Sometimes you can refute an argument by simply looking at its conclusion. The conclusion these people make is that because the Sabbath is not mentioned therefore we don't have to keep the sabbath. This is called an argument from silence where you are arguing based on something that is not said. It is a logical fallacy because it doesn't …
Sometimes you can refute an argument by simply looking at its conclusion. The conclusion these people make is that because the Sabbath is not mentioned therefore we don't have to keep the sabbath. This is called an argument from silence where you are arguing based on something that is not said. It is a logical fallacy because it doesn't automatically imply a conclusion. A simple way to prove this is that other moral commandments are not mentioned either like stealing or adultery or coveting or murder. Based on their logic that means that you are free to steal, covet, fornicate and murder all you want because they didn't mention it in the Jerusalem council's recommendations. Obviously nobody is willing to make that conclusion so why make it about the Sabbath then? The conclusion then is that the Sabbath wasn't even in view and this has nothing to do with what exactly you have to do as a Christian but rather how they were going to treat new converts and introduce them into these practices of living a new life under Christ. It doesn't mean that early Christians did not keep the Sabbath or that these people who were converted weren't informed about the Sabbath.
Sometimes you can refute an argument by simply looking at its conclusion. The conclusion these people make is that because the Sabbath is not mentioned therefore we don't have to keep the sabbath. This is called an argument from silence where you are arguing based on something that is not said. It is a logical fallacy because it doesn't automatically imply a conclusion. A simple way to prove this is that other moral commandments are not mentioned either like stealing or adultery or coveting or murder. Based on their logic that means that you are free to steal, covet, fornicate and murder all you want because they didn't mention it in the Jerusalem council's recommendations. Obviously nobody is willing to make that conclusion so why make it about the Sabbath then? The conclusion then is that the Sabbath wasn't even in view and this has nothing to do with what exactly you have to do as a Christian but rather how they were going to treat new converts and introduce them into these practices of living a new life under Christ. It doesn't mean that early Christians did not keep the Sabbath or that these people who were converted weren't informed about the Sabbath.
Good reasoning, thank you.