My response to Laurence Vance's "Should a Christian support criminalizing prostitution"

[TER]

All prostitution is either fornication or adultery, both of which were crimes (though having different punishments)

And why your fascination? What have the Saints said regarding prostitution and fornication?

[jonhowe]

How on earth does it not?

You know many virgin prostitutes?

[Christian Liberty]

And why your fascination? What have the Saints said regarding prostitution and fornication?

I have no idea.

[TER]

deleted

[TER]

What I said was rude. Forgive me. I just mean to say that you are not addressing this topic as a Christian, but more as an Israelite of the Old Testament. These laws in Deutoronomy do not necessarily apply anymore.

[Christian Liberty]

What I said was rude. Forgive me. I just mean to say that you are not addressing this topic as a Christian, but more as an Israelite of the Old Testament. These laws in Deutoronomy do not necessarily apply anymore.

I didn't see what you wrote, but regardless, I take no personal offense.

While I believe the ceremonial laws do not apply anymore, I do believe the judicial laws ,to the extent that they punish transgressions on the moral law, are binding on civil magistrates. That is the basis for my opinion.

Many people believe that the entire Old Testament has been done away with but I don't believe that, rather I believe only the ceremonial laws and the ceremonial aspects of the judicial laws has been done away with.

I'm not "obsessed" with the punishment of prostitutes, nor do I come at this from a perspective of being somehow better. But much like a Christian society should ban murder (including abortion) and theft, I do not believe a Chrisitan society should tolerate grievous sexual sins or idolatry.

[Theocrat]

What I said was rude. Forgive me. I just mean to say that you are not addressing this topic as a Christian, but more as an Israelite of the Old Testament. These laws in Deutoronomy do not necessarily apply anymore.

TER, I want to point out an assumption that you've made in your statement above. When you accuse CL of "not addressing this topic as a Christian, but more as an Israelite of the Old Testament," you are assuming that Israelites were not Christians under the Old Covenant. But if that were true, then it would mean that no Israelite was connected to the Messiah by faith (which would include church fathers like Abraham, Moses, and David). In effect, you are creating a false dichotomy between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament, even though both groups worship the same triune God.

If you want to understand how the laws in the Old Testament apply today, then you have to study them through the eyes of Christ (cf. John 5:45-47), since Christ was the One Who established them with the Father and the Holy Spirit in the Old Covenant. Thus, the ethical principle imbibed in laws such as the ones in Deuteronomy still remain true and relevant for all people today (since Christ has all authority in Heaven and on Earth [cf. Matthew 28:18; 1 Corinthians 15:25-28]). Even the apostle Paul compared New Testament Christians to Old Testament Christians in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, illustrating that God interacts with His people the same way through covenant blessings and curses.

So, you have no Biblical basis to make contrasts between Christians in the New Testament and Israelites in the Old Testament, as if God's Law had authority over the latter group but not the former. The laws do apply today, but in the greater revelation from Christ in the New Covenant, it takes greater wisdom to understand how they apply today. Once again, all of the laws in the Old Testament have an ethical implication to them, and ethics are eternal since they reflect the character of the triune God. Thus, CL has every right to discern and develop civil laws from laws in the Old Testament. Otherwise, the alternative is appealing to the relative morality of secular humanism (atheism) to frame civil statutes.

[helmuth_hubener]

Its not a "particular passage" its a hermeneutical principle. Unfortunately yes, most people do use hermeneutics to basically come up with whatever conclusion they please, however this doesn't make hermeneutic unnecessary.

CL, I think you should ban yourself from using words over three syllables. Before you post, ask yourself: is anyone going to understand this? Because, as far as I can tell, neither jonhowe nor TER did.

Here's how I would put it:

I'm the one taking the bible too literally?

Yes, because you're taking it too literally in English, and in 21st Century American modern cultural context.

The books of the Bible were not written in English.

They were definitely not written in the 21st century.

They were not written in America.

And there is essentially nothing modern about them.

So there's your problem. Language only works with shared touch-points. You wanna understand a book from Mars, maybe you oughta learn something about the Martians.

[jonhowe]

CL, I think you should ban yourself from using words over three syllables. Before you post, ask yourself: is anyone going to understand this? Because, as far as I can tell, neither jonhowe nor TER did.

Here's how I would put it:
Yes, because you're taking it too literally in English, and in 21st Century American modern cultural context.

The books of the Bible were not written in English.

They were definitely not written in the 21st century.

They were not written in America.

And there is essentially nothing modern about them.

So there's your problem. Language only works with shared touch-points. You wanna understand a book from Mars, maybe you oughta learn something about the Martians.

Could you explain what meaning is lost in translation here, then?

Is it "virgin"? If so, what is the word in the original language? What are some other alternative translations? Or is there a word in the passage CL has brought forward that actually translates to prostitute?

The quote was provided to me in english. The quote, in english, is being used to justify the police state. I'm working with what I'm given, but I'm open to hearing more.


EDIT: CL is proposing this passage lays out what should be a law. Here is how I see the elements as set out in this law, so you can show me where I am wrong.

1. If a man meets a virgin...
The 1st factor in the law would be a MAN meeting a virgin. I'm assuming this means the virgin could be man or woman, as it is not specified. However, if a woman meets a virgin (male or female) it does not seem to be covered here. Additionally, if a man meets a person who is NOT a virgin (perhaps they were raped and their rapist escaped, perhaps they are a widow, perhaps they had consensual premarital sex without anyone else's knowledge, who knows) this passage does not seem to apply. I'm not sure how else this line could be interpreted, unless virgin is a mistranslation. CL's claim that everyone was considered either a virgin, betrothed, married, or widowed is quite an optimistic view of the world; I don't think such a time or place ever existed, though, so we need to figure out how this would apply in the REAL world. As an example; I'm not a virgin (or any of the other 3 categories), I assume most prostitutes are not virgins, so how would this apply if I decided one day to go to Amsterdam and legally pay a woman for sex?

2. who is not betrothed...
A virgin who is due to be married is seemingly not covered by this passage, as they would be "betrothed". So would prostitution be legal if a pimp got engaged to a woman and then allowed her to sleep around? Is that a way around the law?

3. and seizes her and lies with her,
I'm going to assume this means "has sex" with her based on CL's claims above. Additionally, in this element it is implied (but notmade clear) that element 1 is referring to female virgins only. Male prostitutes may be in the clear?

4. and they are found...
This seems like a key element. What happens if they are not found? If a man meets a virgin and seizes her and lies with her and there's no one around, is it a problem? Does he still have to fork over the schekles? It seems pretty clear that would NOT be the case. Again, I'm open to hearing about any translational issue I may be unaware of his. Perhaps "found" is a mistranslation? Also, what if the situation described occurs exactly as laid out, but only ONE of the parties is found (the other gets away). "they" would not have been found. Is marriage still required? Is the single lady (prostitute) still a "virgin" under CL's categorization system?


5. then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her.
Again this gives further implication that the virgin has to be female. Or maybe it just means that this element of the law only applies to female virgins (or, as CL calls them, prostitutes). Going with CL's idea that this is about prostitution, what if a woman pays a man for sex? Who pays who's father the sheckles?

6. He may not divorce her all his days.
This seems pretty clear.


Not trying to be argumentative; I honestly just don't see how this is about prostitution.

[jmdrake]

Oh please, Unicorn. That tract is over-the-top. Tell me this: exactly how many Adventist children died horrible deaths from rickets between 1870 and 1909?

Could it be.... zero?

When it tosses out a baseless accusation like that to prove how demon-directed and Satanic the murderous prophetess was, slaughtering vast mountains of children with egglessness and stomping over the carcasses, it discredits the entire rest of the tract, showing the author is just not a serious person and not concerned with intellectual honesty.

Mr. unicorn has no ability to actually reason for himself.

[jmdrake]

TER, I want to point out an assumption that you've made in your statement above. When you accuse CL of "not addressing this topic as a Christian, but more as an Israelite of the Old Testament," you are assuming that Israelites were not Christians under the Old Covenant. But if that were true, then it would mean that no Israelite was connected to the Messiah by faith (which would include church fathers like Abraham, Moses, and David). In effect, you are creating a false dichotomy between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament, even though both groups worship the same triune God.

SMH. Read Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31. What you are failing to realize is that there was an original covenant that predated the "old covenant." The "old covenant", with the sacrificial system and such, didn't come along until Moses. Specifically it didn't come along until the Israelites rejected direct communication with God. Go back and read Exodus 20. God first spoke the 10 commandments to Israel. But they said "Moses. You speak to us and we will hear. But don't let God speak to us lest we die." (Exodus 20:19) Moses made one of the most profound statements ever. "Do not fear for God has come to test you and that His fear may be before you so that you may not sin." (Exodus 20:20)

Now apply what Moses was saying in Exodus 20:20 to what Jeremiah said in Jeremiah 31 starting at verse 31 and the writer of Hebrews 8 said starting at verse 8. In describing the "new covenant" both the Old Testament and the New Testament describes God "putting the law in their hearts" and "writing them in their minds" and the children of God reaching a point where "None of them shall teach his neighbor and none his brother saying 'Know the Lord', for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them."

In other words, God was saying that under the new covenant everyone of God's children will ultimately not need to have a "spiritual overseer" and be "taught to know God" or be "forced to obey" God. Put in their minds? That means knowing the law. Written in their hearts? That means wanting to keep the law. And what makes someone likely to keep the law? Why knowing the Lawgiver is always present with you. That is the type of "fear of God" that Moses was wanting the children of Israel to have, which is a fear of disappointing your friend, and knowing that God is always with you so you can't hide the evil that you might want to do.

Abraham had that kind of relationship with God. So did Isaac. So did Jacob. (Eventually). Joseph had it. Moses had it. All of the children of Israel could have had it. But they rejected it. So God said "Let them make me a sanctuary so that I may dwell among them." That's why God instituted to Old Covenant. But it was always meant to be temporary. Do Christians feel the need to be circumcised today? No. That was a sign of the Old Covenant. Keeping the Passover and sacrificing a lamb? Even most Jews don't do that today. Again, old covenant. Not worshiping idols, not bearing false witness, honoring your parents etc? That was the law that predated the Old Covenant and goes all the way back to Eden in principle even though it wasn't written out. (Cain knew it was wrong to kill Abel even though he had no tables of stone to reference.) Now it's true that circumcision predates Moses, but it is still Old Covenant because it was only to signify a promise to the descendants of Abraham. That said, saints that predated Abraham and were not circumcised are still saved anyway. So the argument that the Old Covenant must still be in force in order for people under the Old Covenant to be saved by faith is fallacious. Furthermore there were people under the Old Covenant who transcended to the New Covenant and there are people living in the New Testament era who are still bound by the Old Covenant. In fact I would say that most people have not reached the Hebrews 8 / Jeremiah 31 level of the New Covenant. That promise is there for you. But it's a journey you have to commit to. And it's not easy. Not because God doesn't do everything needed to make it easy. But just like the children of Israel, our human inclination is to not want that kind of relationship with God. After all, with a personal "God is always here" relationship mentality, the children of Israel would have never made a golden calf to worship and engaged in partying and fornication to celebrate it. We want to do what we want to do.

[jmdrake]

The Old Sabbath was kept briefly after Christ's ascension because the temple was still standing, but its intended purpose had ceased and the apostles kept it as an opportunity to preach the Gospel. When God ordained the destruction of the temple by the Roman authorities, he put an end to the Old Sabbath permanently and there is only The Lord's Day. The only people who deny this are a rag-tag group of unbelieving Jews, many of whom have been deteriorating into secular humanism, and a lone cult that formed out of the ashes of the Millerites and their false prophet.

No one is confused on the day that Christians are to worship, and anyone who would like to make it seem as though anyone other than Seventh Day Adventists and Christ-hating Jews are confused on this point would do well to read the following tract again.

You know, I'm not sure why Sola_Fide got banned and you haven't been as you violate the forum rules more than anyone. For the record I haven't, and won't, read any of your stupid tracts. All that show is that you lack the intelligence to engage in actual theological discourse. If a Muslim says something I disagree with, I deal with that actual disagreement instead of cutting and pasting some stupid anti-Muslim tract. I don't even know what sect you are because you haven't had the courage to state it and frankly I don't care. With regards to your pseudo and infantile "response", you haven't actually refuted anything I said. I said that it is clear that when the Bible, including the New Testament, talks about the "Sabbath" it is clearly not talking about the first day of the week. Your admission that the Sabbath was kept after the ascension confirms that. There are plenty of historical sources that show that early Christians continued to keep the Sabbath (7th day) long after the deaths of all of the apostles. I was listening to a Sunday keeping pastor on the radio make the statement that this went on until 325 AD. I don't know if that exact date is correct or not. But it shows that this is something that has been independently confirmed.

[jmdrake]

The only way we can answer the question, "Should X be criminalized," is by, first, answering, "What does God say about X?" The two questions go together, when we are discussing what sexual sins should receive civil sanctions. But, of course, it takes wisdom to understand how to apply those sanctions in our modern world, and that can be challenging at times, I admit. But, nonetheless, it still needs to be considered when we're assessing public policy and its relation to sexual taboos.

Let's see. The law of Moses forbade incest. Abraham was married to his half sister. Any questions? Oh I guess Moses should have built a time machine and gone back in time and killed his ancestor cause....well that's the only way your mind can process these things?

Another thing to keep in mind is that the page marked "New Testament" in our Bibles is not inspired by God.

I would question the theology of anyone who does not realize that in fulfilling the law and the prophets Jesus fundamentally changed how we relate to God. The "page mark" isn't Jesus' birth. It was his death. When the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom the sacrificial system ended. Are you going out, buying a bullock, confessing your sins on its head, slitting its throat and then burning its body? If not then it's hard for me to take your "There's no difference between the Old and New Testament" claim seriously. In fact since you don't keep the Sabbath I really don't take it seriously. It's a joke position.

Remember, "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).

Yep. And included in inspired scripture is Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 which clearly talk about how things are different under the New Covenant. And the New Covenant is really the original covenant. Abraham walked and talked with God as a friend. There's no record of him stoning anyone. In fact the first time in the Bible where we hear of someone attempting to kill someone for sexual immorality was Judah attempting to burn Tamar for "playing the harlot." Only she had the evidence to prove that he was her baby daddy. (Babies as she was having twins). So Judah said "She is more righteous than I!" Funny thing is though, he didn't over to burn himself at the stake. The "law of sin and death", which Paul said Jesus made us free from, was not instituted until after the children of Israel rejected direct communion with God in Exodus 20. Seriously, all scripture being inspired by God doesn't give you the right to cherry pick and string together Old Testament passages to create your own theology. Again, read Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 and get back with us.

[Occam's Banana]

Yes. I am. Because that's what God says, and I care more about what God thinks than other people

No you don't. You care more about what you think God thinks.

But why should other people care more about what you think God thinks than what they think God thinks?

If your only "argument" is "because I say God says so," then your "argument" really just comes down to "because I said so."

In which case, you don't actually have any argument at all (no matter how many assertions you might marshal).

And if that's not your only argument, then you should just get rid of it and go with the other one(s) instead ...

[Occam's Banana]

In God's mind (as defined by the scriptures) adultery and homosexuality and even fornication is worse than stealing a candy bar, yet every libertarian would use force against the latter. So should [they against] the former.

If they did, they would not be libertarians*.

Now, you might reply with something like, "Well, they shouldn't be libertarians, then."

To which they might reply with something like, "Well, you shouldn't be Christian, then."

Would you regard this latter assertion to be compelling or decisive?

If not, then why should they regard the former to be so?



* Libertarians can regard adultery as a breach of contract, which might, if necessary, justify some use of force in making the injured party whole.

[Christian Liberty]

In fact since you don't keep the Sabbath I

really don't take it seriously. It's a joke position.

Theo, just for curiosity, is this claim true or is this just something JM is making up?

There's clearly a difference between old and new. I don't think anyone disputes that. Where the differences are I think is what would be disputed.

[jmdrake]

[COLOR=#333333]

[/B]Theo, just for curiosity, is this claim true or is this just something JM is making up?

There's clearly a difference between old and new. I don't think anyone disputes that. Where the differences are I think is what would be disputed.

Hello CL. I'm not sure what it is you think I'm making up. Anyway this is what you should consider. The Sabbath predates and postdates sin. It was instituted in the Garden of Eden and, according to Isaiah, it will be kept in the New Earth. Even your buddy hells_unicorn had to admit that the apostles kept the Sabbath, the 7th day Sabbath which the Jews kept, after the ascension of Christ.

By contrast, not only were there no penalties for sin in Eden (obviously), the only specified punishment by God for anything before the law of Moses for murder. And there is no record of any Christian community carrying out Mosaic law penalties for sin or any religious based punishment until Constantine. And the main thing punished? Heresy. The New Testament church only disfellowshipped people for immorality.

I'm curious though. Why do you think I'm making anything up? I've given Biblical references to support everything I stating.

[Christian Liberty]

Hello CL. I'm not sure what it is you think I'm making up. Anyway this is what you should consider. The Sabbath predates and postdates sin. It was instituted in the Garden of Eden and, according to Isaiah, it will be kept in the New Earth. Even your buddy hells_unicorn had to admit that the apostles kept the Sabbath, the 7th day Sabbath which the Jews kept, after the ascension of Christ.

By contrast, not only were there no penalties for sin in Eden (obviously), the only specified punishment by God for anything before the law of Moses for murder. And there is no record of any Christian community carrying out Mosaic law penalties for sin or any religious based punishment until Constantine. And the main thing punished? Heresy. The New Testament church only disfellowshipped people for immorality.

I'm curious though. Why do you think I'm making anything up? I've given Biblical references to support everything I stating.

I was asking if Theo had ever actually claimed that he doesn't keep the sabbath or if you just made that up. That was what I was asking about. Of course you'd say that somebody like HU does NOT keep the sabbath because he (like myself) believes that the sabbath is the first day of the week.

[jmdrake]

I was asking if Theo had ever actually claimed that he doesn't keep the sabbath or if you just made that up. That was what I was asking about. Of course you'd say that somebody like HU does NOT keep the sabbath because he (like myself) believes that the sabbath is the first day of the week.

I'm pretty sure that HU does not believe the Sabbath is the first day of the week from what he posted. But yes, it is clear that HU doesn't keep the Sabbath. I can't imagine Theo being a Sabbath keeper and keeping quiet in all of the threads where it's been brought up when he's been willing to go on record on far more controversial things like the death penalty for gays. But anyway, thank you for clarifying what you were saying.

Oh, and just to be clear, here among HU's steaming load of crap is evidence that he doesn't believe what he calls "the Lord's Day" is the Sabbath.

The Old Sabbath was kept briefly after Christ's ascension because the temple was still standing, but its intended purpose had ceased and the apostles kept it as an opportunity to preach the Gospel. When God ordained the destruction of the temple by the Roman authorities, he put an end to the Old Sabbath permanently and there is only The Lord's Day. The only people who deny this are a rag-tag group of unbelieving Jews, many of whom have been deteriorating into secular humanism, and a lone cult that formed out of the ashes of the Millerites and their false prophet.

And I should have taken more time to reply to his steaming load of crap. For one thing Seventh Day Adventists are not the only Christians who keep the Sabbath. In fact the Seventh Day Adventist church got the Sabbath from the Seventh Day Baptist church. And their are Seventh Day Holiness. (I met one). And the World Wide Church of God. And the Ethiopian Orthodox Church keeps Sabbath and Sunday. For more see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity

[TER]

The reason why the Christian Church founded by Christ and established by the Apostles stopped celebrating the Jewish Sabbath was partly because after the first century, a few communities (of what some call Judaizers) began to place the fellowship of the Sabbath meal of the previous Covenant in the same level, and even above, the Lord's Supper, which always took place on the Lord's Day. This was similar in vein to the error of St. Peter which needed to be corrected and amended by the council of the Church leaders, as we learn in the Book of Acts.

Biblically (and historically), all the evidence we have demonstrates that the Christians celebrated the communing of the Lord's Body and Blood on the Lord's Day, the Eighth Day, in the worship of the Divine Liturgy. (The Divine Liturgy as a service has flowered, but the sacredness of the ritual and its position within the week of worship and the life of the baptized Christian, has always been the same).

This is the celebration and fellowship when the Christians (of all races and former religions!), Jewish and Gentile, came together to worship the Holy Resurrection of the Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus Christ. This is the fulfillment of time and the Sabbath and the first day of the new creation through Christ.

This is why you see the Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping practice disappear in the first two centuries (in the very few lands in Palestine which actually kept such a tradition). This Old Covenant tradition was abandoned by the Christian Church, and this decision was determined not by a single person (and certainly not Emperor Constantine), but by the Holy Spirit and through the will of the catholic and universal Church. Like a ghost, these Judaizing communities disappeared, and died off and produced no fruit. Like a branch having fallen and withered away. This was by the will of God. For it did not bring communion but division and pride and theological error. Only the Ethiopian Orthodox can make any sort of claim of maintaining this as an apostolic tradition, but even they acknowledge that it is the Lord's Day which is above every day and the feast of the Holy Eucharist which is the center of the Christian life. And they certainly don't share many doctrines or traditions with the current reincarnation of Sabbath-keeping believers in Christ which we see today. In fact, they share much more theologically and ecclesiologically with the Eastern Orthodox Church which predates it.

But what these very few modern Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping Christian communities seek to emulate lent nothing towards the glorious spread of the Christian Faith through the known Empire and past its borders into the rest of the world. In fact, it disrupted it and created stumbling blocks. They added nothing to the theological debates to the important Christological questions which were asked through the centuries. Barely a known Saint can be claimed. They have no legacy of creating orphanages or hospitals or honorable mention in the history of nations. Like smoke, those splinter and recalcitrant communities disappeared and faded very early in the annals of time.

Surely, the Church which Christ established would not disappear! A light on a hill cannot be covered, and Christ's Body is the salt and light of the world! God surely has not failed!

The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth in the world (for it is graced by God Who is above the world), shed away the Old Covenant Sabbath-keeping because the Lord established a New Covenant for all people, Jew and Gentile. New wine and new wineskins, for not only the circumsized nation of Israel but for the entire human race! Like in the days of Noah, the old order was supplanted by God and replaced by a new covenant through a baptism of water. The Church got rid of circumcision and dietary laws and capital punishment and a whole myriad of others things which were considered law and observed by the Jews before Christ came to save the entire world and establish His everlasting and eternal Church, which is the Ark of Salvation. It was God working in the Church through concilliary voice and sacramental communion and worship, whereby what was old was shed so that the world may be newly baptized in Christ.

I urge those who wish to seek the truth to study history and the writings of the Christians in history.

[hells_unicorn]

I'm pretty sure that HU does not believe the Sabbath is the first day of the week from what he posted. But yes, it is clear that HU doesn't keep the Sabbath. I can't imagine Theo being a Sabbath keeper and keeping quiet in all of the threads where it's been brought up when he's been willing to go on record on far more controversial things like the death penalty for gays. But anyway, thank you for clarifying what you were saying.

Oh, and just to be clear, here among HU's steaming load of crap is evidence that he doesn't believe what he calls "the Lord's Day" is the Sabbath.

The Old Sabbath was kept briefly after Christ's ascension because the temple was still standing, but its intended purpose had ceased and the apostles kept it as an opportunity to preach the Gospel. When God ordained the destruction of the temple by the Roman authorities, he put an end to the Old Sabbath permanently and there is only The Lord's Day. The only people who deny this are a rag-tag group of unbelieving Jews, many of whom have been deteriorating into secular humanism, and a lone cult that formed out of the ashes of the Millerites and their false prophet.

And I should have taken more time to reply to his steaming load of crap. For one thing Seventh Day Adventists are not the only Christians who keep the Sabbath. In fact the Seventh Day Adventist church got the Sabbath from the Seventh Day Baptist church. And their are Seventh Day Holiness. (I met one). And the World Wide Church of God. And the Ethiopian Orthodox Church keeps Sabbath and Sunday. For more see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity

You should have taken more time to respond to my "steaming load of crap", because it included a very comprehensive tract debunking the entire Judaizing cult that you continually parade around as being the lone beacon of truth. I absolutely keep The Lord's Day as the Christian Sabbath, that was spelled out specifically in the first post I made on this topic, which included the tract by William Maclean. If I wasn't so severely jet-lagged at a hotel in Kharkiv right now, I'd spend a bit more time wading through this nonsense you've just posted (convenient that you picked out a single paragraph summation I gave in annoyance after you repeatedly refused to even respond to the tract, completely divorcing what I said from context and using the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which does not give Communion on Saturday), then again, you've already demonstrated that you have the reading comprehension and attention-span of a gnat, so I'll pass and put you back on my ignore list where you belong.

Edit: Upon looking over some other posts, it's clear to me that you are thoroughly brainwashed and have summarily refused to read contrary evidence when it is provided to you. We're done, keep your cop-outs, and I'll find a better way to spend my time.

[jmdrake]

You should have taken more time to respond to my "steaming load of crap", because it included a very comprehensive tract debunking the entire Judaizing cult that you continually parade around as being the lone beacon of truth.

A) No it didn't liar.

B) I already debunked your steaming pile of crap by pointing out the lie that you were perpetrating that Seventh Day Adventists are the only Christians that keep the Sabbath when Seventh Day Baptists and others were keeping the Sabbath before the Seventh Day Adventist church existed.

I absolutely keep The Lord's Day as the Christian Sabbath, that was spelled out specifically in the first post I made on this topic, which included the tract by William Maclean.

Another lie. What you said was "the Old Sabbath" and then talked about "The Lord's Day." You never identified the "Lord's Day" as the "Christian Sabbath" or any other Sabbath. Now if you want to pretend that it's the Christian Sabbath and make that claim now okay. You're wrong but okay. From your own admission Christians kept what you called "The Old Sabbath" in the New Testament. And there is no example of Christians in the first few centuries of the Christian churches existence referring to Sunday as "the Sabbath" or "the Christian Sabbath" or using "Sabbath" in connection with Sunday.

Anyway, CL seemed confused because he apparently thought New Testament references to Christians keeping the Sabbath was talking about Sunday. It wasn't. It was talking about the same 7th day Sabbath that the Jews kept. That's the truth. I know you would rather believe a lie than the truth but it's still the truth.

[hells_unicorn]

Oh please, Unicorn. That tract is over-the-top. Tell me this: exactly how many Adventist children died horrible deaths from rickets between 1870 and 1909?

Could it be.... zero?

When it tosses out a baseless accusation like that to prove how demon-directed and Satanic the murderous prophetess was, slaughtering vast mountains of children with egglessness and stomping over the carcasses, it discredits the entire rest of the tract, showing the author is just not a serious person and not concerned with intellectual honesty.

There is NOTHING baseless in this tract. It's summed up and includes a list of citations, some of which may be to out-of-print books because it is a bit old, but it is comprehensive enough to exclude Seventh Day Adventism from any pretended orthodoxy or historicity prior to the Millerite cult in 19th century America. Furthermore, I have read several documented cases of children dying because of dietary restrictions similar to what Ellen G. White conjured out of her sickness-induced hallucinations. Actually, we have a couple of confirmed contemporary examples of this occurring in England and Canada within the last couple years, probably because the practitioners were following White's original revelation before it was revised:

https://news.adventist.org/en/all-ne...dventist-diet/
http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/12/15...dventist-faith

It's actually comical to watch these Adventist pastors fall over themselves trying to do damage control and make sure the press knows that their official position is the revised diet (ergo not the original one), though it's also a bit scary because the incompetent media doesn't do its research on the original dietary restrictions that White had in place, which means tragedies like these will continue to happen in isolated cases of Adventist families trying to be more orthodox followers of their departed false prophetess. You would think that in the 21st century we wouldn't see children dying from something so easily prevented as rickets, but false religion does the darndest things, don't ya know? (sarcasm)

If you can't handle a little bit of fire and brimstone because it doesn't gel with your modernist and liberal sensibilities, that's not my problem. We have 2 confirmed deaths of children from dietary commands by a cult leader from the late 19th century happening within the last 5 years, right from the horse's mouth on pro-Adventist sites that took all of 2 minutes for me to track down. You can keep your own arbitrary ideas of intellectual honesty, I'll keep the truth, thank you very much.

[jmdrake]

There is NOTHING baseless in this tract.

You stated that Seventh Day Adventists are the only Christians that keep the Sabbath. That is a baseless lie and I've proven it and you know it. Further more it shows that you have the mind of a 7 year old when it comes to debating. It's called "ad hominem" or "attack the messenger." You lack the mental capability to deal argue against the truth of the Sabbath so you don't even try. Instead you lie and continue to falsely claim that it came from Ellen White, when it did not, and you argue against her instead of trying to argue your position. It's pathetic and further a clear violation of the forum rules. When you are ready to grow up and actually debate the Sabbath, which is what you pretended to do at first but you really were not doing, I'll be happy to debate you on that. But I'm not going to get dragged off topic to whatever nonsense argument you want to make. So child, are you ready to defend your nonsense position, which you already admitted was not true, that the New Testament Sabbath was Sunday?

[Theocrat]

SMH. Read Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31. What you are failing to realize is that there was an original covenant that predated the "old covenant." The "old covenant", with the sacrificial system and such, didn't come along until Moses. Specifically it didn't come along until the Israelites rejected direct communication with God. Go back and read Exodus 20. God first spoke the 10 commandments to Israel. But they said "Moses. You speak to us and we will hear. But don't let God speak to us lest we die." (Exodus 20:19) Moses made one of the most profound statements ever. "Do not fear for God has come to test you and that His fear may be before you so that you may not sin." (Exodus 20:20)

Now apply what Moses was saying in Exodus 20:20 to what Jeremiah said in Jeremiah 31 starting at verse 31 and the writer of Hebrews 8 said starting at verse 8. In describing the "new covenant" both the Old Testament and the New Testament describes God "putting the law in their hearts" and "writing them in their minds" and the children of God reaching a point where "None of them shall teach his neighbor and none his brother saying 'Know the Lord', for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them."

In other words, God was saying that under the new covenant everyone of God's children will ultimately not need to have a "spiritual overseer" and be "taught to know God" or be "forced to obey" God. Put in their minds? That means knowing the law. Written in their hearts? That means wanting to keep the law. And what makes someone likely to keep the law? Why knowing the Lawgiver is always present with you. That is the type of "fear of God" that Moses was wanting the children of Israel to have, which is a fear of disappointing your friend, and knowing that God is always with you so you can't hide the evil that you might want to do.

Abraham had that kind of relationship with God. So did Isaac. So did Jacob. (Eventually). Joseph had it. Moses had it. All of the children of Israel could have had it. But they rejected it. So God said "Let them make me a sanctuary so that I may dwell among them." That's why God instituted to Old Covenant. But it was always meant to be temporary. Do Christians feel the need to be circumcised today? No. That was a sign of the Old Covenant. Keeping the Passover and sacrificing a lamb? Even most Jews don't do that today. Again, old covenant. Not worshiping idols, not bearing false witness, honoring your parents etc? That was the law that predated the Old Covenant and goes all the way back to Eden in principle even though it wasn't written out. (Cain knew it was wrong to kill Abel even though he had no tables of stone to reference.) Now it's true that circumcision predates Moses, but it is still Old Covenant because it was only to signify a promise to the descendants of Abraham. That said, saints that predated Abraham and were not circumcised are still saved anyway. So the argument that the Old Covenant must still be in force in order for people under the Old Covenant to be saved by faith is fallacious. Furthermore there were people under the Old Covenant who transcended to the New Covenant and there are people living in the New Testament era who are still bound by the Old Covenant. In fact I would say that most people have not reached the Hebrews 8 / Jeremiah 31 level of the New Covenant. That promise is there for you. But it's a journey you have to commit to. And it's not easy. Not because God doesn't do everything needed to make it easy. But just like the children of Israel, our human inclination is to not want that kind of relationship with God. After all, with a personal "God is always here" relationship mentality, the children of Israel would have never made a golden calf to worship and engaged in partying and fornication to celebrate it. We want to do what we want to do.

The misusage of Jeremiah 31 is a common error of Dispensationalism, used to show some sort of disparity between the nature of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. However, the writer of Hebrews uses Jeremiah 31 to prove his case in Hebrews 8 that what makes the two covenants different is that there is a new priesthood, which is founded in Christ, after the order of Melchizedek.

Thus, what makes the New Covenant different from the Old Covenant has nothing to do with the former being internalized versus the latter being externalized. In fact, in the Old Covenant, there were saints who already had the law "written in their hearts," like King David. Psalm 40:8 says, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God; yea, Thy law is within my heart." We even see God calling upon Old Covenant Christians who had God's law in their hearts, stating, "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]

So, you're totally wrong that the Old Covenant people are different from the New Covenant people because of some internalization of spiritual life in the people of the former. Both covenants had people with the law written in their hearts and minds. The difference is that under the Old Covenant, there was a separate priesthood (Levites) who had the laws of God and whose job was to explain the law to the people of God. In the New Covenant, there is no longer that kind of priesthood because Christ, being the Word, now imparts His word to all covenant people, without the need of a tribal priesthood, and especially, without daily and yearly sacrifices to atone for sins.

So, once again, there is no difference between Old Covenant Christians and New Covenant Christians. They are both in the Father, through Christ, and in the power of the Holy Spirit. The same laws in the Old Testament can be applied to New Testament Christians, through Christ, because Christ is the One Who not only nailed the Law to cross when He died, but resurrected the Law in His resurrection and ascension. But it takes wisdom.

[TER]

Here is what the actual Christians of the first centuries taught regarding keeping the Old Covenant Sabbath, as spoken by Saints spread in far away lands.


The Didache

But every Lord's day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

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]).

The Didascalia

The apostles further appointed; On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]).

Victorinus

The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord's Day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. Let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished (The Creation of the World [A.D. 300]).

Eusebius

They [the early saints of the New Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things (Church History 1:4:8 [A.D. 325]).

[T]he day of his [Christ's] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord's day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic Law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the Apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186 [A.D. 319]).

Athanasius

The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord's day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord's day as being the memorial of the new creation (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3 [A.D. 345]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths and from calling indifferent meats common or unclean (Catechetical Lectures 4:37 [A.D. 350]).

Council of Laodicea

Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord's Day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians (canon 29 [A.D. 360]).

John Chrysostom

When he said, "You shall not kill" . . . he did not add "because murder is a wicked thing." The reason was that conscience had taught this beforehand, and he speaks thus, as to those who know and understand the point. Wherefore when he speaks to us of another commandment, not known to us by the dictate of conscience, he not only prohibits, but adds the reason. When, for instance, he gave commandment concerning the Sabbath — "On the seventh day you shall do no work"— he subjoined also the reason for this cessation. What was this? "Because on the seventh day God rested from all his works which he had begun to make" [Ex. 20:10]. And again: "Because you were a servant in the land of Egypt" [Deut. 21:18]. For what purpose then, I ask, did he add a reason respecting the Sabbath, but did no such thing in regard to murder? Because this commandment was not one of the leading ones. It was not one of those which were accurately defined of our conscience, but a kind of partial and temporary one, and for this reason it was abolished afterward. But those which are necessary and uphold our life are the following: '"You shall not kill... You shall not commit adultery... You shall not steal." On this account he adds no reason in this case, nor enters into any instruction on the matter, but is content with the bare prohibition (Homilies on the Statues 12:9 [A.D. 387]).

You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Lord and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and you still grovel in the Law [of Moses]? How is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul's words, that the observance of the Law overthrows the gospel, and learn, if you will, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Why do you keep the Sabbath and fast with the Jews? (Homilies on Galatians 2:17 [A.D. 395]).

Apostolic Constitutions

And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's Day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent him to us, and condescended to let him suffer, and raised him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day . . . in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food (Apostolic Constitutions 2:7:60 [A.D. 400]).

[jmdrake]

The misusage of Jeremiah 31 is a common error of Dispensationalism, used to show some sort of disparity between the nature of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. However, the writer of Hebrews uses Jeremiah 31 to prove his case in Hebrews 8 that what makes the two covenants different is that there is a new priesthood, which is founded in Christ, after the order of Melchizedek.

Questions for you Theocrat.

1) Do you sacrifice a lamb for your sins? Because under the Old Covenant you were supposed to.

2) Do you think Paul was wrong for saying that Christians didn't need to be physically circumcised? Because everyone under the Old Covenant was supposed to be circumcised.

3) Do you keep the Passover? That was a requirement under the Old Covenant?

4) Are you careful to ask any woman you don't know if she's on her period before you shake her hand? That was a requirement under the Old Covenant.

5) Do you believe that all land must lie fallow every 7 years? That's a requirement under the Old Covenant.

6) Do you believe that if you bought someone's land in the country, but not in a walled city, that you have to let them or their family buy it back in the year of Jubilee? That's under the Old Covenant afterall. (I guess that would go for any home now as nobody today lives in a walled city.)

7) Do you believe that all debts must be forgiven the year of Jubilee? More Old Covenant.

8) Do you believe that you must let poor people come on your property and glean from your garden? More Old Covenant.

I could go on and on. Here's my point. I'm willing to bet that you aren't really keeping the Old Covenant anyway but you are cherry picking parts that you want to impose on others. Now I could be wrong, but from all of our discussions I'm pretty sure you aren't keeping the parts of the Old Covenant that smack of socialism.

But further, you totally missed the point of what I was saying. It's not that there is a dichotomy between the Old Covenant and the New Covenent. There is a dichotomy between the Old Covenant and the ORIGINAL Covenant! You bring up Melchizadek. You realize Melchizadek was not your typical priest right? The Bible describes him this way:

This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

He is described by the writer of Hebrews as a pre-existing eternal being with "no beginning" and "no end" and who "remains a priest forever." That's far different from the Aaronic priesthood. They all had genealogies. They all had beginning and endings. They were, after all, mere humans. And note that he only met with Abraham once. And he went out to Abraham and not the other way around! It was not the subservient relationship between worshiper and priest as established by the law of Moses. Under the law of Moses it was the duty of the people to seek out the priests. But Jesus sought us out the same way Melchizadek sought Abraham out. And Melchizadek wasn't seeking out Abraham for Abraham to confess his sins but rather for Melchizadek to declare Abraham's victory. That's the same thing Jesus, our high priest, does for us.

Thus, what makes the New Covenant different from the Old Covenant has nothing to do with the former being internalized versus the latter being externalized. In fact, in the Old Covenant, there were saints who already had the law "written in their hearts," like King David. Psalm 40:8 says, "I delight to do Thy will, O my God; yea, Thy law is within my heart." We even see God calling upon Old Covenant Christians who had God's law in their hearts, stating, "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]

You just made a conclusory statement that is not supported by the evidence presented. And again you are missing the point that I made. God has always been ready to write the law in the hearts of men but men keep rejecting having that happen. Again the tabernacle system was only set up because the children of Israel openly rejected the idea of God speaking directly to them. They said "Don't let God speak to us Moses. Let God speak to you and then you speak to us." Certainly there were people before Jesus came that had direct communion with God. But God had the tabernacle system set up so that he would have at least some way to communicate with the rest of His people. Note that at Jesus death the veil of the temple was torn from top to bottom. That signified the end of the temple/tabernacle system. You do understand that right? That's Christianity 101.

So, you're totally wrong that the Old Covenant people are different from the New Covenant people because of some internalization of spiritual life in the people of the former.

Another false conclusory statement made by you that also shows you don't even understand what I was saying. Again the Israelites as a whole rejected direct communication with God. That doesn't mean that everybody did. But Jesus came to plainly show the way to interact with the father without a human mediator. Do you now go and confess your sins to a priest on the head of a lamb? That's the Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant we are to go directly to the thrown of grace. I mean you are a Protestant right? Or did I get that wrong?

Both covenants had people with the law written in their hearts and minds. The difference is that under the Old Covenant, there was a separate priesthood (Levites) who had the laws of God and whose job was to explain the law to the people of God. In the New Covenant, there is no longer that kind of priesthood because Christ, being the Word, now imparts His word to all covenant people, without the need of a tribal priesthood, and especially, without daily and yearly sacrifices to atone for sins.

Right. Well...partially right. In both covenants there were some who had God's law written in their hearts. Under the New Covenant the entire Christian Church, at least in the beginning, had the law written in their hearts. The apostles were so into the Holy Spirit that when they found out that the new believers in Samaria did not have the Holy Spirit, they sent Peter and John to bring the gift of the Holy Spirit to all who were ready to receive it. And the entire congregation received the gift of the Holy Spirit except Simon the Sorcerer and that was because his heart was not right as he wanted to use the Holy Spirit for financial gain. That's not the only time in Acts when an entire body of believers received the Holy Spirit. Now I defy you to find anything similar in the Old Testament. God offered that to the entire nation of Israel when He spoke the 10 commandments to them but they rejected Him. That's why He set up the Old Covenant. But the New Covenant is merely the extension of the Original Covenant to every believer. Yet, the problem today, is most people still are not ready for the New Covenant. So.....we still end up with something of a "priest/parishioner" system even though Peter said we are called to be a nation of priest. And you know who else was called to be a nation of priests? The entire 12 tribes of Israel. It was the rejection of God's voice at Sinai followed by the golden calf apostasy that prevented that from happening.

So, once again, there is no difference between Old Covenant Christians and New Covenant Christians. They are both in the Father, through Christ, and in the power of the Holy Spirit. The same laws in the Old Testament can be applied to New Testament Christians, through Christ, because Christ is the One Who not only nailed the Law to cross when He died, but resurrected the Law in His resurrection and ascension. But it takes wisdom.

So once again, send me a picture of you confessing your sins on the head of a lamb and then sacrificing the lamb if you really want me to believe that you actually believe what you say you believe.

[TER]

The Apostles and their immediate successors ordained bishops, priests, and deacons (by the laying of hands and transference of the Holy Spirit) and this is well attested in the writings of the first centuries. So, indeed, while all believers are of a holy priesthood, some have been ordained in the service of God for the benefit of the Body with special charismata, and the priesthood of the Old Covenant did indeed continue in the New Covenant, in the order of Melchezedek. This is unanimously taught by the Christian writers of the first centuries.

[jmdrake]

Hello TER. That's what some of the actual Christians of the first centuries taught. None of the apostles taught that. (You can read about the apostles keeping the Sabbath in Acts.) And some first century Christians taught otherwise. Here's an example:

Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau (ca. A.D. 304), present-day Austria, similarly emphasizes the same function of the Sabbath fast when he writes: “On the seventh day... we are accustomed to fast rigorously that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving thanks.” The sadness and hunger which Christians experienced even more severely on the Sabbath, because their fasting had already started on Friday, were designed there-fore to predispose the Christians to enter more eagerly and joyfully into the observance of Sunday and on the other hand, as stated by Victorinus, to avoid “appearing to observe the Sabbath with the Jews, of which the Lord of the Sabbath Himself, the Christ, says by His prophets that His soul hateth.”

There are more. This entire book is worth reading. http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/Furt...As/sab2sun.pdf And it documents how, starting in Rome, Christians began to try to distinguish themselves from Jews because of persecution of Jews and one of the main identifying marks of being Jewish was keeping the Sabbath.

Anyway, what do you think of the broader discussion regarding the New Covenant versus the Old Covenant? Do you believe it makes sense under the New Covenant to say "We're going to keep every bit of the Old Covenant except the Sabbath?" And I'm not exactly sure what these non-Sabbatarian Old Covenanters are keeping and none will actually say. (Other than stoning gays and adulterers).

Here is what the actual Christians of the first centuries taught regarding keeping the Old Covenant Sabbath, as spoken by Saints spread in far away lands.


The Didache

But every Lord's day . . . gather yourselves together and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

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]).

The Didascalia

The apostles further appointed; On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation [sacrifice of the Mass], because on the first day of the week [Sunday] our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]).

Victorinus

The sixth day [Friday] is called parasceve, that is to say, the preparation of the kingdom. . . . On this day also, on account of the passion of the Lord Jesus Christ, we make either a station to God or a fast. On the seventh day he rested from all his works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord's Day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. Let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews . . . which Sabbath he [Christ] in his body abolished (The Creation of the World [A.D. 300]).

Eusebius

They [the early saints of the New Testament] did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we [Christians]. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things (Church History 1:4:8 [A.D. 325]).

[T]he day of his [Christ's] light . . . was the day of his resurrection from the dead, which they say, as being the one and only truly holy day and the Lord's day, is better than any number of days as we ordinarily understand them, and better than the days set apart by the Mosaic Law for feasts, new moons, and Sabbaths, which the Apostle [Paul] teaches are the shadow of days and not days in reality (Proof of the Gospel 4:16:186 [A.D. 319]).

Athanasius

The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord's day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord's day as being the memorial of the new creation (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3 [A.D. 345]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans or into Judaism, for Jesus Christ has ransomed you. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths and from calling indifferent meats common or unclean (Catechetical Lectures 4:37 [A.D. 350]).

Council of Laodicea

Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lord's Day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians (canon 29 [A.D. 360]).

John Chrysostom

When he said, "You shall not kill" . . . he did not add "because murder is a wicked thing." The reason was that conscience had taught this beforehand, and he speaks thus, as to those who know and understand the point. Wherefore when he speaks to us of another commandment, not known to us by the dictate of conscience, he not only prohibits, but adds the reason. When, for instance, he gave commandment concerning the Sabbath — "On the seventh day you shall do no work"— he subjoined also the reason for this cessation. What was this? "Because on the seventh day God rested from all his works which he had begun to make" [Ex. 20:10]. And again: "Because you were a servant in the land of Egypt" [Deut. 21:18]. For what purpose then, I ask, did he add a reason respecting the Sabbath, but did no such thing in regard to murder? Because this commandment was not one of the leading ones. It was not one of those which were accurately defined of our conscience, but a kind of partial and temporary one, and for this reason it was abolished afterward. But those which are necessary and uphold our life are the following: '"You shall not kill... You shall not commit adultery... You shall not steal." On this account he adds no reason in this case, nor enters into any instruction on the matter, but is content with the bare prohibition (Homilies on the Statues 12:9 [A.D. 387]).

You have put on Christ, you have become a member of the Lord and been enrolled in the heavenly city, and you still grovel in the Law [of Moses]? How is it possible for you to obtain the kingdom? Listen to Paul's words, that the observance of the Law overthrows the gospel, and learn, if you will, how this comes to pass, and tremble, and shun this pitfall. Why do you keep the Sabbath and fast with the Jews? (Homilies on Galatians 2:17 [A.D. 395]).

Apostolic Constitutions

And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's Day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent him to us, and condescended to let him suffer, and raised him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day . . . in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food (Apostolic Constitutions 2:7:60 [A.D. 400]).

[jmdrake]

The Apostles and their immediate successors ordained bishops, priests, and deacons (by the laying of hands and transference of the Holy Spirit) and this is well attested in the writings of the first centuries. So, indeed, while all believers are of a holy priesthood, some have been ordained in the service of God for the benefit of the Body with special charismata, and the priesthood of the Old Covenant did indeed continue in the New Covenant, in the order of Melchezedek. This is unanimously taught by the Christian writers of the first centuries.

There is no mention of earthly priests anywhere in the New Testament but rather a heavenly priest and a priesthood of believers. There is no mention of the sacrement of confessional in the New Testament either. Rather Jesus taught us to pray "Our Father who art in heaven.....forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us."