Second challenge to Elijah: pagan origin of the moon Sabbath

[James Randolph]

Reading McElroy's paper I noticed that he made the point that the moon Sabbath has pagan origins. The theory is in the New Jewish Encyclopedia, that the early nomadic Semites while moon worshippers held a Sabbath by the quarters of the moon. No evidence, just a theory. When they became settled to agricultural life, they started following an unbroken week instead. No evidence, just theory. The theory is the outdated theory of cultural evolution, whereby societies evolve through stages. It assumes the early Semites evolved into monotheists from polytheism, and into Sabbath observers specifically through moon worship. There is no historical evidence for all of this, only outdated evolutionary theory that was recognized as speculation even in the New Jewish Encyclopedia.
All of the actual historical evidence, if it points to anything at all, points to the unbroken weekly cycle among Jews and ancient Israel without a break.
My question is: which is better evidence? You said before it was about equal for both sides and you were investigating it. Which evidence is better? The historical evidence for the unbroken weekly cycle or the outdated evolutionary speculation that the Sabbath originated in moon worship?

[toddvetter]

To understand why the Feast days determined by a lunar calendar and are written into the laws of Moses are important to you. See the below link.

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/p ... ection.pdf

The passover feast celebrations in concert with the calendar God gave the isrealites to keep time by, reveal how Christ fulfilled the sign of Jonah.

This is the only sign to this generation. Hope you have time for a read.

[endtimeelijah]

James,
You are challenging the wrong person in this matter --- at least for the time being.
Shalom

[James Randolph]

Elijah,
You said you found the balance of evidence about even between the lunar Sabbath and the weekly cycle.
I pointed out that the lunar Sabbath is based on the theory that the Sabbath originated in ancient Semitic moon worship, which only on settlement in Palestine changed from polytheism expressed in Sabbaths calculated by the phases of the moon into monotheism expressed in sabbaths calculated by a continuous weekly cycle.
Logically speaking, if you assume the correctness of this evolutionary theory, and accept the lunar Sabbath, then you should logically accept the gods to which it was attached. The theory itself does not envisage a lunar Sabbath associated with monotheism at all. So to cling to monotheism on one hand, and accept the lunar Sabbath on the other, is inconsistent.
That is what I attempted to prove to you, that the evidence for the lunar Sabbath was inconsistent, and therefore your statement that the balance of evidence was about the same should not be maintained.
You still want to maintain the balance of evidence as being about the same, even after this argument that I have given, and without answering the argument. That's your right, or wrong as the case may be.

[endtimeelijah]

Thanks James,
From the very beginning, u have tried to insist that i have 'accepted' and am prepared to defend the 'moon Sabbath'. That remains YOUR own self imposed opinion.
Up to this point i have only made general statements which are intentionally none conclusive - one way or the other - and that will remain my stance - until such time - if and when this website will have made its presentation 'in full' and all new light is set forth.
This is a life changing event - I refrain from 'jumping unto bandwaggons' and still have the matter under study.

Shalom

[James Randolph]

On the contrary. You set the position. You said that the arguments for both sides were equally balanced. I have challenged you on two points, in which I think the argument is clearly in favor of one side. There may be points on which the argument is in favor of the other side. You make claims about what I have said that are false, and you use humor and dirision in regard to me, a person you do not take seriously because he has no background in Bible study and for what other reasons I don't know. Maybe anti-Catholic prejudice. You don't have to engage in debate with me. You have chosen not to. Fine.

[endtimeelijah]

Beloved James,
i take u more seriously than u might think.
i just won't be pulled or taunted into taking positions on which i am not fully settled.
Shalom