
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
These are a shadow of what was to come; the substance is the Messiah.

International Standard Version
These are a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to
the Messiah.

NET Bible
these are only the shadow of the things to come, but the reality is
Christ!

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Because these things are shadows of those things that were future, but
The Messiah is the body.

GOD'S WORD" Translation
These are a shadow of the things to come, but the body [that casts the
shadow] belongs to Christ.

Jubilee Bible 2000
which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of the Christ.

King James 2000 Bible
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

American King James Version
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

American Standard Version
which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.

Darby Bible Translation
which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

English Revised Version
which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's.

Webster's Bible Translation
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Weymouth New Testament
These were a shadow of things that were soon to come, but the substance
belongs to Christ.

World English Bible
which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's.

Young's Literal Translation
which are a shadow of the coming things, and the body is of the Christ;
[2]"

Each one of them say "the body IS of Christ", not "the body of Christ."

So again, I ask my opponent to tell us which translation he's using.

Circumcision

Con seems to be saying that Christians are still required to be
circumcised. If so, let's compare it to what the Apostle Paul said:

Galatians 5:2 "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let
yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all."
[3]

Doesn't sound like much of a requirement.

Should vs. Is

I am more than happy to use my opponent's analogy involving his son and the highway. I agree that his son shouldn't be in the middle of the
road, but that would be irrelevant if we were debating "Con's son is in
the road". Whether or not he SHOULD be there is not relevant to the
question "Is he there?" In the same way, whether or not the day of
worship for Christians SHOULD be Saturday is irrelevant when we're
debating if Sunday IS the day of worship for Christians.

With all due respect to my opponent, he's engaged in ANOTHER logical fallacy- a red herring argument. That's when someone tries to change the subject of a debate so as not to debate the actual resolution. [4] With this in mind, I urge the voters to recognize this.

Con's "Catholic" Sources

Quoting some random priest from the 19th century does not equal
official Church teaching. The same can be said for an unofficial
Church magazine. With this in mind, I see no reason to engage them.
If my opponent is able to produce any official, magisterial sources, then we can discuss what the Catholic Church says on an issue.

1Timothy 3:15

I would like to thank Con for offering an alternative translation, but
with all due respect, it doesn't really matter. Let's assume his
translation is right. Even IF it is, the verse STILL says we need to
look to the Church for guidance when determining what is true. So
with that in mind, my claim that the Church can determine which day to
establish as their day of worship still stands.

Acts 20:7

With all due respect to Con, even IF his guess is right and the first Christians met on Saturday night, this wouldn't help his case. Here's why, if the "breaking of the bread" worship began on Saturday evening, guess what.. the Sabbath was OVER. As Con has explained, in ancient Hebrew culture, a day began at sundown. For example, the Sabbath began at sundown Friday night and ended Saturday night at sundown. With this in mind, if as Acts 20:7 says, the first day of the week had begun... the Sabbath was over. Actually, if the first Christian believers waited until sundown to begin the"breaking of the bread", it's evidence that they were specifically waiting for the Sabbath to end before they began their day of worship.

Tradition/Modifying Previous Commandments

It's accepted by Christians of all stripes that any commandment that comes later in the Bible has the ability to modify a previous command. For example, if Moses says "Don't eat pork.", but later Jesus declares all food clean... That modifies the previous command. If the Old Testament say "an eye for an eye", but the New Testament says "turn the other cheek", that modifies the previous command. In this case, if the Old Testament says "keep the Sabbath", but the New Testament says "Don't let anyone judge you... with regard to... a Sabbath day." , That modifies a previous command.

2 Timothy 3:16

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness."

I have no problem with this verse. It doesn't affect my argument at all. What I may have an issue with is if Con tries to force it to say more than it does. I agree that scripture is profitable/helpful for instruction, but let's not force this fact to mean something it does not. Just because something is helpful, doesn't mean that it's the ONLY thing that is helpful. As I pointed out in the last round, the Bible tells us to "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." [5] So we see that it's not only what got written down in scripture that we "stand fast" in, but even the tradition received by "word of mouth".

Matthew 18:18

The verse is not limited to one subject. It clearly says "WHATEVER you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven." With this in mind, th Church has authority given to it from Christ to make modifications as it sees fit.

Galatians 5:4/Keeping the Commandments

"You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."

Con has mischaracterized what I said about this verse. We still keep the moral laws of God because they don't change. It's only the ceremonial practices of God that can be changed. But we don't refrain from murder because we're following the Ten Commandments, but rather now in the New Covenant, we don't murder because it violates the law that's "written on our hearts." Romans 2:14-15 puts it perfectly:

"14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)" [6]

Notice two things:

1. The passage specifically says non-Jews (gentiles) "do not have the Law." This is something I said earlier, but Con denied. I guess I was right.

2. We do good not because of the ten commandments, but because God has written them "on our hearts".

So we don't murder because it's inherently sinful. Worshipping on Sunday is not inherently sinful, so it's not something "written on our hearts".

Lord's Day

Con seems to have misunderstood what I was saying. My point by quoting early Christians speaking about worshipping on the Lord's day was simply to show historical evidence that Christians established their day of worship on Sunday. This fact has gone unchallenged by my opponent.

Having refuted all of Cons arguments, I now turn it back over to him. I look forward to reading his next response!

Sources:

1. http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...

2. http://biblehub.com...

3. http://biblehub.com...

4. http://www.nizkor.org...

5. http://biblehub.com...

6. https://www.biblegateway.com...
willemtoerien

Con

I want to thank PRO for answering all the arguments I have raised!

The Law only for the Jews

First I stated it that it was off topic since PRO made it clear that the topic is and I quote, “what day IS the day of worship for Christians” not “Is the law only for the Jews”. But since PRO said this to be part of the topic, I’ll put forth the argument using the scriptures I posted in my previous argument:

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: – Exodus 20:10

Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; – Isaiah 56:6

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. – Ecclesiastes 12:13

The scriptures clearly teaches that it is not just for the Jews. That is why PRO wanted you to ignore those scriptures and denouncing the argument as a logical fallacy… On that note, the seventh day was created and set apart for holy use long before the tribe of Judah. Long before Jacob or Abraham were born.

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. – Genesis 2:3

Circumcision

I feel PRO is going off topic here and should stay on the topic. I will simply put this fourth, I don’t believe the scriptures contradict itself as I have quoted the verse Romans 2:25. Galatians 5:4 is saying that you should not get circumcised because you think you will lose salvation if you don’t. If you get circumcised because you think you will lose salvation, Christ profits you nothing. It is a heart matter. A person new in the faith (saved) does not need to get circumcised. Again, happy to debate this another day.

Questionable Quoting of Scripture

In most translations, they put words that are added in emphasis, like the words “days” and “is” in Colossians 2:16-17. Or they would put the words in square brackets like in the Darby version PRO gave. That means these words were added and was not originally there. This is what the original Greek says. Please note the separations.

Not therefore anyone you let judge -- in regard to food, or in regard to drink, or in regard to a feast, or a new moon, or a Sabbath; which are a shadow of the things coming; -- but body (soma) of Christ. – Col 2:16-17 Greek Concordance.

Also note the tense of the words, “are” and “coming” as it’s not in the past tense referring to Jesus but the future tense. What this passage means is that the judgements in regards to these things are a shadow of things coming. If you take out the examples in between the separations you will read, “Not therefore anyone you let judge, but the body of Christ.” Again, according to context, people with spoiled principalities and powers were judging the body of Christ in these matters and Paul were advising them what to do.

Should vs. Is

Just because people “IS” worshiping on Sunday doesn’t mean it’s the truth. I have clearly stated in my argument the conclusion of “should vs. Is”: The church is worshiping on Sunday and those who obey God worships on Saturday, so technically those who is worshiping on Saturday is God’s church. Therefore the day of worship for Christians is Saturday. Just as the kid playing IS playing on the highway doesn’t make it right. If the kid obeyed the parent, the kid IS NOT playing on the highway.

“Catholic” Sources

If my sources are inaccurate, I want the voters to take note of the following: The reformation lost [1] at a recognized council of Trent with about 30 bishops [2] and that states explicitly what I have said concerning the change of Sabbath to Sunday not being scriptural. On the authenticity of the sources I gave, how authentic is the words of a Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore [3] and the Roman Catechism [4]? If PRO denounces these sources, then PRO is really denouncing his own argument and his church’s authority (which by the way is in contradiction to God’s authority as I am showing). Again, notice that this is a Chancellor…

Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change [Scriptural Sabbath to Sunday] was her act... And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things. – [5]

1 Timothy 3:15

Of course it matters what I have made clear. PRO is relying on what the church says is truth while scriptures plainly teaches that you know the truth through the law. Therefore PRO is now at the position that if the church says you can do something contrary to the law, you should heed to the church and not to the word of God. In other words, what is truth? Well to PRO, not the word of God but the church.

Acts 20:7

Here PRO is suggesting that they waited for the first day to begin, but the thing is, it doesn’t say they waited, it just said they broke bread on Saturday evening. It’s more likely that they were already worshiping on the seventh day and after their worship service, they broke bread. Furthermore, when they departed on Sunday morning. PRO’s suggestion is really putting the argument in my favour since they did not worship on Sunday and departed Monday morning.

Tradition/Modifying Previous Commandments

As I have quoted Psa 11:7-8, Luke 16:17, Deut 4:2;13:32, Pro 30:5-6 I will add Isa 8:20:

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. – Isaiah 8:20

What PRO is suggesting here is that Jesus is to be rejected because he spoke against the law. Upon further investigation you will find that no, Jesus didn’t make all food clean as there are still animals in the animal kingdom that is diseased and not good to eat and that the eye for an eye was about payment, not in the ways their traditions had it. Their traditions was making the law of none affect. For example, their tradition made void the fifth commandment, just as PRO’s tradition is making void the fourth. They heeded to their church for truth and not the law, just as PRO is heeding to his church for truth and not the law.

2 Timothy 3:16

If PRO is correct, then Jesus was a hypocrite for speaking against the traditions “word of mouth”. In other words more commonly known, the Talmud. But Jesus came and made the written word more honorable. When confronted by the adversary, Jesus plainly said, “It is written…” not “It is said…”

Matthew 18:18

I want the voters to please see that context is being ignored by the PRO to justify that the church can do what it pleases when the context plainly speaks about accepting people or rejecting people from the body.

Galatians 5:4
Sabbath is a moral law

PRO is trying to put forth that the Sabbath as a ceremonial law. We know the law type by its attributes, so let’s investigate quickly:

No

Moral Law

Ceremonial Law

1

First spoken by God [Ex 20:1-22]

Spoken first by Moses [Ex 24:3]

2

Written by God’s finger. [Ex 31:18;32:16]

Written by Moses’ hand. [2 Chr 35:12;33:8; Ex 24:4; Deut 31:9]

3

Written on stone [Ex 31:18]

Written in a book [Exodus 24:3,7; Deut 31:24]

4

Handed by God to Moses [Ex 31:18]

Handed by Moses to the Levites [Deut 31:25-26]

5

Placed inside the ark [Deut 10:5]

Placed on the outside of the ark [Deut 31:26]

6

Reveals what sin is [Rom 7:7]

Gives the solution for sin [Leviticus]

Which one does the fourth commandment belongs to? Which one does the sacrificing of animals belong to? As you can see, I did not mischaracterized what PRO said. PRO mischaracterizes the fourth commandment to not be part of the moral law. Galatians 5:4 is not explicitly saying moral or ceremonial. So if PRO is saying it’s speaking of the fourth commandment, that by definition means it’s speaking of the moral law.

Written on our hearts

Just because you don’t think something you are doing is morally wrong, doesn’t mean it is okay.

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. – Proverbs 14:12

What it means to have the law written in your heart is that you love to keep the law because you love God and your neighbour. Not that you can now choose what is right and wrong.

I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. – Psalms 40:8

My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: – Proverbs 3:1

Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings. – Isaiah 51:7

Lord’s Day

PRO for some reason is rejecting to what scripture says is the Lord’s Day and accepting to what tradition says it is…. According to scripture, it is not Sunday. Therefore the people that said it was made it up.

Sources

[1] Romes' Challenge, p. 25-27

[2] O'Malley, 29

[3] Albert Smith, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the Cardinal, in a letter dated February 10, 1920.

[4] Roman Catechism, 1985

[5] H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons

Debate Round No. 4
dsjpk5

Pro

Thank you Con for an interesting debate. This has been fun! Since
this is the last round, I thought it best if I began this round by
summarizing the debate.

SUMMARY OF DEBATE

CON CONCEDES

Last round, my opponent admitted the Christian"church is worshipping on
Sunday." More on this later.

Definition of "Day of Worship"

In round one, my opponent said he was confused about what we were
debating, and asked me to define "day of worship" for the purpose of
this debate.

I was happy to oblige.

I informed him, for the purpose of this debate, "day of worship" was
defined as the day the Bible calls "when Christ's followers/disciples
met for "the breaking of the bread" or "came together to break bread".
Now, which day does the Bible say Christ's followers "came together to
break bread"?

Acts 20:7 "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came
together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on
the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

So the Bible says it's "the first day of the week". As everyone knows
by looking at the calendar, the first day of the week is Sunday.

********************This is enough to settle the debate.*********************

Once Con realized the debate was settled so quickly, he quickly tried
to change the debate from which day IS the day of worship for
Christians to which day SHOULD be the day of worship for Christians.
Although this was a valiant attempt, I'm sure the voters are clever
enough to notice what he's tried to do. We're not debating
SHOULD,we're debating IS. But don't take my word for it, read the
resolution for yourself. This last time, Con doubled down and engaged
in a logical fallacy:

Logical Fallacy/No True Scotsman/CONCESSION

In his last round, regrettably, Con engaged in the No True Scotsman
fallacy by admitting that although the Christian "church is worshipping
on Sunday"(concession)... Only those "who obey God" are worshipping on
Saturday. This claim of Con's that only those who worship on Saturday
are true Christians is a perfect example of the No True Scotsman
fallacy:

"Explanation

The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in
order to prevent the refutation of one"s position. Proposed
counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because
they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what
the theory is about.

Example

The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would
refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn"t been falsified when in
fact it has.
If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as
a counter-example to the claim "No Scotsman puts sugar on his
porridge", the "No true Scotsman" fallacy would run as follows:
(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts
sugar on his porridge.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief
being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent
counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

Real-World Examples

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to
define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there
is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian
one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people
who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off
using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy: they didn"t really have faith,
they weren"t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is
thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is
unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it." [1]

With this in mind, I ask the voters to disregard this whole line of
reasoning.

REBUTTALS

Who Was the Law Given To?

Con tried to say that everyone was expected to follow the Law, and as
such, Christians today were expected to keep the Sabbath. This is
simply not true. Romans 2:14 Couldn't be any more clear: "14 (Indeed,
when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by
the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have
the law. "

Twice in this verse alone the Bible says that non -Jews (Gentiles) "do
not have the Law." I don't know how the Bible could be any more clear.
The verses Con offers in no way say otherwise. Let's go over each one:

Exodus 20:10

Just because someone is a stranger doesn't make them a Gentile. To
expect a Jew to know EVERY single other Jew (thereby not being
strangers) is preposterous.

This verse doesn't teach the Law was given to everyone.

Isaiah 56:6

Same rebuttal applies here. Two Jews can be strangers. So the mention
of a "stranger" proves nothing.

Ecclesiastes 12:13

Considering my opponent's cautionary tale of not adding words to
scripture, I'm surprised Con looks towards this verse. I say this
because it doesn't say "every man". As a matter of fact, if we're to
follow Con's line of reasoning, we should believe that ONLY men (and
not women) have to follow the Law.

This verse doesn't teach the Law was given to everyone.

Genesis 2:3 doesn't say anything about worshipping God on a specific
day. It also doesn't record any requirements for any group of people.

Circumcision

Circumcision is NOT off topic. It's Con's assertion that we still need
to be keeping the Law, but circumcision was a requirement of the Law
for all Jewish boys. It wasn't a recommendation, it was a REQUIREMENT.
So for Con to say it's optional implies other requirements could alsobe
optional- Like keeping the Sabbath. So Con's line of
argumentationactually supports MY claims.

Con's Questionable Quoting of Scripture (Colossians 2:16-17)

This is the second time Con has refused to tell us which translation of
the Bible he is using to make his claims. I've shown more than a dozen
translations that disagree with his. This is very curious. Maybe this
was just an oversight. The good news is he has one final round to
reveal this to us.

As for the the addition of "is" in the text, I don't see how it's a
problem. One thing my opponent didn't do is explain why he thinks all
these biblical translations are wrong. I don't think they are, and
here's why:

First, the passage says not to let anyone judge you. Then it gives a
specific list of things not to get judged on (three of which are Jewish
days of worship-feasts, new moons, the Sabbath). Finally, it calls
these things shadows of things coming-Christ. So again, why do you
need to follow a shadow of things coming once the thing they are
foreshadowing arrives? I no longer need a map once I get to my
destination. In the same way, Christians have no need for the Sabbath
now that we have Christ. The Sabbath is for the Jews. We have our own
day of worship.

Con's Sources

I have asked my opponent to offer even ONE official/magisterial source
from the Catholic Church that illustrate what he claims about the
Catholic Church to be true. He has chosen not to. I can only presume
he is not able to do so.

1Timothy 3:15

Unfortunately, Con has done what I was afraid he might do when
interpreting 1Timothy 3:15. As I said last round, I have no problem
with this verse... the only problem I anticipated having was if Con
TRIED to force it to say something it doesn't. Well, that's exactly
what he did. Nowhere does the verse even MENTION the Law, let alone
say we should follow it. Let's read what it actually says:

"if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves
in God"s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar
and foundation of the truth." [2]

No mention of the Law. There is, however, mention that we can trust
what the Christian Church says because it's "the pillar and foundation
of truth."

Acts 20:7

AGAIN, Con is forcing his interpretation into the text. NOWHERE does
the verse say the worshipping began on Saturday evening. It
SPECIFICALLY says "On the first day of the week." There's no mention
of the worship beginning Saturday evening. But don't take my word for
it. Let's read it again:

7And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together
to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow;
and continued his speech until midnight. [3]

As anyone can see, Con is forcing his traditions into the text.

Tradition/Modifying Previous Commandments

Isaiah 8:20 has the same limitation all other verses espousing the Law
do. They're intended for the Jews. As I have already shown,
Colossians 2:16-17 says we no longer have to celebrate the Sabbath.
This passage comes after Isaiah 8:20, and therefore modifies the
previous command.

Jesus and the Law

I never said Jesus "spoke against the Law" as my opponent claims.
Jesus MODIFIED the commandments for his new Church.

Jesus Declares All Food Clean

Con's comments about diseased animals not being fit for consumption
seems a little desperate and off topic. The reason why pork and
shellfish were declared unclean was for religious reasons; not health
reasons. Refraining from those foods was a religious requirement for
Jews. Christians, on the other hand, are able to eat those foods
because Christ's words in the New Testament come after the dietary
commands of the Old Testament. Because they come later, they modify
the previous command, and as such, are what Christians follow. In the
same way, because the rejection of Sabbath comes in the New Testament,
(Colossians 2:16-17) that's what Christians follow.

As for the "eye for an eye" command, regardless of how the Jews applied
it, Jesus modified it. As such, it was no longer binding. The same
can be said for the Sabbath.

2 Timothy 3:16 only rejected certain traditions. It was the
"traditions of men" Jesus had a problem with. As I have shown,
Apostolic traditions are something we are commanded to follow in the
New Testament

1 Corinthians 11:2

"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the
traditions just as I passed them on to you." [4]

Matthew 18:18

This verse says"whatever" the Church binds on Earth is bound in Heaven.
It doesn't limit this authority to any specific subject.

Con's Chart

Sing my opponent rejects the notion of accepting something not
explicitly found in the Bible, I challenge him to show me where the
Bible makes the same distinctions he makes concerning moral and
ceremonial law. If he cannot, I ask the voters to reject it as the
"traditions of men" that his worldview should call it.

Written on Our Hearts

The reason we know that the keeping of the Sabbath was not part of what
Paul meant when he wrote these words (Romans 2:15) is because the same
Paul said we're no long required to follow the Sabbath in Colossians
2:16-17. As for the verses Con quotes from the Old Testament,
Colossians comes after them, and as such, modify them for the Christian.

Lord's Day

The Bible only uses the phrase "Lords day" once (Revelation 1:10), and
the verse in no way mentions it being Saturday. But don't take my word
for it, let's read it:

"On the Lord's Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud
voice like a trumpet," [5]

This is one of those instances where since the Bible is silent on which
day is rendered the "Lord's day, we need to follow the pattern inlaid
out in the first round. I called it I Never Said You Stole Money.
This is a concept that was never challenged by Con at any point of this
debate. With this in mind, let's look at what the early Church fathers
had to say about it:

Justin Martyr

"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly,
because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in
the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on
the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]). " [6]

Ignatius of Antioch

"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews]
have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the
Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord"s day, on which also
our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the
Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]). [6]

Sources:

1. http://www.logicalfallacies.info...

2. https://www.biblegateway.com...
search=1%20Timothy%203:15&version=NIV

3. http://biblehub.com...

4. http://biblehub.com...

5. http://biblehub.com...

6. http://www.catholic.com...
willemtoerien

Con

I first would like to give my thanks to PRO for the opportunity in the debate and will conclude my side of this debate in this argument.

Is vs Should

In my previous argument I have state the little Is vs should statements. Please consider the following statement from PRO:

A) The truth comes from what the church does and say.

B) The church IS worshiping on Sundays

C) Therefore Sunday being the day of worship IS the truth.

But let me replace the theme with, let’s say torture

A) The truth comes from what the church does and say.

B) The church IS torturing those who worships on Saturday [1].

C) Therefore torturing those who worships on Saturday IS the truth.

The worship day for Christians IS on Saturday, but Christians ARE worshiping on Sunday.

Who Was the Law Given To?
Romans 2:14

The thing that PRO constantly do is taking things out of context. PRO by definition would then have to conclude that Gentiles can freely commit adultery (law), etc. The context makes this plain.

For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) – Romans 2:11-15

In other words, the law is not just for the Jews, but for the Gentiles as well. God does not discriminate. So what is said here is that if a person doesn’t know that committing adultery is wrong according to law, his conscious will testify against him on if he does do it. However, if he knew it was wrong according to law, the law testifies against Him. To make it plain, God winks at the time of ignorance.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: – Acts 17:30

Exodus 20:10 and Isaiah 56:6

PRO appeals that two Jews can be strangers. However, Isaiah 56:6 makes it very plain that the strangers mentioned is not yet joined in serving the Lord. An example would be liken unto Ruth. After joining in serving the Lord, they are to keep the seventh day holy.

Ecclesiastes 12:13

The word for “man” is the Hebrew word “’âdâm” which the word in and of itself should already denounce PRO’s conclusion… But here is the definition of the word:

Âdam #H120: A human being, mankind.

Genesis 2:3

The word “sanctify” in Hebrew is the word “qâdash”:

Qâdash #H6942: To be causatively make, pronounce or observe as clean or set apart ceremonially or morally;

This is the same word that is find in Exodus 20:8.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy (qâdash). – Exodus 20:8

Circumcision

The word Jew comes from the word Judah [9], which is but one tribe out of twelve. Judah was a son of Jacob [Gen 35:22]. Jacob’s name became Israel [Gen 32:28]. Israel was the son of Isaac [Gen 25:26], who was the son of Abraham [Gen 21:3] unto whom circumcision was given [Gen 17:11]. Abraham circumcised also those who worked for him [Gen 17:23]. So no, circumcision is not just for the “Jews”. Circumcision is a token that you will honour the covenant, like a wedding ring is that you will keep the vows.

And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. – Genesis 17:11

Colossians 2:16-17
Hypocritical judgement?

I’m going to switch gears here quickly and play-play that PRO’s argument is correct. That we should not judge in regards to the keeping of the Sabbath. But this is not the case as his church indeed judges in regards to the keeping of the Sabbath:

The accused (Sabbath-keepers) were summoned; they openly acknowledged the new faith, and defended the same. The most prominent of them,...were condemned to death, and burned publicly in cages, at Moscow, Dec 17.1503 – [2]

This zeal for Saturday-keeping continued for a long time: even little things which might strengthen the practice of keeping Saturday were punished. – [3]

We are informed that some people in different districts of the kingdom, have adopted and observed Saturday-keeping. It is severely forbidden- in holy church canon- one and all to observe days excepting those which the holy Pope, archbishop, or the bishops command. Saturday-keeping must under no circumstances be permitted hereafter further than the church canon commands. Therefore, we counsel all the friends of God throughout all of Norway who want to be obedient towards the holy church to let this evil of Saturday-keeping alone; and the rest we forbid under penalty of severe church punishment to keep Saturday holy – [4]

PRO then being in contradiction of his own argument… Need I say more?

Translation

PRO questions the translation I was using. Will the voters please refer to my previous argument and confirm that I have written: “Col 2:16-17 Greek Concordance.”

Shadow of Christ?

Please refer to my previous argument as I have indicated that the tense used is future and not past and the context is referring not to Christ, but to the judgements. The judgements being a shadow of what is coming.

My Sources

PRO ignores the authority of his own church in stating that the sources provided isn’t good enough. I’ll give these sources on laws that was placed and voters can tell me if these are official or not…

On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. – [5]

Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honour, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ. – [10]

1Timothy 3:15

Truth as I have shown according to scripture is the law. To be the pillar and foundation of truth is to be the pillar and foundation of the law.

Acts 20:7

Again, PRO is ignoring the Hebraic counting of days. Sunset to sunset.

Tradition/Modifying Previous Commandments

PRO is saying because Col 2:16-17 is after Isaiah 8:20, it then modifies the previous command. Using this logic, you will then by definition establish Islam to modify the New Testament since Muhammad received revelation from Allah himself. Of course this is not the case. Note how Isaiah 8:20 is referring to “they” and not “Jews”.

Jesus and the Law

The transgression of the law is sin.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. – 1 John 3:4

As I have quoted before in [Deut 4:2;13:32, Pro 30:5-6], to modify the law is sin. By definition PRO admits that Jesus was a sinner when scripture says He was not.

Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. – 1 Peter 2:22

Jesus Declares All Food Clean

The word “kosher” means “good” or “proper”. PRO is suggesting that God put down laws for no religious services, however God said He did it for the well-being of Israel.

Ye shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess. – Deuteronomy 5:33

Many studies [6][7] has been done that shows there are at least some correlation between unclean food and diseased food. But this was not my emphasis here. If I were to eat a bad piece of meat and PRO tell me not to eat it, PRO has made a judgement in the meat I am eating. If I were 12 years old and I had a bottle of whiskey and PRO tells me not to drink it, PRO has made a judgment in the beverage I am drinking.

1 Corinthians 11:2

I have stated before that some traditions are good. It’s the traditions that makes void the commandments that are bad. Jesus would be very hypocritical for condemning the Pharisees for making traditions that makes void the commandments and then He Himself doing the same thing.

Matthew 18:18

Again, PRO is ignoring the context given. I cannot any plainer.

Con's Chart

My chart was to show the differences between Ceremonial laws and moral laws. If there is no disctinction between these laws, by definition PRO’s accepting my statement in a previous argument:

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever you are justified by the law in honouring your parents or not murdering or keeping the Sabbath; ye are fallen from grace. – Galatians 5:4 (PRO)

But my chart illustrated that there is a difference:

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever you are justified by the law in sacrificing animals again; ye are fall from grace. – Galatians 5:4 (CON)

Written in our Hearts

Please note the scriptures that I gave which PRO ignored.

Lord’s Day

The apostrophe “s” in Lord’s Day, refers to the ownership of the day. For example, “the pen of my aunt” bares the same meaning as “my aunt’s pen” [8]. Though scriptures has one reference stating “Lord’s day”, it has many more references stating “day of the Lord” to which I have referred PRO to.

Conclusion

The Christian day of worship according to scripture IS Friday sunset to Saturday sunset.

Sources

[1] History of the Inquisition, pp.96

[2] Council, Moscow, 1503, H. Sternberfi, Geschichte der Juden

[3] Bishop Anjou, Svenska Kirkans Historia after Motet i Upsala

[4] Catholic Provincial Council at Bergen, Dip, Norveg, 7, 397

[5] Codex Justinianus 3.12.3, trans. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 5th ed. (New York, 1902), 3:380, note 1.

[6] http://www.religionfacts.com...

[7] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com...

[8] http://www.dummies.com...

[9] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[10] Strand, op. cit., citing Charles J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, 2 [Edinburgh, 1876] 316

Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
I really enjoyed this debate. My opponent did as good as could be expected, considering his stance.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
dsjpk5willemtoerienTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con violated the resolution on the "Should vs. Is" point. Is is to "be", where Pro fulfilled their BoP. Con misinterpreted the resolution and practically conceded to Pro.