Sunday Sermons

[jacob62]

For all you Preachers and Pastors,how do you prepare for your Sunday sermon?

[Chemnitz]

Lots of study, lots of prayer, and a mad rush on Saturday to get it written. ;)

[jacob62]

ok,thank you

[Jim1999]

Jacob,

Over 50 odd years, I must confess that my methods changed. In the early days, I preached textually, but only worked on sermons from Friday night to Sunday afternoon.

What I learned in time, was to keep alert to the needs of that congregation and that community. I then searched for an appropriate scripture dealing with those problems, and preached on that text. Some call it topical preaching, but I think that is a misnomer.

On the actual writing of the sermon, I liked alliteration and worked very hard at that. It helped me to remember the sermon, with minimum notes, and it helped the people to remember the message as well.

Whilst I have not mentioned prayer and study beforehand, I presume you know that is essential to preparation. I have no use for lengthy sermons or long services. I should rather preach on one point that might be remembered and stick like a fish hook, than be known for lengthy sermons that often cloud the intent of God.

Cheers. We advance more in preaching when we prepare on our knees than all the book-learning known to humankind.

Jim

[av1611jim]

Jim1999;
You nailed it!
If any given preacher is not getting his sermons "on his knees" then he ought not to be preaching, IMO.

In HIS service;
Jim

[jacob62]

ok thank you jim1999.Anyone else who is a preacher?

[tamborine lady]

graemlins/type.gif

O.K. here's my method. Of course I pray first and ask God what my subject should be. then when He begins to give it too me, I start to take notes, and when He is done, I do an outline, just to keep me on track.

Sometimes of course, He gives me something else to add in during the preaching.

I don't have many notes, just the outline, and the scriptures that go with the sermon.

This method works fine for me, because that way, the Holy Ghost does most of the work!!

Blessings,

Tam

[jacob62]

Along with the Sunday sermons,do you preachers/pastors have a more dialed in message during say Christmas,Easter etc.?

[Jim1999]

Jacob,
Since people are focused on the human seasons, it is valid to preach around that topic. To alter the topic is to invite distraction. Take advantage of everything humanly possible to keep the audience's attention. This is why we tell stories and use illustrations in preaching.

Like it or not, we must perform in the pulpit if we are to win the people. I seldom go astray from my prepared message. I believe the Holy Spirit gave me the message in my study and He does not have last minute thoughts during the delivery. He did a complete job in my study.

Cheers,

Jim

A story I have told before about the preacher who forgot his sermon notes for the morning service. He apologized that he forgot his notes and he should have to depend on the Lord for the message. He went on to say, He would be better prepared in the evening service.

This is the sort of garbled gook we often employ when we ad lib in the pulpit.

[jacob62]

Thank you Jim

[Timotheos]

Sometimes I pull thoughts off the 'net. Not whole sermons.
www.biblebb.com (http://www.biblebb.com)
www.bible.org (http://www.bible.org)
www.sermonindex.net (http://www.sermonindex.net)

PRayer is essential. Without it the best of message will be a dud, with it the Lord can take a lousy message and yield the greatest results.

I prefer to do exposition - working through a book of Scripture. That way, I never run out of material.

[DHK]

I also prefer expositional preaching. I agree that every sermon should be bathed in prayer. But I would also emphasize the need of study in the preparation of any sermon. Those who stand behind the pulpit and simply "ad lib" it, are not worth their salt as a "preacher" and shouldn't be in the ministry.

I have a library of about 2,000 books (yes, Jacob--mostly bought and paid for over a long period of years). But entirely apart from that there are literally thousands of books, sermons, and other resources that are available on-line.

On a site related to Hyles Anderson there was a sermon posted on the text "Quit you like men." If I remember correctly the sermon was about men quitting or giving up. Ignorance is one thing, but to display it to all the world is outright foolishness. The Bible rightly says in 2Tim.2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God."

What does it mean: "It is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter in the kingdom of God." Considering the fact that the stainless steel sewng needle had not been invented yet.

What did Peter mean when he said: "Gird up the loins of your mind." How does one "gird up the loins of their mind?"

One cannot satisfactorily answer questions such as these without outside sources, sources outside of the Bible, thus the necessity of buying "other preacher's books." (Commentaries, Reference materials, etc.)

How many hours do I put into my sermons? Oh, maybe 20 to 30 years or more plus all the hours of the week that I spend. I have spent my lifetime studying the Bible.
DHK

[jacob62]

So you are not led by the Holy Spirit directly, but are led to study scripture first, and then write your sermon?

[DHK]

Originally posted by jacob62:
So you are not led by the Holy Spirit directly, but are led to study scripture first, and then write your sermon? Ephesians 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;

The Holy Spirit leads in all that I do. I depend on Him each step of the way.
DHK

[jacob62]

Ok, Thank You for your input.

[pastorjeff]

After spending time in prayer, I usually sit down and plan the next 6 months to a year of series, topics and sermons. Some think this is not relying on the Spirit, but the same Spirit that directs from week to week can direct for a long range goal for change. This will give me more time for study and less time looking for a sermon in the long run. After I know what I'm preaching I keep it simple. Star twith observation and interpretation, move on to cross referances to get the counsel of the rest of Scripture, look for the "big idea", and then form my sermon around that Idea. One of the best books on sermon prep I have used in classes is Haddon Robinson's "Biblical Preaching"

[hillclimber]

I once heard a sermon at a neighbors church that I had read on the internet the night before. and no I didn't say anything to my friend.

[jacob62]

So far the only thing I see in the bible is that the Holy Spirit came over the person and they began to speak.I did not find anything about preparation or study before they spoke,so far.

[DHK]

Originally posted by jacob62:
So far the only thing I see in the bible is that the Holy Spirit came over the person and they began to speak.I did not find anything about preparation or study before they spoke,so far. Acts 6:3-4 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

[jacob62]

yes,prayer

[DHK]

Originally posted by jacob62:
yes,prayer How convenient that you neglect the last part of the above verse. "and the ministry of the word"

Do you also neglect what the rest of the Bible has to say on the subject?

Here are some of the instructions given by Paul to Timothy, a pastor at Ephesus:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

1 Timothy 4:11-16 These things command and teach.
12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

[jacob62]

Yes,prayer and reading and doctrine as led by the Holy Spirit.Then when you stand up to preach,the Holy Spirit will guide you as to what to say.

[DHK]

Originally posted by jacob62:
Yes,prayer and reading and doctrine as led by the Holy Spirit.Then when you stand up to preach,the Holy Spirit will guide you as to what to say. The Holy Spirit never leads one to speak out of his own ignorance.

[jacob62]

Right DHK,When the apostles spoke, it was from the heart, guided by the Spirit,the same as Jesus did. Do you think Jesus studied for a week and then preached? A preacher that studies and prepares all week is carnal. A preacher that simply gets up and starts preaching has a greater faith than the former, because he is "led by the Spirit."

[DHK]

Originally posted by jacob62:
Right DHK,When the apostles spoke, it was from the heart, guided by the Spirit,the same as Jesus did. Do you think Jesus studied for a week and then preached? A preacher that studies and prepares all week is carnal. A preacher that simply gets up and starts preaching has a greater faith than the former, because he is "led by the Spirit." Jesus stumped the Rabbis and the doctors of the law in the Temple when he was only 12 years old. Christ is omniscience. Do you also claim to be God? Are you also omniscient?

[DHK]

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

"And the books." It is impossible to determine what books are meant here. They may have been portions of the Old Testament, or classic writings, or books written by other Christians, or by himself. It is worthy of remark, that even Paul did not travel without books, and that he found them in some way necessary for the work of the ministry.

"Especially the parchments." The word here used, (membranoV, whence our word membrane,) occurs only in this place in the New Testament, and means skin, membrane, or parchment. Dressed skins were among the earliest materials for writing, and were in common use before the art of making paper from rags was discovered. These "parchments" seem to have been something different from "books," and, probably, refer to some of his own writings. They may have contained notes, memorandums, journals, or unfinished letters. It is, of course, impossible now to determine what they were. Benson supposes they were letters which he had received from the churches; Macknight, that they were the originals of the letters which he had written; Bishop Bull, that they were a kind of common-place book, in which he inserted hints and extracts of the most remarkable passages in the authors which he read. All this, however, is mere conjecture.Barnes

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
--Paul studied enough that he was able to quote from the Greek poets as well as from the Bible.

Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
--Paul was educated enough to quote from the prophetic writings of a Cretian.

Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
--Jude was familar enough with Apocryphal writings to quote from a book called "The Book of Enoch."
Also, did he just have this interesting fact, that Enoch was the seventh from Adam memorized? Or, did he go back and check his facts in the Torah before writing them down in that which would later become sacred Scripture? It was the Holy Spirit that commanded us to "Study to show ourselves approved unto God."
You don't believe that verse do you?

Just one other question for you:
The Bible uses the word "unicorn" 7 times, all in the Old Testament. We know that the unicorn is a Greek mythological creature. But what does it mean in the Bible? Can you tell me?
DHK

[Jim1999]

Faith without works is dead.......

When I wish to cross a river, I do not observe the bridge and show my faith in that construction, then look ten feet down and start walking on water to show that I have more faith than others.

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. It is not a blind trust, nor a foolish thrust. It is obedience and compliance with the Word.

All the New Testament disciples were taught in the books of the Old Testament, and they were steeped in personal experience in the presence of the Lord. Remember the words, Lord, teach us to pray....? The disciples were asking to be taught. Remember them meeting in the upper room attending to a learning session? They spent time learning and experiencing what the Lord would have them know. It was not a hocus pocus sort of thing attributed to the Holy Spirit.

We have the completed word, and we are exhorted to study and to know the word.

Cheers,

Jim

[jacob62]

"Brothers,the scipture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David..."- "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the spirit enabled them",try to study for that!-"Then Peter,filled with the Holy Spirit,said to them...."-"Above all,you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.For prophecy never had it's origin in the will of man,but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."-No DHK,I cannot tell you what a unicorn is.I've not been led there yet.

[DHK]

Originally posted by jacob62:

-No DHK,I cannot tell you what a unicorn is.I've not been led there yet. And you won't be led there. God uses men. The Holy Spirit won't lead you to things that you are able to learn from others. You won't learn that kind of information without going to sources outside of the Bible. Thus you will remain in your ignorance.
Brothers,the scipture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David..."- "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the spirit enabled them",try to study for that!-2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Since when did you qualify yourself as one of the Apostles, or the holy men of old, the writers of the Scripture, that God used and inspired to write our Scriptures. Do you put yourself on par with the Apostles. A few posts ago you put yourself on par with Christ. At least you have come down a step.
Have you studied the Greek philosophers like Paul; are you familiar with the Cretian prophets?
Did you aquaint yourself with apocryphal literature like Jude?
Then you remain in your ignorance compared to these men, don't you.
What about their education--They had studied and had a command of: Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. Luke was a physician. Paul was probably the most educated person on the face of the earth at that time. God used their education to communicate the Word, both written and oral, to the world at that time.
DHK

[gb93433]

Eccl. 12:9-11, "In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge; and he pondered, searched out and arranged many proverbs. The Preacher sought to find delightful words and to write words of truth correctly. The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these collections are like well-driven nails; they are given by one Shepherd."

[jacob62]

Again your study is as carnal as the world would study a book.Being led by the Spirit is different than someone who follows a prescribed regiment of study outlined by men that constantly changes.This is proven in your choice of doctrine that disagrees with at least 20 other doctrines of other denominations and within your own.You cannot justify the splits and divisions other than your strand is correct and all others are wrong.You say only minor differences?Then why not only one church?How many Baptists doctrines are there?How many times are they "updated"?The Spirit never changes true biblical doctrine.But I am just a fool beginning my walk.But you are a seasoned vet that cannot heal,will not drive out demons because of unbelief,and surely could not raise the dead.You are great in your eyes,as Pharasees were also.On a final note,I wonder if Jesus cried to a woman about "personal attacks"? The Troll

[DHK]

Jacob,
I pointed to you Scripture that you can't recocile for yourself.
#1. The Bible commands us to study. 2Tim.2:15.
Knowing of this command to study to show ourselves "approved" unto God, How many hours of study do you put into your Bible Jacob?
#2. I showed you where Apostles such as Paul studied outside of the Bible. He quoted from Greek poets, and Cretian prophets. Those quotes BTW have become part of our inspired Word of God.
#3. I have showed you where Jude, the half brother of Jesus, was well acquainted with other literature, such as the apoccryphal book--the Book of Enoch, for he quoted from it.

Finally I deomonstrated by asking you a single question: Define the word "unicorn" from the Bible.
You were unable to. You cannot do it without outside sources--commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, lexicons, etc. You need some other source to find out what this unicorn is. For today's definition is a Greek mythological creature, a horse-like creature having one horn protruding from its head. It had special magical powers in Greek mythology. Is this what you believe? Is this what the Hebrews believed? What is a unicorn? Is the Bible referring to paganism when it teaches about the unicorn, for it gives some good comparisons about the unicorn? Or do you determine not to go to any outside source and remain in your ignorance?

You say my study is carnal?
My study is from the word of God.
Your refusal to study is sinful carnal pride.
DHK

[jacob62]

As I read the bible I study and am led in the Spirit.At least an hour reading the psalms aloud,then usualy another hour reading various scripture,and definetly not enough. Where is your church and what is the name of it DHK?

[DHK]

Originally posted by jacob62:
As I read the bible I study and am led in the Spirit.At least an hour reading the psalms aloud,then usualy another hour reading various scripture,and definetly not enough. Where is your church and what is the name of it DHK? The name of my church is given in my profile, "Bible Baptist." The name of your church is not, and the name of your denomination is not. This, BTW is against BB rules, something that you agreed to when you signed up with this board. Why haven't you identified yourself correctly?

I am still waiting for an answer. What is a unicorn?
DHK

[jacob62]

My profile should say:independantMy church should say:7th day Baptist-As I stated before,Ive not been led or have read about a unicorn.Where is it?Does your church have a website friend?

[DHK]

My religion / denomination: independant

My home church: 7th Day BaptistIndependent is not a religion or a denomination. For example, Are you a an independent Muslim or an independent Hindu, Which?

7th Day Baptist may count as a denomination, but that is not where you put it, and it is not the name of a specific church. What is the name of the church that you attend. Do you attend a church regularly? Are you a member of one? This is what the administration wants to know.

No, my church does not have a web-site.

As regarding a unicorn, my point is well proved isn't it? You need to have study outside of the Bible to understand what a unicorn is. You must go to other resources. There is no way that the Holy Spirit is going to lead you to this knowledge using the Bible alone. If you say that He will, then you believe in a heresy called "gnosticism."
DHK

[DHK]

Originally posted by jacob62:
As I stated before,Ive not been led or have read about a unicorn.Where is it?Perhaps you don't know where it is because you don't believe in using books outside of the Bible? Is this true? Not even a Strong's Concordance?? :rolleyes:

[jacob62]

Perhaps you could tell me the scripture in the Bible where the unicorn is mentioned. Where can I find the doctrine of your church and does your church have a website?


The Troll tongue.gif

[DHK]

Originally posted by jacob62:
Perhaps you could tell me the scripture in the Bible where the unicorn is mentioned. Where can I find the doctrine of your church and does your church have a website?


The Troll tongue.gif Do your own homework Jacob. It is easy to find the word unicorn in a concordance. Look it up.
And as I mentioned already, no we don't have a website.

[jacob62]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />My religion / denomination: independant

My home church: 7th Day BaptistIndependent is not a religion or a denomination. For example, Are you a an independent Muslim or an independent Hindu, Which?

7th Day Baptist may count as a denomination, but that is not where you put it, and it is not the name of a specific church. What is the name of the church that you attend. Do you attend a church regularly? Are you a member of one? This is what the administration wants to know.

No, my church does not have a web-site.

As regarding a unicorn, my point is well proved isn't it? You need to have study outside of the Bible to understand what a unicorn is. You must go to other resources. There is no way that the Holy Spirit is going to lead you to this knowledge using the Bible alone. If you say that He will, then you believe in a heresy called "gnosticism."
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Your point is not made yet,you have not pointed out the scripture you are refering to.If and when you do,then we will see if I know or if I have to use an outside source.Otherwise talking about a unicorn is pointless.There are many people here that have not always pointed to a specific denom. or church.Independant christian.Have some integrity and ask me to leave instead of relying on your silly rules.So I suppose its safe to say your doctrine is "Bible Baptist"? The Troll tongue.gif

[4His_glory]

Jacob,

To compare preachers of today with Christ and the Apostles in ludicrous. Christ was the Truth, He did not need to study it. The Apostles lived in a uniuqe time, and the revelation of God's Word was not complete yet.

To insinute that those of us who do study are not lead by the Spirit is unjust. I spend time in prayer and dillegent exegises of the Word and then arrange it into a manner in which my hears will hopefuly remember. I the give the message and trust God to do His part in working in peoples hearts.

[jacob62]

"To compare preachers of today with Christ and the Apostles is ludicrous." You are correct.Todays preachers are nothing like Christ.

[DHK]

Originally posted by jacob62:
Your point is not made yet,you have not pointed out the scripture you are refering to.If and when you do,then we will see if I know or if I have to use an outside source.Otherwise talking about a unicorn is pointless.There are many people here that have not always pointed to a specific denom. or church.Independant christian.Have some integrity and ask me to leave instead of relying on your silly rules.So I suppose its safe to say your doctrine is "Bible Baptist"? The Troll tongue.gif My point has been well made.
Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Mark 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

[StefanM]

Why even read the Bible if the Spirit will give you everything you need to know without reading other books?

[StefanM]

Numbers 23:22
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

Numbers 24:8
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

Deuteronomy 33:17
His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Job 39:9
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

Job 39:10
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

Psalm 22:21
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Psalm 29:6
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

Psalm 92:10
But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

All scriptures from the KJV.

I'm tired of waiting for jacob62's response. Sorry, DHK.

[DHK]

Why even read the Bible if the Spirit will give you everything you need to know without reading other books?I agree Stefan. It is a sorry sight when a man is not able to use a concordance or even read enough of the Bible to find out where something in the Bible is mentioned, and then claim that the Holy Spirit is guiding him!
DHK

[4His_glory]

Thank God that He has provided good tools for us to use to better understand His Word and communicate it to others.

[jacob62]

When God puts you in a situation to test your faith,you will not have time to get your bible or your study books.You will have to rely on the Holy Spirit to guide,faith to faith,not chapter to chapter.And BTW,someone sent me the unicorn info by private message.I did not ask.Now tell me what value knowing what a wild ox is,compared to you as a "preacher"getting up and preaching point blank,without study.I wonder what fruits you have from your ministry. And you still have not answered me DHK,where can I find your Bible Baptist doctrine? The Troll tongue.gif graemlins/saint.gif graemlins/thumbs.gif

[jacob62]

graemlins/thumbs.gif

[DHK]

Originally posted by jacob62:
When God puts you in a situation to test your faith,you will not have time to get your bible or your study books.You will have to rely on the Holy Spirit to guide,faith to faith,not chapter to chapter.This is not true.

Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

Joshua was commanded to meditate on God's Word day and night. He waa commanded to have the Word of God on the tip of his tongue, ready to speak it, at all times. He could not do that unless he had it memorized. He had to study it and study it thoroughly. The Holy Spirit does not bring to mind Scripture that is not first studied, and even memorized.

One summer I worked in a factory which where the work was rather boring and tedious.
During that summer I memorized the Books of Romans, James, Ephesians, and First John. I also have many other verses or passages of Scripture memorized as well. It is those Scripture that the Holy Spirit brings to mind. God does not condone ignorance and slothfulness.

And BTW,someone sent me the unicorn info by private message.I did not ask.Now tell me what value knowing what a wild ox is,compared to you as a "preacher"getting up and preaching point blank,without study.I wonder what fruits you have from your ministry. And you still have not answered me DHK,where can I find your Bible Baptist doctrine? The Troll tongue.gif graemlins/saint.gif graemlins/thumbs.gif Again you proved my point. Your information was not given you by the Holy Spirit, but by someone else. An email is not the Holy Spirit. The person who sent the email is not the Holy Spirit. The person who got the information for you was kind enough to look it up for you because you were to lazy to do it for yourself. Yes, the unicorn is a wild ox. Why couldn't you find that out for yourself?
DHK

[StefanM]

If you were [snipped rude remark], you wouldn't even have to open your mouth to talk. They could get the gospel by spiritual osmosis!


Sarcasm edited. Please check your p.m.'s.

[ May 15, 2005, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

[jacob62]

Originally posted by StefanM:
If you were [snipped rude remark], you wouldn't even have to open your mouth to talk. They could get the gospel by spiritual osmosis!


Sarcasm edited. Please check your p.m.'s. What are you saying,and to whom Stephan?

[StefanM]

I'm saying that to argue that the Holy Spirit cannot use outside study is absurdity.

My comment was a joke. The "you" is used in an idiomatic sense of any individual.

[wopik]

did Jesus intend that the day of His resurrection was to replace His Holy creation Sabbath ?

[BobRyan]

No.

#1. THe day of resurrection has no seven day sequence.

Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh day of Creation week is the REASON that a week is not 6 days. It is the only thing Christ the Creator made for mankind on that day of Creation week.

#2. There is no appelation for "week-day-one" in scripture like there is for "week-day-seven". God's Word says "The Seventh Day IS the Sabbath of the Lord your God" -- it is Christ the Creator's own Sabbath day and He is the one that makes the assignment, that explicitly says HE sanctifies it and makes IT a "Holy Day".

Nowhere in scripture does HE say that week-day-one is a Holy day or that it is sanctified OR that the resurrection is to be observed on a weekly cycle.

#3. Man-made tradition says that God's own law (and most specifically His OWN creation memorial holy day) is "nailed to the cross" rather than our DEBT of sin being nailed to the cross.

#4. Man-made tradition says that the resurrection of Christ should have a weekly cycle connected to it - that week-day-one should be "kept" like it was the object of the Creator's own Sabbath commandment. (This is a matter history - not merely opinion).

In other models for rejecting Christ the Creator's memorial of Creation, the Sabbath commandment of God does not continue in any form at all. It is not "edited" to apply to "Week-day-one" it is simply tossed in the trash. That means that "church attendance" and then do-as-you-please is the only thing we need to "observe".

Obviously church attendance on Tuesday/Wednesday or reven "week-day-one" is wonderful. But has nothing to do with Christ the Creator's Sabbath commandment.

#5. The Savior points out in Isaiah 66 that "From Sabbath to Sabbath" ALL mankind will come before God to worship.

Some have been "doing some work on that text" to try and undo what it clearly says. I applaud their recognition that leaving it "asis" is a problem for some commonly accepted preferences in man-made tradition.

#6. IN Mark 9 Christ condemns the "man-made tradition" that would "undo" and "rework" commmandment 5 - about honoring parents.

I think the point he makes there - holds for all Ten of God's Commandments.

(Ok so most of you knew I would post this kind of position on this subject by now. Nothing particularly surprising about that).

In Christ,

Bob

[prophecynut]

I found the following statement on www.adventist.org (http://www.adventist.org) , would like confirmation from SDAs posting here. Thank you


"To help us understand how God can transform us into His children, Jesus modeled the process of baptism for us. Baptism symbolized dying to self and coming alive in Jesus. Seventh-day Adventists practice full immersion baptism because by being fully buried beneath the water we symbolize that God's grace fully fills us with His new life for the future. Through [water] baptism we are truly born again in Jesus."

[BobRyan]

We do not believe in "Baptismal regeneration". We believe Baptism is a "sign/symbol" of conversion and a testimony to that fact.

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

27 Fundamental Beliefs - #14
14. Baptism:
By baptism we confess our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and testify of our death to sin and of our purpose to walk in newness of life. Thus we acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour, become His people, and are received as members by His church. Baptism is a symbol of our union with Christ, the forgiveness of our sins, and our reception of the Holy Spirit. It is by immersion in water and is contingent on an affirmation of faith in Jesus and evidence of repentance of sin. It follows instruction in the Holy Scriptures and acceptance of their teachings. (Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 2:12, 13; Acts 16:30-33; 22:16; 2:38; Matt. 28:19, 20.)

[prophecynut]

I think Jesus intended to replace the Sabbath with the first day of the week as the holy day for the Church. There is no Scripture to back this up, rather it comes from tradition which Jesus started with His resurrection.

On the first day of the week Jesus was resurrected; the Church met together on the first day; the Lord's supper was on the first day and Pentecost 50 days after Passover was on the first day. John was caught up to heaven on the first day to see "what will take place" after the Church Age (Rev. 4:1). God will follow the same course with the Day of the Rapture on the first day of the week.

[wopik]

Hi prophecynut,


Pentecost 50 days after Passover was on the first day.Pentecost was ALWAYS on the day after seven Sabbaths (Lev. 23:15).

Pentecost was on 'the first day of the week' back in Abraham's time --- centuries before Jesus.

In the NT, the first day of the week is still called nothing more than 'the first day of the week'.

Decades after Jesus' resurrection, the Sabbath is still called "the Sabbath".


I think Jesus intended to replace the Sabbath with the first day of the week as the holy day for the Church. There is no Scripture to back this up....Quite right!

Nothing SCRIPTURAL to back it up.


Jesus, our Saviour, is 'Lord of the Sabbath Day' -- Matt. 12:8.

[ June 12, 2005, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: wopik ]

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
I think Jesus intended to replace the Sabbath with the first day of the week as the holy day for the Church. There is no Scripture to back this up, rather it comes from tradition which Jesus started with His resurrection.
Christ speaks explicitly of the 7th day saying that it was made "Holy" and "Sanctified" And blessed in Gen 2:3. Hence we have a 7 day week - not a 6 day week. THE ONLY reason it is SEVEN days is Christ the Creator's SAbbath.

Christ then says in Mark 2:27 that the SABBATH is made fo mankind and that HE is the Lord of HIS OWN Sabbath - the 7th day.

Then in Isaiah 66 we find that Christ predicts that "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".

Now lets "suppose" that the "intent" was to take this "Spoken-by-God Commandment" and "edit it" so that it would point to "Week-day-one". Such that KEEPING the TEN commandments would require observance of "WEEK DAY ONE" on a weekly basis -- the SAME as USED to be true for Sabbath.

So then God would need to "SAY SOMETHING" if HE cared at all about HIS OWN Ten Commandment Law - correct? Something like "I KNOW make this change and now week day one is to be CALLED SABBATH or CALLED Lord's Day". Then also point out that "From Sabbath to SAbbath" i really "From Lord's Day to Lord's Day" -- etc.

How COULD his argument for editing/breaking/changing the commandment be "man made tradition WHEN in Mark 7 Christ CONDEMNED all attempts to REPLACE God's COMMANDMENT with MAN's Tradition??

Wouldn't God have to "say" something?

OBviously - he could not let it rest on the same basis that He condemns in Mark 7.

In Christ,

Bob

[prophecynut]

wopik needs a whoppin graemlins/laugh.gif

Eph. 2:20 speaks of a building on a "foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." This building is the Church of which I belong, if the early apostles and prophets formed the foundation under me then I intend to follow suit by worshiping the Lord on the first day of the week.

The prophets are not of the OT and the apostles are not Jesus' apostles, they are secondary apostles and prophets of the early church (Eph. 4:11)

Keeping the Sabbath is part of the law. Paul said in his letter to Titus "pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth" and "avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law..." (1:14; 3:9).

Hey, if you want to hack away at the foundation and build your own out house, that's just find with me, but don't expect me to help you. :D

[prophecynut]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

Christ speaks explicitly of the 7th day saying that it was made "Holy" and "Sanctified" And blessed in Gen 2:3. Hence we have a 7 day week - not a 6 day week. THE ONLY reason it is SEVEN days is Christ the Creator's SAbbath. Does not apply to the Church which was a mystery and is not bound by the law. The old covenant was established with his chosen people, the Hebrews and not the Church.



Christ then says in Mark 2:27 that the SABBATH is made fo mankind and that HE is the Lord of HIS OWN Sabbath - the 7th day.
Jewish tradition had so multiplied the requirements and restrictions for keeping the Sabbath that the burden had become intolerable. Jesus cut across these traditions and emphasized the God-given purpose of the Sabbath - a day intended for the benefit of people for spiritual and physical restoration; see Ex. 20:8-11.


Then in Isaiah 66 we find that Christ predicts that "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".
This is fulfilled during the Millennium; see 19:21; Zec. 14:16.

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

Christ speaks explicitly of the 7th day saying that it was made "Holy" and "Sanctified" And blessed in Gen 2:3. Hence we have a 7 day week - not a 6 day week. THE ONLY reason it is SEVEN days is Christ the Creator's SAbbath. Originally posted by prophecynut:

Does not apply to the ChurchAs it turns out - the Church has to listen to Christ - so you err in that regard.

And "as it turns out" the church still HAS the 7 day week of CREATION week! -- so you err there as well.

Originally posted by prophecynut:
which was a mystery and is not bound by the law.
"DO WE then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith??&gt; GOD FORBID!! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW of God" Rom 3:31.

Rev 14:11-12 "HERE is the patience of the SAINTS here are they that KEEP the commandments of GOD"

Rom 2:11-13 "For NOT the hearers of the LAW are JUST before God but the DOERS of the LAW will be JUSTIFIED"

James 2 "SO LIVE and act as those who are to be JUDGED BY God's LAW of Liberty"!!

Heb 8 "I WILL WRITE MY LAWS on their heart"

I don't know where you get the idea that lawlessness was ever taught by NT saints or that rebellion against God's LAW was ever their command to the saints.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Bob said --
Christ then says in Mark 2:27 that the SABBATH is made fo mankind and that HE is the Lord of HIS OWN Sabbath - the 7th day.
PN
Jewish tradition had so multiplied the requirements and restrictions for keeping the Sabbath that the burden had become intolerable. Jesus cut across these traditions and emphasized the God-given purpose of the Sabbath - a day intended for the benefit of people for spiritual and physical restoration; see Ex. 20:8-11.
True enough. MADE FOR MANKIND it was to be a BENEFIT to mankind not a cures. In fact the 7th day of the week was MADE at CREATION and it was 'made holy' then as well according to the text of Gen 2:3.

Bob Said --
Then in Isaiah 66 we find that Christ predicts that "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".

This is fulfilled during the Millennium; see 19:21; Zec. 14:16. #1. It does not mention an "end" to that practice.

#2. I agree that it starts for the saints "For ALL MANKIND" during the millennium.

#3. Since this is FUTURE to our day - and the Sabbath was STARTED in Gen 2:3 - as a Holy Day - we know that is SPANS the time we live in today.

This would be true for any of God's Laws that start BEFORE our day and are to be CONTINUED in the future.

(Obviously)


In Christ,

Bob

[prophecynut]

Thanks for posting. graemlins/wave.gif

[wopik]

Hi prophecynut,


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentecost 50 days after Passover was on the first day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pentecost was ALWAYS on the day after seven Sabbaths (Lev. 23:15) ---- even in the OT.


Our Saviour Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath; that would make the Sabbath the Lord's Day, still (Matt 12:8 / Isa. 58: 13-14.


Paul told Timothy that the OT Scriptures Timothy knew from a child were able to make him wise unto salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (2 Tim. 3:14-15).

[prophecynut]

My goodness, Wopic is still with us, I thought I might of scared you off.

Isa. 58:13-14
I don' think you know who the Sabbath commandment was given to; certainly not to the mysterious Church revealed to Paul much later.

Personnel pronouns are used extensively throughtout the passage: you keep your feet - doing as you please - you call the Sabbath - you honor it - going your own way - you will find - cause you to ride. These pronouns refer to the 12 tribes of Israel as verified by "Jacob" in the 14th verse. Jacob is said to be "of the land" which is Israel. If the church is not in the context then you should not include it in your interpretations. One passage in Isaiah that does speak of the Church is 65:13-15.

Mt. 12:8
Do you realize the Church is never instructed to look for the "Son of Man" who is Israel's Messiah. This term is absent from the thirteen NT letters attributed to Paul and absent from other NT letters with the exception of Hebrews.

Observance of the Sabbath and all its restrictions is not related to God's plan for the Church as evident of its exclusion from the NT letters, except Col. 2:16 condemning those who command Sabbath obedience.

The lack of Paul instructing the Church in the Sabbath or Son of man affirms Dispensationalism. Keep Jewish myths and customs out of the Church.

Again, if observance of the Sabbath is not in the context of the Church then don't include it in your interpretations

[BobRyan]

Mark 2:27 "The Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND"

Isaiah 66 "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".

Gen 1 - "God MADE MANKIND in His own image" on the 6th day of Creation Week and on the 7th day (Gen 2:3) HE made the Sabbath "A Holy Day".

This is why D. L. Moody can be so certain that the Sabbath was made for MANKIND --

IN Christ,

Bob

[wopik]

The lack of Paul instructing the Church in the Sabbath...the total silence of Paul instructing the Church to keep "the first day of the week".

[prophecynut]

Paul worshipped and held the Lord's supper on the first day - Acts 20:7

Paul had collections on the first day - 1 Cor. 16:2.

Paul practice what was divinely revealed to him by the risen Christ. He set the foundation and example of we do to today. Over and out, wopic.

[tamborine lady]

graemlins/type.gif

Please read the following. Don't just skim it and then say no.

Lets look at the whole scripture, Acts 20-7 thru 11.

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.
8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.
9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verse 7 says : And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread.

Now, you have to remember that the Sabbath started on fri nite at 6 P.M. and ENDS sat nite at 6 P.M. Verse 7 also says they came together to break bread. So when they came together on the "1 st day of the week" it was just after 6 P.M.on sat nite! After the Sabbath is celebrated, then they eat. The Sabbath was over, but it was still sat nite.

The rest of that verse is: Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. ( From a little after 6 P.M. to midnight).

Then the young man fell out of the window, and they all ran down and Paul prayed , and God restored him and then----

Acts 20- 11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.

So then they ate some more,and ate and talked a long time until it got to be daylight. So he departed.

He left on sunday morning, he did not start preaching on sunday morning.

Selah,

Tam

[BobRyan]

#1. 1 Cor 16 "on week-day-one let each ONE lay in store by HIMSELF" -- this is not a group meeting - it is individual saving weekly on "Week-day-one".

#2. This was a great place to call week-day-one something that would give it honor. A name ... like "The Lord's Day" maybe - if one were really INTRODUCING the practice for the day or if one were now referencing the day as special.

Recall "For the Seventh-day IS THE SABBATH of the Lord your God". What a great formula God has for showing that HE sanctifies, blesses and makes a day Holy. Isiah 58 For the "Sabbath is the Holy Day of the Lord". Perfect!

What about 1Cor 16?? "Week-day-one".

#3. 1Cor 16 is significant in that it is the only place in all of the NT where ANYTHING is commanded regarding this day - and yet it is merely referenced as "week-day-one".

#4. 1Cor 16 is significant in that the "giving" of the offering - received by an official church member is said to be at Paul's OWN reception of the gift -- no "service" is mentioned on "week-day-one" just the "laying by" that is done by EACH ONE "by himself".

The details are all pretty interesting if you ask me.

In Christ,

Bob

[prophecynut]

Lukes's method of counting days here was not Jewish, which measures from sundown to sundown, but Roman, which counted from midnight to midnight. This can be stated dogmatically because "daylight (V. 11) was the next day (v.7).

Probably the church met at night because most people had to work during the day. Because Paul was leaving them, possible for the final time, he prolonged his discourse until midnight .

[BobRyan]

Acts 20
7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.
8 There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together.
9 And there was a young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor and was picked up dead.
10 But Paul went down and fell upon him, and after embracing him, he said, "" Do not be troubled, for his life is in him.''
11 When he had gone back up and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while until daybreak, and then left.
Is Luke ignoring the Bible reckoning of time because he says “daybreak”??

#1. Luke does not say “the next day begins at daybreak”. Nor did Romans use such a system.
#2. Luke does not give the start time of this meeting. We do not know if it was prior to Sunset or after sunset. Prior to Sunset would mean that the “next day” was week-day-two and the bulk of the meeting was actually taking place on the evening of week-day-two.



Luke 4:41 – His Gospel does the same thing –
42At daybreak Jesus went out to a solitary place. The people were looking for him and when they came to where he was, they tried to keep him from leaving them.
43 But he said, "I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent."

Luke 22
66At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them.
67"If you are the Christ,[a]" they said, "tell us."
But we know that Luke used the term “Daybreak” to mean “dawn” or morning – keeping in harmony with Jewish reckoning (neither Jews nor Romans started the day at dawn). He is perfectly consistent in speak of “Dawn” as daybreak in Luke 22 and observing that on Friday evening the Sabbath “was about to being”.


Luke 23
54It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.

[prophecynut]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

Is Luke ignoring the Bible reckoning of time because he says “daybreak”??

Luke was not ignoring Bible/Jewish reckoning of time, he was a Gentile educated in Greek culture and speaking in a Hellenistic city, he would of used the Roman method of reporting time.

Clean those Jewish cobwebs out of your head.

[wopik]

Paul had collections on the first day - 1 Cor. 16:2.This was a normal working day, to collect and pack up the FRUIT which had been stored – laid by - for the poor saints in Jerusalem, who were experiencing drought and famine.


To the Romans, Paul says: “But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it has pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia [where the Corinthian Church was located] to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem…..When therefore, I have performed this and have sealed to them THIS FRUIT, I will come by you into Spain” (Romans 15: 25-28).

[wopik]

Acts 20:7-11 is more of a one-of-a-kind extraordinary occasion than a habitual custom.

This gathering seems to be brought on by the impending departure of Paul -- to bid farewell to Paul.


Paul and his friends could not, as good Jews, start out on a journey on the Sabbath; they did so as soon after it as was possible, v.11, at dawn on the 'first day' - the Sabbath having ended at sunset.

[prophecynut]

1 Cor. 16:2

"On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income,....."

[wopik]

Hello, prophecynut --


1 Cor. 16:2

"On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income,....." This speaks of a collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem who were suffering from drought and famine. They needed FOOD, not money.

Notice Paul had given similar instructions to other churches: "...When therefore, I have performed this and have sealed to them THIS FRUIT, I will come by you into Spain” (Romans 15: 25-28).

[wopik]

Famine Relief for the Brethren in Judea --


Acts
11:27
And in these days prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch.


11:28
Then one of them, named Agabus, stood up and showed by the Spirit that there was going to be a great famine throughout all the world, which also happened in the days of Claudius Caesar.


11:29
Then the disciples, each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren dwelling in Judea.


11:30
This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 20
7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.
8 There were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together.
9 And there was a young man named Eutychus sitting on the window sill, sinking into a deep sleep; and as Paul kept on talking, he was overcome by sleep and fell down from the third floor and was picked up dead.
10 But Paul went down and fell upon him, and after embracing him, he said, "" Do not be troubled, for his life is in him.''
11 When he had gone back up and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while until daybreak, and then left.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Luke ignoring the Bible reckoning of time because he says “daybreak”??

#1. Luke does not say “the next day begins at daybreak”. Nor did Romans use such a system.
#2. Luke does not give the start time of this meeting. We do not know if it was prior to Sunset or after sunset. Prior to Sunset would mean that the “next day” was week-day-two and the bulk of the meeting was actually taking place on the evening of week-day-two.

Prophecynut said --
Luke was not ignoring Bible/Jewish reckoning of time, he was a Gentile educated in Greek culture and speaking in a Hellenistic city, he would of used the Roman method of reporting time.

Clean those Jewish cobwebs out of your head. What a nice way to gloss over points 1 and 2 aobve!

Here they are again as they debunk your speculation about what Luke is doing "again".

#1. Luke does not say “the next day begins at daybreak”. Nor did Romans use such a system.

#2. Luke does not give the start time of this meeting. We do not know if it was prior to Sunset or after sunset. Prior to Sunset would mean that the “next day” was week-day-two and the bulk of the meeting was actually taking place on the evening of week-day-two.


I guess you have to read the points to respond.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Luke 22
66 At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them.
67"If you are the Christ,[a]" they said, "tell us."

We know that Luke used the term “Daybreak” to mean “dawn” or morning – keeping in harmony with Jewish reckoning (neither Jews nor Romans started the day at dawn). He is perfectly consistent in speak of “Dawn” as daybreak in Luke 22 and observing that on Friday evening the Sabbath “was about to being”.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke 23
54It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prophecynut said --
Luke was not ignoring Bible/Jewish reckoning of time, he was a Gentile educated in Greek culture Surely you don't think SAbbath begins at "daybreak on Saturday morning"??!!!

[wopik]

Surely you don't think SAbbath begins at "daybreak on Saturday morning"??!!! "Paul and his friends could not, as good Jews, start out on a journey on the Sabbath; they did so as soon after it as was possible, v.11, at dawn on the 'first day' - the Sabbath having ended at sunset."

[prophecynut]

Galatians 4:9-10
...."how is it that (Bob Ryan and Wopik) are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? (Bob Ryan and Wopik) are observing special days (sabbaths) and months, and seasons, and years."

[wopik]

Hello, prophecynut --


Galatians 4:9-10
...."how is it that (Bob Ryan and Wopik) are turning back to those weak and miserable principles?First of all, in Galatians 4, Paul is speaking to pagan Gentile converts who never knew the true God (vs 8).

These Galatians were the same people whom Paul and Barnabas encountered in the Galatian cities of Lystra and Derby. These Galatian PAGANS thought Paul and Barnabas were their gods Mercury and Jupiter (Acts 14:6-16).

In Galatians 4:8, Paul makes reference to this by telling them "you did service unto them which by nature are NO gods." Mercury and Jupiter are NO gods.


Paul -- who calls the Commandments and Law of God holy, just and good (Romans 7:12, 25) -- would never refer to them as "weak and miserable principles" -- as you state.

Referring to the LORD's holidays (Lev. 23) and laws as weak and miserable is an insult to God who created them for our good.


(Bob Ryan and Wopik) are observing special days (sabbaths) and months, and seasons, and yearsAnd you don't observe any special religious days?

Perhaps you forgot about Sunday, Good Friday, Easter, Christmas, Halloween, etc.......

[prophecynut]

http://www.gospelway.com/topics/bible/christian_sabbath.htmIt


It is true that God required the Israelites to keep the Sabbath under the Old Testament. However, the New Testament nowhere tells us that Christians should keep the Sabbath today.

The Sabbath was unquestionably the seventh day of the week. I realize there are many people who believe that Sunday (the first day of the week) is the "Christian Sabbath." However, there is simply no Bible evidence to substantiate such a view. If so, what would it be?

The Bible makes quite clear that the Sabbath was the seventh day of the week (Ex. 20:9,10). In the New Testament, however, Christians had the Lord's supper and the collection on the "first day of the week" (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1,2). No passage anywhere indicates that the first day of the week is a day of rest. Rather, it is a day on which we worship God by remembering Jesus' death, etc.

Since the "seventh day of the week" and the "first day of the week" are clearly two different days, it follows that the first day of the week is not and never has been a weekly "Sabbath" or day of rest.

Since some may still be confused, however, let us consider the evidence more closely. In order to be sure people understand what day the "seventh day of the week" Sabbath was, God specified in Ex. 20:8-11 that, when people did keep the Sabbath, it was the seventh day of the week. This is explained further by paralleling it to the fact God made all things in six days, then rested on the "seventh day." So the seventh day is clearly the last day of the week.

To make this even more clear, please look at the creation account in Gen. 1&2. Each day is counted, and we are told what God did on each day. Specifically, He made the light on "the first day" (1:3-5). After a total of six such days of creation, we are told that He ended His work and rested "on the seventh day" (2:1,2). Furthermore, 2:3 says he blessed the seventh day because it was the day on which He rested.

There can be no doubt about the meaning here. The "first day" means the day that begins the week, and the "seventh day" means the day that ends the week. There is simply no way that any day can be both the "seventh day" and the "first day of the week." They are two distinct days. To deny this would be to deny the plain statements of Scripture. Furthermore, it is clear that the Sabbath was the "seventh day," not the "first day."

To bind a Sabbath of any kind today is to bind what God expressly states should not be bound (see Colossians 2:14,16; cf. Hebrews 10:1-10; 8:6-13; 9:1-4; Galatians 3:24,25; 5:1-6). One may, of course, simply choose to rest on any day he wishes as a matter of personal preference, but he cannot properly do so as an act of obedience to any Divine command today.

But God does want us to worship Him on the "first day of the week," as shown above in Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:1,2. There is simply no way that "the first day of the week" can be the same day as "the seventh day of the week."

[prophecynut]

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/lords_supper_day.phpB.



The Significance of the First Day of the Week

Do other passages imply that the first day of the week has any special significance or not? Is there anything that would explain why God would want the church to assemble on the first day for the Lord's supper and collection?
Mark 16:9 - Jesus arose on the first day of the week.

The resurrection of Jesus is in many ways the greatest event in the history of the world. In many ways the crucifixion was as great, but the crucifixion would have been a defeat had it not been for the resurrection. The crucifixion left the disciples in sorrow and grief. The resurrection was the ultimate victory and cause of rejoicing.

Furthermore, no passage directly names the day of the week on which Jesus died, but all four gospel accounts tell us Jesus arose on the first day of the week, and all of them mention it repeatedly. Why this emphasis on the first day unless there is some significance to it? (Luke 24:1,4,21; Mk. 16:2; Matt. 26:1-7; Luke 24:1-9; John 20:1-10; see also the verses under the following points.)
John 20:19 - Jesus first appeared to His disciples on the first day of the week.

Jesus' appearances are also crucial to our faith, because by them He proved that He really is the Son of God (Rom. 1:4; 1 Cor. 15:1-8).

On that first day of the week after He had arisen, He appeared several times (Mark 16:2,9; Matt. 26:1,8-10; Luke 24:1,19-21; John 20:1,11-19). Note that one of these appearances occurred when the disciples had assembled. The disciples assembled on the first day of the week, because Jesus had arisen on that day. And Jesus Himself chose to come to that assembly (cf. Luke 24:33-40).
John 20:26 - The second day that Jesus appeared to the disciples was also a first day of the week.

Again we are told the disciples came together. This was the eighth day after the first appearances. The way days were counted would make this the next first day of the week (cf. Lev. 23:39).

So on the day Jesus arose the disciples assembled; then the next first day the disciples assembled again. On both occasions Jesus honored their assembly by coming Himself. Is this just coincidence?

You would not expect these passages to mention the Lord's supper, since the church had not yet begun. But if there is no significance to the fact these things happened on the first day of the week, why are we so expressly told the day when it happened?
Acts 2:1 - The day of Pentecost was a first day of the week (Lev. 23:15,16).

Note that the apostles had already gathered together on this day, even before they had any idea that the Holy Spirit would come then (cf. 1:1-11). But the Holy Spirit did come to their meeting. As a result many assembled together, the gospel was preached, and 3000 were baptized.

Note the great events that occurred on this first day of the week: (1) The Holy Spirit came. (2) The gospel was preached for the first time. (3) The first people were converted and became Christians. (4) The church began (cf. v47).

All this happened when the disciples were assembled together on the first day of the week. And from this time on they continued in, among other things, the Lord's supper (v42).
Acts 20:7 - The disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread.

This may be the only time the Lord's supper is directly mentioned on the first day of the week, but it is certainly not the only passage that shows the first day of the week is significant. Nor is it the only passage that shows the disciples assembling on the first day of the week.
1 Corinthians 16:1,2 - The churches took up collections each first day of the week.

Together with all the other passages regarding the first day of the week and regarding Christians' assembling, this confirms that Christians assembled and took up the collection on that day.
Conclusions

Note the tremendous significance the first day of the week has to Christians.

Many of the greatest events in the history of the church occurred on that day. And of the events that occurred on that day, four of them involved Christians assembling on that day, and a fifth surely implies assembling. On two of these occasions, Jesus Himself attended those assemblies, and on another occasion the Holy Spirit attended. How can anyone doubt that the first day of the week has special significance in God's plan?

To see the force of this, consider what passages or events expressly name any other day of the week.

All these events, assemblies, and acts of worship are expressly mentioned as occurring on the first day of the week. But not one time is any other day of the week named as have any significance whatever to Christians. The second day of the week, third day, etc., are never even mentioned. The seventh day is mentioned, but only in connection with meetings of Jews, never in connection with meetings of Christians or events of special significance to Christians.

Some important events may have happened on other days, but never is any significance attached to the day. The day of the week is never named. Why all this emphasis on the first day, unless there is something special and significant about it?

So our study of other passages has turned up nothing to indicate the taking of the Lord's supper on the first day of the week in Acts 20:7 was just optional or coincidental. Nothing gives authority for having it any other day of the week.

In fact our study of other passages simply confirms the importance of the first day of the week. Considering these other passages, we are not surprised to see the disciples breaking bread on the first day of the week. We would be surprised to see it on any other day of the week.

The only day that has special significance for Christians is the first day of the week, and that is the only day on which we find Christians partaking of the Lord's supper.
CONCLUSION

Consider what we have learned in this study:

1) We must have Bible authority for all we do, and we must refuse to do that for which we have no Bible authority.

2) God's authority is revealed to us by examples and necessary inferences, as well as by commands.

3) God has always revealed the time and frequency for observing His special memorials and feasts.

4) The disciples were regular and diligent in having the Lord's supper and in assembling together.

5) The Lord's supper was eaten when the church was assembled.

6) Many major events in New Testament history occurred on the first day of the week.

7) Several passages mention Christians assembling on the first day of the week.

8) The Christians were commanded to give regularly on the first day of the week.

9) The disciples came together on the first day of the week to break bread.

10) The New Testament attaches no significance to any other day of the week, nor is there any indication the Lord's supper was eaten on any other day.

Conclusion: Bible authority teaches us to have the Lord's supper on each first day of the week. To have it any other day is to act without God's authority. Therefore, Christians must refuse to eat it on any other day.
And the Rapture will be on the first day of the week.

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by wopik:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Surely you don't think SAbbath begins at "daybreak on Saturday morning"??!!! "Paul and his friends could not, as good Jews, start out on a journey on the Sabbath; they did so as soon after it as was possible, v.11, at dawn on the 'first day' - the Sabbath having ended at sunset." </font>[/QUOTE]That is entirely possible (if the meeting began after sunset and so it was week-day-1 just after sunset which is Saturday night).

But if the meeting started just before sunset on week-day-one (That would be Sunday afternoon) then the main portion was on Sunday evening
(Weekday-two in the evening) and they would be leaving early on Monday morning.

Either way it is a problem because those who want to claim that "meeting" means Sabbath - will have a Saturday night meeting in the first scenario followed by travel all day on Sunday.

In the second scenario they will have a Sunday afternoon meeting followed by ALL evening meeting on weekday-2 (sunday evening) which means that the famous "meeting means holy" rule would make Monday a holy day by "man's tradition".

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Man's tradition prompts us to celeberate the resurrection of Christ on a yearly basis on resurrection Sunday. This is certainly a wonderful tradition but is hardly a "weekly" event.

The only "weekly" cycle that mankind has - is the one that Christ the Creator gave us in Genesis 1-2:3. That is the ONLY "memorial" given to mankind on a weekly cycle.

The only reason that mankind would want to break that cycle and exchange Christ's own Holy Day for one of man's-own-making is that we have a problem with Christ the Creator's day and with His Law written on the heart. That problem is simply an error introduced into Christianity long after the Apostles died.

In Christ,

Bob

[wopik]

Hello, BobRyan


The only reason that mankind would want to break that cycle and exchange Christ's own Holy Day for one of man's-own-making is that we have a problem with Christ the Creator's day and with His Law written on the heart. That problem is simply an error introduced into Christianity long after the Apostles died.http://www.vision.org/trdl/2001/trdl010420.html

[wopik]

Sunday

Christmas

Easter are all errors that crept into the Church and polluted it.


http://www2.andrews.edu/~samuele/books/sabbath_to_sunday/

[prophecynut]

SUNDAY - Originated with the apostles and prophets who built the Church foundation that you continue to rebel against.

CHRISTMAS, EASTER - Started by the apostate Roman Catholic Church.

The Sabbath was given to God's chosen people, the Israelites. Here's the proof:

Exodus 31:12-17 - Say to the Israelites "you must observe my Sabbatts."

Lev. 26:2 - "Observe my Sabbaths."

Isa. 56:4 - "eunuchs who keep my Sabbath."

Jer. 17:19-27 - "the people though which the Kings of Judah go in and out."

Ezk. 20:12,20 - "I gave them my Sabbaths." "Keep my Sabbaths holy."


Give me Scriptural poof that observance of the Sabbath was given to the Church.

[wopik]

Give me Scriptural poof that observance of the Sabbath was given to the Church. The purpose behind most laws is clear, and that which lies behind the Old Testament commands about the Sabbath is evident.

Once this purpose is understood, it becomes obvious why no New Testament restatement of the basic command was necessary, or even likely.

The New Testament discussions and examples concern how to keep the Sabbath (in spirit rather than in a rigid, legalistic manner), not whether to keep it.


http://intercontinentalcog.org/ICGCC/Lesson_Seven.shtml


The most important New Testament statement on the Sabbath was spoken by Jesus Christ as quoted in Mark 2:27-28.


Jesus not only affirms the Sabbath command, He also instructs us about its purpose. "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Thus, it is apparent that the Sabbath was made for men, for his spiritual and physical benefit.

[wopik]

Annual Holy Days that were ordered by God, kept by the ancient Israelites and continued by the early New Testament Christians.

These seven annual "appointed feasts" pictures God's plan of salvation for man.


http://www.intercontinentalcog.org/ICGCC/Lesson_Ten.shtml

[prophecynut]

wopic

I checked out the sites, all the references they give apply to the Israelites and not the Church.

The Church began in Acts 2 and ends in Rev.4:1; you must locate Scripture within these parameters. There are a few prophetic references to the Church in the OT but no commands to observed the Sabbath.

After checking again and the sites do reference Scriptures within the parameters, but no not give eplicit instructions or commands to the Church for observing the Sabbath.

[ June 17, 2005, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: prophecynut ]

[wopik]

SUNDAY - Originated with the apostles and prophets who built the Church foundation that you continue to rebel against.These Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah continued to keep the Sabbath as a perpetual covenant - throughout their generations, as the LORD commanded.


The Sabbath has always been open to Gentiles (Isa 56: 1-8 / Acts 13: 42-44).


Paul bypassed a Sunday inorder to preach and meet with Gentiles a whole week later - on the following Sabbath (Acts 13: 42-44) -- to preach the grace of God (vs 43).

[prophecynut]

Wopik, you have not answered my request - where does Paul tell us to keep or observe the Sabbath?

There are Jews who have accepted Jesus who commemorate the Sabbath but not as a binding covenant like you think. Those who keep or observe it as a perpetual covenant, like some in the SDA church, have not accepted Christ as Savior or are born again.

Isa. 56 is fulfilled during the Millennium and is not applicable to Jews or Gentiles today. A brief commentary follows:


v.1 - "My righteouness will soon be revealed" is the coming of Christ to set up his kingdom on earth.

v.4-6 - Foreigners or Gentiles who keep the Sabbath during the Millennium will be honored in his temple. The Sabbath does not apply to Gentiles today or in Isaiah's time for they are excluded under the Mosaic Law (Deu. 23:1).

v.7 - "my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations" - This can only happen during the Millennium. The "house of prayer" is the Millennial Temple (Eze.40-48).

v.8 - He who gathers the exiles of Israel: " I will gather still others to them besides those already gathered." Those already gathered are the Jews presently in Israel (Eze. 38:8,27), who survive the Tribulation. At the Second Coming "still other" Jews will be gathered for the Millennium (Eze. 28:25-26), and are the elect of Mt. 24:31.

Although Paul was a Jew he was not bound by the OT law and religious practices. For the sake of winning Jews to Christ he conformed to the Jewish law and interacted with them in the synagogues and on the Sabbath. Paul became "all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some (1 Cor. 9:20,22).

I'm not going to ask you again, where is the proof that the Church must adhere to the Sabbath?

Gentiles are excluded from the Mosaic Law, why do comply with the Sabbath and expect others to?

[tamborine lady]

graemlins/type.gif

Acts 13-42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.(Sat-7th day)

Notice that they asked to be preached to the next sabbath??

Acts 18-4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.------

Notice he said Jews AND Greeks, not just Jews!

Acts 13- 14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.

They did that because they were observing the sabbath!!

Acts 22-19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee

The Christians were in the synagogue on the Sabbath day. Why were they there? They were observing the sabbath day!!!

tam

[prophecynut]

The early church was predominately Jewish, they were accustom to meeting in synagogues. The leaders were interested in Paul's message and desired to hear more. Paul having success the first time was glad to return a second time hoping more Jews would receive Christ.

Paul's regular practice was to begin his preaching in the syngogue where Jews congregated. His reason for doing so was grounded in his understanding of God's redemptive plan for the Jew first and then the Gentile (v.64; Ro 1:16; 2:9-10). He was not neglecting his Gentile mission, for the Gentiles who were also interested in his message went to the Synagogues. Moreover, the synagogue provided a ready made preaching situation with a building, regularly scheduled meetings and a people who know the OT Scriptures. It was customary to invite visitors, and especially visiting rabbis (such as Paul), to address the gathering.

Much like today when evangelist preach the Word to those interested.

Assuming your a Gentile you're excluded from the Mosiac Law, and as a Christian you should not be involved legalistic rituals.

I don't want Scriptures that remotely imply observance of the Sabbath, rather proof that God has commanded the Church to observe it. OK?

[wopik]

prophecynut,

I don't want Scriptures that remotely imply observance of the Sabbath, rather proof that God has commanded the Church to observe it. OK? The Twelve Apostles and Paul were Commandment keepers, meaning they kept all TEN of the TEN Commandments---including the Fourth.

Jesus told the young Lawyer (Matt. 19:17-19) to keep the Commandments, and Jesus recited a few of them.

Paul said nothing was as important as keeping the Commandments of God (1 Cor. 7:19). These were the TEN Commandments (Rom 7:7).


1 John 3:4 - sin is transgressing the Law. James says what Law:

James 2: 10-12 ---- keep all the TEN Commandments.

[ June 18, 2005, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: wopik ]

[wopik]

tamborine lady,

I never took you for a Sabbath promoter. Nice post.

Jesus our God says: "the Sabbath was made for man....." (Mk. 2: 27-28).


The Jews got into so much trouble with God for polluting the Sabbath in previous centuries BC, that they knew better than to forsake the Sabbath. THE SABBATH IS the LORD'S SIGN (Ex. 31:13)-----no wonder Jesus is then LORD OF THE SABBATH (Mk 2: 27-28).


All mankind will be keeping the Sabbath in the Millenium (Isa 66:23).

[prophecynut]

I found this on another bulletin board:

"Seventh-day Adventism is a legalistic, which keeps its members in the slavery of legalism. The Holy Spirit is blocked and not given place in the church for that reason, It is just an organization like any other non Governmental organizational. Among other things, they believe that those of us who worship on Sunday have accepted the mark of the beast and are hell-bound. Saturday is THE Sabbath...no other.
They believe in strict eating laws, and that those of us who eat unclean food are hell-bound."


Care to elaborate on your false prophet Ellen G. White.


Beats me why SDA's are allowed to post on this Christian message board.

[tamborine lady]

graemlins/type.gif

tamborine lady,

I never took you for a Sabbath promoter. Nice post.

thanks Wopik!!

Just so you will know, Prophecynut. I am not a Seventh Day Adventist!!

Just because someone keeps the sabbath, it does not AUTOMATICALLY make them a SDA!!

Ellen G. White is a false prophet. Half of her junk was taken from the writings of other people, so nothing she says (as far as I am concerned) has any merit at all.

There are a lot of other things they preach that I don't agree with either!!

But, back to the Synagogue and the sabbath. As someone else has already said, it was so much a part of life in the NT days, that it was not needed that they should keep telling people to worship on the sabbath. They already knew it was a Holy day.

Jesus and Paul and Peter didn't mention it because it was so OBVIOUS, there was no need!!!

Just because some catholics came along and changed it, doesn't mean it is right.

But, Sunday worship has been going on so long now that it cannot be changed. I know that!

Perhaps the Sabbath should be sdded. Worship God all week-end.

God Bless,

Tam

[prophecynut]

Worship God every day.

Titus 2:9-11
"But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unnprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that,have nothing to do with him. You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

[wopik]

prophecynut,

Titus 2:9-11. Jesus and Paul contiually discussed the Law to the Jews and Gentiles.


tamborine lady

But, Sunday worship has been going on so long now that it cannot be changed. I know that!But it can be changed in individual Christians. Lone individuals or small groups who want to obey and love the Creator God and walk through the "strait gate" to salvation that FEW will find (Matt. 7:12-14).

Luke
12:32
Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.


God gives His Holy Spirit to those who OBEY Him (acts 5:32).

[wopik]

the "strait gate" to salvation that FEW will find (Matt. 7:12-14).like comparing a real dollar bill with a counterfeit bill, only an expert can tell them apart.

How do you become an "expert" ? Keep reading the Bible (cover to cover) and praying for understanding and guidance.


Paul told his close friend Timothy that the Holy Scriptures Timothy knew from a child were able to make him wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 3:15).

The only Holy Scriptures Timothy would have known from a child were the OT Scriptures.

[wopik]

Hebrews (Revised Standard Version)
4:9
So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God;


4:9 (Bible in Basic English)
So that there is still a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God.


what more translations; take your pick.

type in "hebrews 4:9" ---

http://bible.crosswalk.com/ParallelBible/


_________________________________________

type in "rest" and find out that the "rest" in Hebrews 4:9 is the more noble "Sabbatismos".


http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/

[wopik]

prophecynut,

Gentiles are excluded from the Mosaic Law, why do comply with the Sabbath and expect others to? 1 Cor.
9:8
Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also?


9:9
For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about?


9:10
Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.


Those are mighty words of Paul to the NT Church.

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
I found this on another bulletin board:

"Seventh-day Adventism is a legalistic, ...

Care to elaborate on your false prophet ...

Beats me why SDA's are allowed ...Translation: "I could not find a logical Bible based argument against Christ the Creator's own Holy day made holy at Creation -- so I am going to rant against SDAs for a while instead of posting an actual argument".

I am surprised that you caved so soon PN.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by wopik:
All mankind will be keeping the Sabbath in the Millenium (Isa 66:23). [/QB]Some people are sooo busy bashing Christ the Creator's own Holy Day MADE holy at Creation WEEK that they will be surprised to see THEMSELVES doing exactly as God's Word states in Is 66 "FROM SABBATH to SABBATH".

Should be a real treat for Sabbath keeping Christians to see everyone else finally on board!! graemlins/thumbs.gif

Better late than never!! graemlins/type.gif

In Christ,

Bob

[prophecynut]

Originally posted by wopik:
Lone individuals or small groups who want to obey and love the Creator God and walk through the "strait gate" to salvation that FEW will find (Matt. 7:12-14).
According to Wopik the "strait gate" is the SDA religion and confirms what I posted from another board:


Among other things, they believe that those of us who worship on Sunday have accepted the mark of the beast and are hell-bound. Saturday is THE Sabbath...no other.
A sure sign of a cult!

[prophecynut]

Originally posted by wopik:
The Sabbath has always been open to Gentiles (Isa 56: 1-8).
Bob, you're misquoting Wopik, I'm the one who said those in the Millennium will keep the Sabbath.

[BobRyan]

quote:PN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Among other things, they believe that those of us who worship on Sunday have accepted the mark of the beast and are hell-bound. Saturday is THE Sabbath...no other.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well in looking for "Something" that was actually true in your last post I find "Saturday is the Sabbath -- no other".

That is as close as you got.

Actually God said "From evening until evening shall you celebrate Sabbath" so that would be Friday-Evening to Saturday-Evening "and no other".

You seem to be in error on almost everything else.

But the point (of the thread) remains.

People like D. L. Moody and others have taken the Ten commandments to REMAIN and the Sabbath commandment to STILL APPLY (though they would edit Christ the Creator's day to be one of their own choosing).

Others will argue that God's Law is NOT "up for editing" and that you either have to obey it or toss it all out the window -- choosing in that case to toss God's commandments all out the window.

Those are two contradictory ways to view God's Law with the only "common goal" being to eliminate Christ the Creator's OWN Holy Day.

The "Sunday Sermon" OP seems to be more pointed at the first view - KEEPING the Sabbath Commandment as BINDING -- but editing it to fit man's traditions.

Christ had something to say about editing the commandments on behalf of man's traditions in Mark 7.

What do you think of His statement there?

What do you think of D. L. Moody's position on the Sabbath Commandment?

(I am guessing we all know that Moody was not a Seventh-day Baptist, or Seventh-day Adventist or Seventh-day Church of God or ...)

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by wopik:
The Sabbath has always been open to Gentiles (Isa 56: 1-8).
Bob, you're misquoting Wopik, I'm the one who said those in the Millennium will keep the Sabbath. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry about that - I just hit the "quote button" and deleted all but the last sentence in the post.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3232/7.html#000100

The "originally posted by" statement is from the system.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by wopik:

Paul told his close friend Timothy that the Holy Scriptures Timothy knew from a child were able to make him wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 3:15).

The only Holy Scriptures Timothy would have known from a child were the OT Scriptures. [/QB]Very true.

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by wopik:
The Sabbath has always been open to Gentiles (Isa 56: 1-8).
Bob, you're misquoting Wopik, I'm the one who said those in the Millennium will keep the Sabbath. </font>[/QUOTE]At the time God spoke this prophecy through Isaiah -- the Ten commandments were in full effect (by everyone's standard) and yet "ALL MANKIND" was not "having no other God's before the one true God".

Why do you suppose that was?

All mankind was also not conforming to the command to NOT "Take the name of the Lord in vain".

Why do you suppose mankind would be violating that commentment with the commandment in full effect?

And - oh yes -- "all mankind" was not in obedience to Christ the Creator's Holy memorial of Creation -- though the commandment was in full effect.

Why do you suppose that was?


When "ALL MANKIND" is in finally submitted to Christ's Holy Day - (at the 2nd coming) -- what do you suppose will finally have made "the difference"??

In Christ,

Bob

[tamborine lady]

graemlins/type.gif

Amen Wopik!!

[Claudia_T]

I think it's really ridiculous that so many Christians would answer "of course not" when asked if now that they are New Testament Christians and saved by grace, it is allright to kill your neighbor, or to steal from your neighbor or to worship idols (or break any of the ten commandments).

BUT when you ask if they need to keep the Sabbath, these same Christians suddenly express the belief that the Sabbath is the only commandment that doesnt need to be kept anymore. It doesnt make any sense at all.

What gives anybody the right to think THEY can put themselves in the place of God and decide that one of the commandments should be discarded? There is no biblical basis for this whatsiever.

The worst thing about it is that they seem to have no concept about the fact that its the Sabbath commandment, the fourth commandment, that identifies God as our CREATOR... which is the very reason why we owe our worship and respect to His authority in the first place. The Sabbath commandment identifies God, our CREATOR as the true God who "created the heavens and the earth and all that in them is" and spearates Him from all false gods. It is the very core of the ten commandments. The very commandment Satan absolutely hates and wants to obliterate the most.

Revelation 14:
6: And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7: Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
8: And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
9: And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10: The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
12: Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

If those who are identified here as "God's people" are "they who keep the commandments of God" then even a child ought to be able to discern that then those who have the mark of the beast DO NOT keep the commandments.

And which is the very commandment that the angel is pointing out is being broken and needs to have people pay attention to?

Verse 7:"Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters ."

The angel quotes right out of the old testament, the fourth commandment:

Exodus 20:
10: 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:
11: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


Deuteronomy 6:
1: Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:
8: And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.

The ten commandments were to be a "a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes."

on the hand and on the forehead. God's sign. the commandments... God's people.

Rv:13:16: And he (the beast) causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

The Bible says that the beast (little horn power) would "think to change times and laws.) Daniel 7:25.

Dan:7:25: And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws


Let us read a most challenging statement made by the Catholic Church. They have done exactly what God predicted they would do.

"The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret, even divine laws....The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and loosing the sheep."-From the Prompta Bibliotheca published in 1900 in Rome by the press of the propaganda.

"The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ."-Decretal de Translat, Episcop. Cap.

The pope's will stands for reason. He can dispense above the law, and of wrong make right by correcting and changing laws."-Pope Nicholas, Dis. 96.

We can read what the issues are in the end times... and even now. And it is just ridiculous to accuse Seventh Day Adventists of being a "Cult" because they simply are capable of actually reading and accepting what the Scriptures so plainly say. Thats the easy way out, instead of just facing the truth. The Christian Church has been under a terrible deception and needs to come out of it. The Catholic Church has just plain put itself in the place of God and has changed the Sabbath commandment and obviously God is not happy about that.

Rv:18:4: And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Rv:12:17: And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rv:22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

So people can claim the Seventh Day Adventist Church is a "Cult" all they want but it doesnt change the facts. And it doesnt change the warning message that God has seen fit in His infinite wisdom and mercy to give to us all.

------------------

Claudia Thompson

http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org

[ June 20, 2005, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Claudia_T ]

[Claudia_T]

Just a little additional info for those who have never read this:

"They allege the Sabbath changed into Sunday, the Lord's day, contrary to the Decalogue, as it appear, neither is there any example more boasted of than the changing of the Sabbath day. Great, they say, is the power and authority of the church, since it dispensed with one of the Ten Commandments." Martin Luther, Augsburg Confession of Faith, art. 28.

Let us read a most challenging statement made by the Church. They have done exactly what God predicted they would do.

"The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret, even divine laws....The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and loosing the sheep."-From the Prompta Bibliotheca published in 1900 in Rome by the press of the propaganda.

"The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ."-Decretal de Translat, Episcop. Cap.

The pope's will stands for reason. He can dispense above the law, and of wrong make right by correcting and changing laws."-Pope Nicholas, Dis. 96.

It is within the inspired words "think to change times and laws" that we discover the "mark of the beast."

The following are all authentic quotations that will definitely answer our questions as to what the "mark of the beast" is. Notice them carefully.

"The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."-Catholic Mirror, Sept. 23, 1893.

You will notice in this information that the Church declares that it was not God Who changed the day from Saturday to Sunday but that they, the papists, were the ones who made this change. The Sabbath was officially changed by the Papacy at the Council of Laodicea on March 7, 364 A.D. That was 43 years after Constantine declared Sunday the day for Christians to honor as a rest day.

"Question.-Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?"

"Answer.-Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her,-she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."-Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism, p. 174.

This quotation emphasizes the fact that since the world accepts Sunday as a day of worship, this acknowledges her supremacy.

"I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to any one 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 that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.' 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 reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church. 'Priest Enright, C.S.S.R., Kansas City, Missouri.

There is no question concerning the changing of Sabbath the seventh day to Sunday the first day by the Papacy. You can readily see that there is nothing to be found in the Bible about changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. The Papacy is correct in stating that they changed the day.

"In reply to a letter of October 28, 1895, to Cardinal Gibbons, asking if the church claimed the change of the Sabbath as her mark, the following was received: 'Of course the Catholic church claims that the change was her act .... And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters.'-C.F. Thomas, Chancellor."

Sunday is the mark of authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It is the "Mark of the Beast." Of this there is absolutely no question, either in the Word of God or in history.

Are Protestant churches aware of these facts? Do they agree that there is no Scriptural authority for Sunday keeping? Let us now turn to the various Protestant churches and hear from them.

Presbyterian: "The Christian Sabbath (Sunday) is not in the Scripture, and was not by the primitive church called the Sabbath.'Dwight's theology, vol. 4, p. 401.

Congregational: "There is no command in the Bible requiring us to observe the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath." Fowler, Mode and Subjects of Baptism.

Lutheran: "The observance of the Lord's day (Sunday) is founded not on any command of God, but on the authority of the church."-"Augsburg Confession of Faith," quoted in Cox's Sabbath Manual, p. 287.

Friends, don't you think that when a church admits they are following a teaching not founded on the Word of God, they ought to change and follow God's Word?

Episcopalian: "The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday."-Neander, The History of the Christian Religion and Church, p. 186, translated by Henry John Rose, B.D. (Philadelphia: James M. Campbell & Co., 1843).

Here is another church that admits it was not the apostles' intention that the day of worship should ever be changed.

Methodist: "it is true there is no positive command for infant baptism .... Nor is there any for keeping holy the first day of the week."-Rev. Amos Binney, Theological Compend, pp. 180, 181, 1902 ed.

Even our Methodist friends admit that there is nothing in the Bible directing us to keep Sunday holy. Let us turn to our friends the Baptists:

Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, author of The Baptist Manual, before a group of ministers, made this candid admission:

"There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges, and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament, absolutely not. There is no Scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week.

"Of course," he continues, "I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religious day, as we learn from the Christian fathers and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of Paganism, and christened with the name of the sun god, when adopted and sanctioned by the papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism!"-From a paper read before a New York Ministers' Conference, held Nov. 13, 1893.

[Claudia_T]

...just want to add another thought...

It is a terrible shame that nowadays so many Christians have gotten used to throwing this word "Cult" around... that just because a group of people actually have determined that they are going to do what THE BIBLE SAYS instead of what THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS.. this makes them "a Cult".

It is completely ABSURD.

[Claudia_T]

I dont know how anybody could possibly read just the verses below and come away with any sort of idea that God intended us to discard the ten commandments law... much less the Sabbath.


1Jn:3:8: He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Jesus said "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law". A jot or a tittle means a dotting of an i or crossing of a t in the law... not one letter of the law would pass away till heaven and earth pass away. This includes the fourth commandment. We are all still here, aren't we? Has heaven and earth passed away and I just am unaware of it?


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

Rom:6:15: What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Isa:42:21: The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.


Matthew 5:
14: Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15: Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16: Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19: 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.
20: For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23: Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24: Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25: Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26: Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
27: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.


1Jn:2:4: He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

------------------

Claudia Thompson

http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org

[Claudia_T]

...and besides all that, it is just not okay to wake up one day and decide that you are God and that you are going to take God's commandment and decide which of them you are going to change. I dont have the audacity for that and hopefully none of you do either.


2Thes:2:4: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


Mt:15:9: But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


Mt:15:3: But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

[prophecynut]

Claudia is on roll, 5 consecutive posts and still going strong. I checked out her web sites and must say she is one intelligent and talented lady. I copied a part of her testimony in "Meet the Author"


"Christ consented to die in the sinner's stead, that man, by a life of obedience, might escape the penalty of the Law of God. His death did not make the Law of God of none effect; it did not slay the law, lessen its claims, or detract from its sacred dignity. The death of Christ proclaimed the justice of his Father's law in punishing the transgressor, in that he consented to suffer the penalty of the law transgressed himself, in order to save fallen man from its curse. The death of God's beloved Son on the cross shows the immutability of the Law of God. His death magnifies the Law and makes it honorable, and gives evidence to man of its changeless character. From his own divine lips are heard the words, "Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." The death of Christ justified the claims of the law.

But the doctrine is now largely taught that the Gospel of Christ has made the Law of God of no effect; that by "believing" we are released from the necessity of being doers of the word. But this is the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which Christ so unsparingly condemned. To the church of Ephesus he says: 'I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil; and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars; and hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast labored, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.'

Those who are teaching this doctrine to-day have much to say in regard to faith and the righteousness of Christ; but they pervert the truth, and make it serve the cause of error. They declare that we have only to believe on Jesus Christ, and that faith is all-sufficient; that the righteousness of Christ is to be the sinner's credentials; that this imputed righteousness fulfils the law for us, and that we are under no obligation to obey the law of God. This class claim that Christ came to save sinners, and that he has saved them. "I am saved," they will repeat over and over again. But are they saved while transgressing the law of Jehovah?--No; for the garments of Christ's righteousness are not a cloak for iniquity. Such teaching is a gross deception, and Christ becomes to these persons a stumbling-block as he did to the Jews,--to the Jews because they would not receive him as their personal Saviour; to these professed believers in Christ, because they separate Christ and the Law, and regard faith as a substitute for obedience. They separate the Father and the Son, the Saviour of the world. Virtually they teach, both by precept and example, that Christ, by his death, saves men in their transgressions."


Is not this a legalistic approach to salvation?

Roman 13:10
"Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

[prophecynut]

Nicolaitans

"A heretical sect within the church that had worked out a compromise with the pagan society. They apparently taught that spiritual liberty gave them sufficient leeway to practice idolatry and immorality. Tradition identifies them with Nicolas, the proselyte of Antioch who was one of the first seven deacons in the Jerusalem church (Ac 6:5), though the evidence is merely circumstantial. A similar group at Pergamum held the teaching of Ballaam (vv.14-15), and some a Thyatira were followers of the woman Jezebel (v.20). From their heretical tendencies it would appear that all three groups were Nicolaitans."

[Eric B]

What gives anybody the right to think THEY can put themselves in the place of God and decide that one of the commandments should be discarded? There is no biblical basis for this whatsiever. ...and besides all that, it is just not okay to wake up one day and decide that you are God and that you are going to take God's commandment and decide which of them you are going to change. No more than waking up and deciding that you are God, and can change nearly 600 other commands (annual holy days, etc). These charges are ridiculous. We believe God decided it in Roman 14:5, 6 and Col.2:16, and in pronciple, in other places, just like you have your scriptures showing we do not need to keep the rest of the 613. You may not believe those scriptures mean what they say, but don't go accusing others of trying to be God.
If those who are identified here as "God's people" are "they who keep the commandments of God" then even a child ought to be able to discern that then those who have the mark of the beast DO NOT keep the commandments.
the very NT passages used to teach commandment-keeping say that love is the only commandment in this new covenant. (Rom l3:8, 9b, James 2:8, 1 John 3:23, 4:21, 2:7-11, 1:7-11, Matt. 22:37-40 , John l3:31, 15:12, Gal.5:14, 1Tim. 1:5 , Matt. 7:12)
Verse 7:"Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters ."

The angel quotes right out of the old testament, the fourth commandment:

Exodus 20:
10: 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:
11: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
That is NOT a "QUOTE"! That is a reiteration of an eternal truth about God that was mentioned in the commandment. I'm sorry; but that is the lamest reasoning there is. Remember, the Catholics say that because we see heavenly temple ceremony mentioned in conjunction with "worship" and "God's throne" in Rev.4, then that proves we are to have elaborate ritual in the Church where we worship and "come before the throne". God is much more clear on what He expects of us than that. It says nothing about "Sabbath", or is even telling us to do anything other than worship the right Being.
The ten commandments were to be a "a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes."

on the hand and on the forehead. God's sign. the commandments... God's people. "BY THIS shall all men know that you are my disciples—if you have love for one another"(John 13:35) THIS is now the "sign" of God .(But actually it always was, but because Israel would not obey even that, God added on all the ceremonies (Galatians 3:19) to teach them obedience, UNTIL Jesus came with His Law, which is love--once again, apart of "the commandments".

What's so ironic and the ultimate proof against this is that all of the Christian/Messianic lawkeeping sects and denominations reject each other—and all other groups because of differences in their lawkeeping. Armstrong rejects everyone else because they don't preach his "gospel" of men becoming members of the Godhead at the resurrection or follow his church organization, and because many do not keep the law to the extent that he does. And then groups that keep the law to a greater extent, such as the sacred name/Messianic Jewish groups, reject him and each other, as well as everyone else. Armstrong and others like him will use the same reasoning they condemn the non-Sabbathkeepers for to prove that those groups go too far. The Adventists think that all of these groups go too far in keeping all the other laws beside the Sabbath and dietary, and suspect them of denying salvation by faith --also like the Sunday keepers, and the Adventists will agree along with them that the annual feasts were "nailed to the Cross", "were a shadow of Christ", etc. (Also, the Adventists doubt most of these groups for their rejection of the Trinity). Armstrong and similar offshoots point out that "the arguments used against the annual sabbaths are the same used against the weekly sabbath", and the sacred name groups point out "the arguments used against the sacred names are the same used against the sabbaths".

So then the Sabbath and the other commandments cannot possibly be the sign of God because the different groups that keep these laws do not even regard it as a sign amongst each other! There's always some other law, or way of keeping the law, or doctrine that identifies each group as the true church or assembly of the Creator, and all of the other lawkeeping groups are rejected as being just as false as the Sunday keeping churches, and even the pagan religions or just plain non-belief.
It's all about carnal judging and one-upmanship, not God. Do you really think God is pleased with this? (So perhaps it's the people pointing who are making thesemves God!)
But as Armstrong himself ewven said (against rhe doctrine of tongues) "the FRUITS of the Holy Spirit, LOVE, JOY, PEACE, patience, kindness, gentleness.., these things in one's life cannot be counterfeited. They are not natural. No one has sufficient will-power to FORCE himself to show always these fruits in his life. It requires the miracle of the LOVE OF GOD shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom.5:5)."

http://members.aol.com/etb700/sabbath.html

[Claudia_T]

When one studies Bible Prophecy about the end times in the book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel to find out what the "beast" power is, it becomes very obvious that it refers to the Roman Catholic Church. And it becomes very evident what the Mark of the Beast refers to.

Go read this here:
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org/antichrist.htm

...and/or put this in your browser and hit "enter" to download:
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org/nationalsundaylaw.exe

Knowing these things, it makes it very difficult for someone like me to be patient with those who would automatically jump to the conclusion and find the most convenient excuse around to justify their own mistakes and their own negligence in searching out and doing what God tells them to do... instead of just bowing down to what the Catholic Church is and has told them to do in regard to the Sabbath all these years.

Instead of searching the Scriptures for themselves many will just accept what they have been taught all this time. Tradition rules for them. Their father kept the Sunday Sabbath, their Mother kept the Sunday Sabbath, their pastor, their friends, society, and everyone else has gone along with this deception and so instead of having the courage to step out from "tradition" and do the right thing, according to the Scriptures, they will instead try to cast blame upon us, the Seventh Day Adventists, for having the courage to do what is right and to tell them where they have gone astray. And they accuse us of being a "Cult". Well how very convenient.

And if the Scriptures say that God is calling His own people out of this false system, and that if they do not obey the call they will receive the Mark of the Beast, then how on earth are we, who are conscientious about this issue supposed to "in good spirit" ecumenise with those who refuse to do what God says, who refuse to obey the warning? Sould we ecumenise with them just to avoid being labeled a "Cult"? How could we live with ourselves then? How could we claim to love God. How could we claim to love those who are involved in this deception and who are living under God's displeasure?

I just believe that it is very low, very immature, and downright absurd to to try shift the blame upon us, Seventh Day Adventist and take the easy way out, claiming us to be a "Cult" every time we say something that makes you uncomfortable of that you just don't want to have to face.

You can also go to http://www.3abn.org/media/archives/index.php and just take a little time to listen to Pastor David Asscherick's sermons on the Antichrist, and Bible prophecy under the "Variety" section, before making accusations and before labeling us. After all, the Bible does say,

Prov:18:13: He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.


------------------

Claudia Thompson

http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org
http://www.templatehog.com

[BobRyan]

What's so ironic and the ultimate proof against this is that all of the Christian/Messianic lawkeeping sects and denominations reject each other—and all other groups because of differences in their lawkeeping.1. Hmmm. And what about the "lawbreaking sects"??

2. Paul said "Do we then ABOLISH the LAW of GOD by our faith?? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 3:31

Yet your argument above is that to submit to God's word is "evil" (Or did you think that God's Law - ESTABLISHED by our faith - is not part of His Word??).

3. Your argument above is the same one used by Catholics against all non-Catholic Christian churches.

4. Which of the "lawkeeping sects" did D.L. Moody belong too?

[prophecynut]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sda.htmCult


Status: Several prominent theologians, including ex-members of the Seventh-day Adventists, have stated in the past that the SDA church is a cult. In doing this, they do not imply that the church is a mind control cult or a doomsday cult, but simply that some of their beliefs deviate from those of traditional, conservative Christianity. Some attackers have quoted isolated writings of some members of the church and incorrectly asserted that the thoughts represented official church doctrine. Some of the criticisms include:

That the writings of Mrs. White are considered on a par with those of the Bible: inspired by God and infallible.

That the SDA church bases some of its doctrine on the writings of Mrs. White.

That the atonement of Christ was not finished at crucifixion.

None of the above criticisms are valid. Most Christians and Christian organizations now regard the Seventh Day Adventist church simply as a non-cultic denomination with some unique beliefs. 8

[prophecynut]

Was the atonement of Christ not finished at crucifixion?

Are people condemned if not a SDA member?

Are the writings of Mrs. White on par with those of the Bible?

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
Was the atonement of Christ not finished at crucifixion?
1 John 2:2 says that at the cross Christ completed the "ATONING SACRIFICE for THE sins of the WHOLE WORLD".

Adventists fully accept that.

But according to God's OWN definition of Atonement (Lev 16 Day of Atonement) the Atonment is a PROCESS that merely BEGINS with the "Atoning Sacrifice).

Christ went to heaven and is our High Priest (Heb 7-10) completing that part of the ATONEMENT that God shows in Lev 16 where we so BOTH the unique part of the sacrifice (The Atoning Sacrifice) AS WELL AS the following work of the High Priest!

So what is your Question?


Are people condemned if not a SDA member?No - no one is "condemned" because they are not SDA.



Are the writings of Mrs. White on par with those of the Bible? They are the same as the gifts mentioned in 1Cor 12 and 1Cor 14:1 where many/all church members in Corinth had that gift - yet none of them wrote scripture.

Adventism accepts the Gifts of the Spirit mentioned in 1Cor 12. If one wants to charge them with error - then it is there alone. Ellen White is merely an "instance" of someone having one of those gifts. The root issue is 1Cor 12.

One can not argue that 1Cor 12 gifts are valid - but "an instance of them" is not!!

In Christ,

Bob

[Eric B]

Rev.13
1-2 This is obviously the four beasts of Daniel 7 put together. The lion is Babylon, the bear is Medo-Persia, the leopard is Greece. The fourth beast was Rome, which expanded to engulf all the strongest characteristics of the other 3 beasts— the lion's mouth, the bear's feet, and the leopard's swift body. Most illustrations erroneously show a 7 headed leopard with 7 lion's mouths and the 10 horns randomly distributed among the heads, but if you put the original four beasts together, it will make up this beast. 1 lion's head + 1 bear's head + 4 leopard's heads (representing the four divisions of Alexander the Great) + the fourth beast's head make the 7 heads. Since this beast represents the expansion of the fourth beast, its head is the "main" head of the beast, which has the lion's mouth (in addition to the lion's head), and thus was wounded in verse 3.

v5 this is the mouth of the "little horn" (Daniel 7:8) who had plucked out the first three horns (Vandals, Heruli, Goths) and then dominated the remaining 7 horns. This is the corrupt church that had become the religion of the empire. The entire beast is not the little horn (church) as the Adventists teach. The term "he was given" used in the KJV and other old translations is the literal word-for-word translation showing that this mouth was ADDED (see Daniel) later; it wasn't one of the beast's original 7 mouths. Power was given to him to continue "42 months". As a day represented a year in OT prophecy (Num. 14:34, Ezek. 4:4-6 ), this would represent the 1260 years from 554 to 1814, when Napoleon was defeated and the Roman power would go into "the bottomless pit".

"The Beast is not the woman who rode the Beast!"

Mark of the Beast
v.16 the second Beast causes all to receive a mark in their right hand or forehead. Now this, everybody agrees, has not been fulfilled yet.

The Bible gives us a valid symbolic interpretation of the right hand and forehead. In Exodus 13:9, Deut.6:1,6-6 and 11:18, it conveys the meaning of work with the hand, and acceptance with the mind. (The Jews did make physical applications of it, though) What's interesting to note, is that the 144,000 earlier mentioned, are "sealed" (7:3,4), and the Seal is the Father's name (14:1), signifying that they belong to Him. And in this case, the seal is ONLY in the forehead, signifying the New Covenant principle of salvation by faith alone. A prototype of this seal of God is in Ezekiel 9:4-6

17 So people will be forced to accept some sort of belief and practice, identifying them as belonging to the Beast, or they will not be able to buy or sell. This doesn't necessarily mean that stores won't accept one's money, as is the assumption in the popular "cashless society" theory, but that a person wouldn't be able to make a living— to even hold a job or function in society! Because enough hasn't been revealed yet, we cannot identify what exactly this mark will be. But as with the image of the beast, we can get some ideas of how it will work.

Several times in the prophecy of Revelation, the faithful, such as those with the seal of God, are said to be those who keep the "commandments of God, and the faith/testimony of Jesus". And this is contrasted with the mark of the Beast. So the Sabbathkeepers have the right idea when they say that this mark of the beast will involve some point of SIN. But they have the wrong issue of what "sin" it will be. This main 'issue of the ages' cannot be the Sabbath-Sunday dispute over 'days' of worship. In the New Testament, the Sabbath and other Old Testament CEREMONIAL 'commandments' are NEVER the issue regarding sin and obedience to God. As those other commandments actually changed in application (Matthew 5), so the spirit of the fourth commandment is resting in Jesus (Matt.11:28-30, Hebrews 4). Yet, it's trusting in Jesus plus the other commandments— not worshiping false gods or idols, blasphemy, killing, adultery, stealing, lying or even the covetousness (lust) that leads us to these things that are clearly emphasized. These are the only things that are mentioned in Revelation and other prophecies as bringing the wrath of God on humanity, not days of worship (except in the Old Covenant when He was dealing specifically with Israel). And since man cannot keep even these commandments perfectly, the ultimate issue for every person is the acceptance or rejection of God's provision for our sinful state— His own Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who died to pay the penalty our sins deserve, so we could be righteous before a holy God. So the issue of the ages basically, is whether people will follow Jesus, or reject Him so they can continue in the lusts of the flesh & eyes, the pride of life, etc. Even those who try to keep the laws of God without Jesus ultimately fall short, and are left in their sins. So in this sense, the fourth commandment— rest/trust in Jesus is the ultimate issue. Millions of people have died without ever having to have accepted or rejected a mark of the beast, and they will still be saved or condemned according to their relationship with Jesus during their lifetime. God could right now send the final wrath mentioned in upcoming chapters to the unregenerate, sinning world, and you wouldn't even need a mark of the beast. (But God is letting the evil powers of the world manifest their rebellion against Him by enforcing some law that will in some way cause people to compromise the commandments of God, and/or ones testimony of Jesus).

One mild example I can use of this is what you may have to do to get a job in the first place. As times are getting tougher, and we compete with the global market, decent jobs one can live off of are getting more scarce and employers are getting increasingly scrutinous on people's work & experience record. Anything can be a spot on one's record, even periods out of work. It's like everyone has to practically lie or bend the truth to accentuate the positive and hide the negative. This was an issue in my early faith as my parents told me "what you have to do to survive" in society, and thought my new profession of faith would hamper that. Lying is sin. Yet, SURVIVAL is now at stake. This is REAL to people. They will do anything to survive, which is the basic instinct in all living things (which right there sets those who would follow the biblical command to give up one's life or freedom rather than support or worship evil against the rest of humanity).This is a fuzzy issue as it involves the question of how much "bending" of one's record constitutes lying, but it does give an example of how this may work.

So Satan is manipulating his business and government systems to make life so desperate that people will easily and quickly follow his Beast system rather than God. The day is fast approaching, when living will be so tight that the only way to survive in society will be by acts that violate God's will and compromise one's faith, whether it be stealing, stepping on others to get ahead, setting aside beliefs and morals to be accepted in society, etc. Every sinful act of greed by both rich and poor, great and small is justified under the guise of "survival". Satan has the entire world gripped by this reasoning, including much of the church. So you see how easily these prophecies can be fulfilled. Also keep in mind once again, that the fulfillment of this will be after the world shaking events of the first four trumpets. Much of society will perhaps even be thrown back into barbarian type conditions where survival certainly will be at any cost.
Anyone caught in their sins without Christ will be under the same wrath, even if he has nothing at all to do with the Beast system and its technologies.

The number 6 represented the number of unrest for man who was created on the 6th day. It falls short of 7, which represented perfection. This goes along with the Gospel teaching about man and sin. Sin brings unrest. And a triple number represented the eternity of the thing symbolized. So 666 then, represents "eternal unrest", the fate of all who die in their sins without Christ. So the most significant term of all that adds up to this number is the Greek he pren— "the [natural] mind". It's this natural or "carnal" mind, devoid of God's Spirit, that is hostile to God (Rom.8:7). It gets us into such trouble with God because "it is not subject to the Law of God, nor indeed can be! So then those who are in the flesh, CANNOT please God" (v.7,8) THIS will be the snare of all the unregenerate people who manage to escape the actual mark of the Beast, such as the northern and eastern powers who fight against the Beast (and are obviously then, not worshiping the Beast). Their rejection of the atoning work of Christ in their lives makes them in God's sight all apart of man's world system of sin led by the archrebel, Satan. This also applies to political conservatives, including religious separatists who think that just shunning the "new world order" puts them on the right side. Yet, their whole agenda boils down to selfish self preservation— a worldly, fleshy value that is also a lure of Satan. (See above under the IMAGE of the Beast). So all unregenerate people, whether officially aligned with the Beast power or not, will still be (spiritually) branded with the number of the Beast, and of sin. (And Christians can unwarily get caught up in supporting it). That's why this verse and others specify "The mark...OR the name...OR the number..." It's possible to have one without the others. But any of them will bring the wrath of God.

So sunday has nothing to do with any of this, and that whole argument falls. And most people debating here are not even pushing for any "Sunday sabbath". Perhaps it's the other side just "accept what they have been taught all this time. Tradition rules for them. Their father called Sunday the mark of the beast, their Mother called Sunday the mark of the beast, their pastor, their church study materials, books, and everyone else in this movement has gone along with this deception and so instead of having the courage to step out from "tradition" and do the right thing, according to the Scriptures, (those who observe the day do not judge those who do not observe the day) they will instead try to cast blame upon us, non-sabbathkeepers, for having the courage to do what is right and to tell them where they have gone astray. (as apart of the instruction to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you --salvation by faith and not the works of the Law(Gal.2:16, 3:2,5,10)-- with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ" (1 Pet.3:16) And they accuse us of being deceived and "following the Roman Catholic Church". Well how very convenient. :rolleyes:
1. Hmmm. And what about the "lawbreaking sects"?? Most do not claim that Sunday is the sign of God. In fact, I don't know of any who have said tha; though some may insist more than others that it is "the Lord's Day". (I do not).
2. Paul said "Do we then ABOLISH the LAW of GOD by our faith?? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 3:31

Yet your argument above is that to submit to God's word is "evil" (Or did you think that God's Law - ESTABLISHED by our faith - is not part of His Word??). You don't keep most of "The Law" Paul was talking about. yet, you believe that you are not making it void, but establishing it. That is what he is saying.
3. Your argument above is the same one used by Catholics against all non-Catholic Christian churches. Most non-Catholics do not claim that being non-Catholic is the sign of God, PLUS many of us do recognize each other IN CHRIST, despite the differences. So that claim of the Catholists (which I dealt with in those debates) was ridiculous. It is men rising up trying to one-up everybody that cause the real division. Yet now in this issue, we have a bunch of them claiming this common practice is "the sign" of God, yet they still find something else to condemn each other for. You can't even agree on what "submitting to God's word" is, and think that keeping less than you keep is "evil". So it is they who show in their actions that it is NOT really "the sign" at all!

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob asks about idea of "lawkeeping" (vs "lawbreaking"?) sects mentioned in a previous post...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Hmmm. And what about the "lawbreaking sects"??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
Most do not claim that Sunday is the sign of God. In fact, I don't know of any who have said tha; though some may insist more than others that it is "the Lord's Day". (I do not).
Most? What? "Lawbreaking sects"???

Are you arguing for "lawbreaking" as the way to have God's Law written on the heart and to have the "Law of God ESTABLISHED by the faith of the saints"???

God claims that the Sabbath is a sign and God claims that "ALL MANKIND" will keep it once ALL MANKIND are composed only of the righteous (after the 2nd coming).

D.L. Mood claims that the Sabbath is still binding and that it is 'edited' to refer to Sunday. In fact he argues it is as binding today as it ever was (in its new edited form).


quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Paul said "Do we then ABOLISH the LAW of GOD by our faith?? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God" Rom 3:31

Yet your argument above is that to submit to God's word is "evil" (Or did you think that God's Law - ESTABLISHED by our faith - is not part of His Word??).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
You don't keep most of "The Law"
You are dodging the point. Paul was not arguing "obedience is impossible!!" -- infact he never argues that case!

You seem to try to seek to "edit Paul" by saying "Obedience is not possible so lets to to bend his words to another objective".

you believe that you are not making it void, but establishing it. That is what he is saying[quote]

Is that the translation of "God forbid!!! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God!"

How "interesting"

quote:Bob said - regarding the claim that supposedly "lawkeeping denomination" don't always "agree"!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Your argument above is the same one used by Catholics against all non-Catholic Christian churches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[quote]Eric B --
Most non-Catholics do not claim that being non-Catholic is the sign of God,
Are you talking about those in Baptist and other denominations who claim that BEING CATHOLIC is NOT being CHRISTIAN??

Eric said --
PLUS many of us do recognize each other IN CHRIST, despite the differences.
Are you saying that Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists "do not recognize each other IN Christ"????

Eric --
So that claim of the Catholists (which I dealt with in those debates) was ridiculous.
TRue their claim was ridiculous - so also the tempt above to use their tactics against those Christian groups who DO choose to honor Christ the Creator's own Holy day!


Eric --
we have a bunch of them claiming this common practice is "the sign" of God
Rather "a sign". Do you reject God's Word where HE claims it as a sign??

Eric --

You can't even agree on what "submitting to God's word" isBack to the RC tactic against non-Catholics "so soon"?? (read the Calvinst vs Arminian debate board for "an example" of the enthusiastic levels of difference that can be expressed among "non-Catholics")

In Christ,

Bob

[prophecynut]

I read all the 27 fundamental beliefs and other information on the official SDA site and conclude there is not much difference between SDA and other Christ centered churches.

It has foot washing as an ordinance in addition to baptism and the Lord's supper.

It says Jesus' atoning sacrifice was offered once for all on the cross but add a 2nd phase of disposing of all sin which will be accomplished at the end of the Millennium.

Observance of Saturday as the Sabbath day for the church.

Adherence to the prophetic teachings of Ellen G White.

One thing that concerned me was her teaching of the SDA church as the "remnant church" with the "spirit of prophecy." She excludes all other churches, thus making the SDA as the only true church. This is not good and as I've said before a sign typical of cults.

As to prophecy she is a Preterist, but we won't get into that. My hope is someday the SDA will be able to shun her teachings and embrace the futurist interpretation of prophecy.

[prophecynut]

I copied this from another Christian board, its similar to what the SDA are doing with their strict adherence to the Sabbath:



Some posts I've read on this thread sounds like another gospel to me. In fact, I know it is another gospel (a works righteousness gospel).

Satan had attempted to destroy the Church by paganizing it, and now he has turned back to trying to destroy it again by Judaizing it, just as he did, in the early Church.

Read Paul's epistle to the churches in Galatia, and you will see how Satan had tryed to destroy the Church, by Judaizing it, bringing believers in Jesus, back under the Law, and under a curse.

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Romans 10:4, NJK).

Some interpret Christ to be the end of the law in the sense that He is the goal or fulfillment of the law. However, "law" here in this passage above refers to the system of earning righteousness in one's own strength.

Christ indeed is the perfect fulfillment of everything the law requires, but He also put an end to the law as way of achieving righteouness for everyone who believes.

Thus Paul emphasizes the sufficiency of faith in receiving the righteousness of God because in fulfilling the law's demands, Christ terminated its claim. However, the passage above does not mean that a Christian may ignore God's "moral" standards or "moral" commandments.

[Eric B]

Most? What? "Lawbreaking sects"???

Are you arguing for "lawbreaking" as the way to have God's Law written on the heart and to have the "Law of God ESTABLISHED by the faith of the saints"???

God claims that the Sabbath is a sign and God claims that "ALL MANKIND" will keep it once ALL MANKIND are composed only of the righteous (after the 2nd coming).

D.L. Mood claims that the Sabbath is still binding and that it is 'edited' to refer to Sunday. In fact he argues it is as binding today as it ever was (in its new edited form).
So was the word "lawbreaking" bait for some sort of trap? I assumed by "lawbreaking", you meant groups that do not keep that 7th day Sabbath (Including Moody). Not groups that profess "lawbreaking". (the groups today that do not keep the sabbath do not advocate "lawbreaking", but believe that the literal application for that one command is no longer law to begin with)
You are dodging the point. Paul was not arguing "obedience is impossible!!" -- infact he never argues that case!

You seem to try to seek to "edit Paul" by saying "Obedience is not possible so lets to to bend his words to another objective".
That wasn't my point either. I was not talking about what was possible to obey, but rather what was superseded. You do not keep most of the Law because you believe it has been superseded.
TRue their claim was ridiculous - so also the tempt above to use their tactics against those Christian groups who DO choose to honor Christ the Creator's own Holy day!
Back to the RC tactic against non-Catholics "so soon"?? (read the Calvinst vs Arminian debate board for "an example" of the enthusiastic levels of difference that can be expressed among "non-Catholics") Are you talking about those in Baptist and other denominations who claim that BEING CATHOLIC is NOT being CHRISTIAN??Many may believe that Catholics are not Christian, though some do not. But they do not believe that ANYTHING BUT a Catholic is a Christian. They question Catholics because of some of their doctrines and practices, and any other group that distorts the Gospel is also rejected. So your comparison of Catholics and sabbathkeepers is not a good one.
Are you saying that Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists "do not recognize each other IN Christ"????Those are about the only two groups that do recognize each other. But not church of God 7th Day, Armstrongism, Sacred Names and radical Messianic Judaism. (as well as orthodox Judaism, which of course is noit even in Christ, but nevertheless keeps the day)! All claim sabbath is THE sign of God's people, but do not recognize you or each other.
Rather "a sign". Do you reject God's Word where HE claims it as a sign??No, you all say THE sign, and reject what God's word says is the sign today.

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Eric B:
[QB] [QUOTE] Most? What? "Lawbreaking sects"???

Are you arguing for "lawbreaking" as the way to have God's Law written on the heart and to have the "Law of God ESTABLISHED by the faith of the saints"???


So was the word "lawbreaking" bait for some sort of trap? I assumed by "lawbreaking", you meant groups that do not keep that 7th day Sabbath (Including Moody).
The term "LawKeeping Sects" was first introduced -- by you.

I was just asking if you were dividing Christdianity into "lawkeeping" vs "lawbreaking" or is it just "law-ignoring"?? It appeared that you wanted to put "lawkeeping" on one side and so that suggests "lawbreaking" for the other.

Hence my question about how that line that you are drawing fits with the New Covenant for the saints where God's Law - is written on the heart and the Law of God is "established by our faith" rather than abolished!

Moody is one of those who argues FOR the continuation of God's Law and that Christians are to be found obedient to it rather than rebellious against it.

Quotes are available.

Since you argue that nobody sees the role of Sunday the same way the bible presents Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh day - I simply was asking where you put D. L. Moody in that picture.


Not groups that profess "lawbreaking". (the groups today that do not keep the sabbath do not advocate "lawbreaking", but believe that the literal application for that one command is no longer law to begin with)
But Moody does. And this was fairly common for both Catholics and non-Catholics in his day.


In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

That wasn't my point either. I was not talking about what was possible to obey, but rather what was superseded. You do not keep most of the Law because you believe it has been superseded.
I don't agree with the "superseded" view.

God's Word is infallible EVEN when HE is speaking it from SINAI HIMSELF! (as difficult as that idea can be to believe).

The Laws God gave in the OT had a specific context.

The Moral Law - the 10 commandments define sin and rebellion vs obedience and worship.

The ceremonial law was "predictive" and pointed to the work of the Messiah as a "type" points to an antitype. Their predictions were fulfilled in the Messiah.

The Lev 19:18 law of Love for our neighbor 'remsains'. The Duet 6:5 command to love God with all the heart - 'remains'.

These are two examples of prescriptive laws that are FULFILLED by Christ but not in the sense of a "prediction" that then has no more function.

The health laws "remain" until our biology is changed.

The civil laws are tied to the theocracy of Israel with God as literal ruling king! When that arrangement was broken "We have no king but Ceasar" the theocracy was ended and its civil laws no longer applicable.

So it is not a quesiton of "bad law superseded by good law" or "bad idea superseded by good idea". Rather - each of the laws had a context. If the context gets deleted - then the law has no domain space.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the RC tactic against non-Catholics "so soon"?? (read the Calvinst vs Arminian debate board for "an example" of the enthusiastic levels of difference that can be expressed among "non-Catholics")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you talking about those in Baptist and other denominations who claim that BEING CATHOLIC is NOT being CHRISTIAN??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said
Many may believe that Catholics are not Christian, though some do not. But they do not believe that ANYTHING BUT a Catholic is a Christian. They question Catholics because of some of their doctrines and practices, and any other group that distorts the Gospel is also rejected. So your comparison of Catholics and sabbathkeepers is not a good one.
It fits rather well since you seek to use the Catholic argument against Sabbath keepers.

But your Catholic argument faile for several reasons.

#1. Adventists don't argue that all Sabbath keepers are saved among Jews, COG, SDA, Seventh-day Baptist eetc just because they are Sabbath keepers.

#2. NOR do they argue that all non-Sabbath keepers are "not Christian" simply because they don't keep Sabbath.

#3. There is not "100% Agreement" among non-Catholic groups on all points of doctrine (see the Calvinist vs Arminian subject thread) NOR is there agreement among Sabbath keeping Christian groups on all points of doctrine.

You are using the Catholic tactic against the Sabbath keeping Christians and it is not working for you any better than it worked for the Catholics against the non-Catholics!

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob gives examples HERE where we see agreement between Sabbath keeping groups.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists "do not recognize each other IN Christ"????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric --
Those are about the only two groups that do recognize each other.
The list of exceptions "goes on and on" in that case.

I have been to many Messianic Christian churches that DO recognize Adventists and other Christian denominations as "Christian". Though I have no doubt you could find some extreme local congregation among them that did not.



But not church of God 7th Day,
There is a 7th-day Church of God AND a Church of God 7th-day.

The one is open to other 7th day groups (such as ADventists) and the other COG group is somewhat more of a closed group.

Your attempt to paint all with a single brush is not working.

It did not work when the Catholics tried it with non-Catholics either.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather "a sign". Do you reject God's Word where HE claims it as a sign??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said
No, you all say THE sign, and reject what God's word says is the sign today. Well #1 it is refreshing that you will admit that God says it IS a sign between Himself and His people.

#2. It was already shown that there are 7th-day keeping Groups that are not considered to be Christian - (Jews for example). So obviously "THE sign" is not accurate.

#3. It was already pointed out that a number of 7th-day groups (lawkeeping sects) as you call them, such as Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists do not fit this square hole you have invented for all Sabbath-keeping Christian churches.

In Christ,

Bob

[Eric B]

The term "LawKeeping Sects" was first introduced -- by you.

I was just asking if you were dividing Christdianity into "lawkeeping" vs "lawbreaking" or is it just "law-ignoring"?? It appeared that you wanted to put "lawkeeping" on one side and so that suggests "lawbreaking" for the other.
Well, you should ask what terms I use for this division, instead of trying to do it for me, and then using it to suggest that I am "Arguing for lawbreaking".
By "Lawkeeping" (should really be cap.) I mean those who insist on a literal application of the OT Law of Moses beyond the universal moral and spiritual laws (Gen. 31:19-36; 3:1-4, 6; 4:8-10-16, 6:11, 9:4-6, 19:1-9; 5-7, 20:3, 31:19), which are also commanded in the NT. The opposite would be "non-Lawkeeping" (which is NOT the same as "lawBREAKING"!), or "non-sabbatarian".
Hence my question about how that line that you are drawing fits with the New Covenant for the saints where God's Law - is written on the heart and the Law of God is "established by our faith" rather than abolished!

Moody is one of those who argues FOR the continuation of God's Law and that Christians are to be found obedient to it rather than rebellious against it. Once again; none of us even preternds to keep the WHOLE Law, and Moody did not even preach the chrief one you argue over, so I don't know why you keep using him. The Church was mistaken for a long time, in saying that we were "under the Law", but then changing the 4th from the seventh day to the first. That was wrong, and most people today recognize it. His version of Christianity is the very one that would argue for your much dreaded "National Sunday Law", so once again, you do not want to hold him up as your true spokesman!
Since you argue that nobody sees the role of Sunday the same way the bible presents Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh day - I simply was asking where you put D. L. Moody in that picture.
But Moody does. And this was fairly common for both Catholics and non-Catholics in his day.
I didn't say NOBODY saw it that way. MOST people here have not argued that Sunday is the Sabbath. One or two may occasionally, but most here say we are not under the OT Law. The point is to argue with those who are here, not Christians from centuries ago. But then, your church's whole "National Sunday Law mark of the Beast" conspiracy theory would fall apart!
I don't agree with the "superseded" view.

God's Word is infallible EVEN when HE is speaking it from SINAI HIMSELF! (as difficult as that idea can be to believe).

The Laws God gave in the OT had a specific context.

The Moral Law - the 10 commandments define sin and rebellion vs obedience and worship.

The ceremonial law was "predictive" and pointed to the work of the Messiah as a "type" points to an antitype. Their predictions were fulfilled in the Messiah. Thus "superseded". This is just semantics.
The Lev 19:18 law of Love for our neighbor 'remsains'. The Duet 6:5 command to love God with all the heart - 'remains'.

These are two examples of prescriptive laws that are FULFILLED by Christ but not in the sense of a "prediction" that then has no more function.
Those aren't simply "two out of 613", but rather the two that the WHOLE LAW hangs on (Matt.22:40). The individual laws themselves can change, as you even acknowledge many ceremonial ones did. But by keeping in principle the two, we establish the wole Law.
The health laws "remain" until our biology is changed. "[ceremonially] clean and unclean" is spiritual; not physical. (2 Cor.6:17)
The civil laws are tied to the theocracy of Israel with God as literal ruling king! When that arrangement was broken "We have no king but Ceasar" the theocracy was ended and its civil laws no longer applicable.

So it is not a quesiton of "bad law superseded by good law" or "bad idea superseded by good idea". Rather - each of the laws had a context. If the context gets deleted - then the law has no domain space. True. Nobody said anything about "bad laws". It was man who was bad, not keeping the Law.
But your Catholic argument faile for several reasons.
#1. Adventists don't argue that all Sabbath keepers are saved among Jews, COG, SDA, Seventh-day Baptist etc. just because they are Sabbath keepers.

#2. NOR do they argue that all non-Sabbath keepers are "not Christian" simply because they don't keep Sabbath. But the SDA, and COG's have claimed it is "the sign" of God. They actually take Ex.31:13 and change it to "the" sign!
It fits rather well since you seek to use the Catholic argument against Sabbath keepers.

#3. There is not "100% Agreement" among non-Catholic groups on all points of doctrine (see the Calvinist vs Arminian subject thread) NOR is there agreement among Sabbath keeping Christian groups on all points of doctrine.

You are using the Catholic tactic against the Sabbath keeping Christians and it is not working for you any better than it worked for the Catholics against the non-Catholics!
No one is using any "Catholic argument". The Catholists claim that their church is the ONLY [ONE] true Church. So they keep throwing up all the "multitudes of disagreeing denominations" to try to prove that only under their authority would there be any unity. We here are not arguing that. Protestants' basic defining doctrine is salvation by faith alone, but they do not hold this up as a particular "sign of God" the way sabbathkeepers do the sabbath. They believe it is necessary to be orthodox, but that is not the same as this talk of a "sign" og God; especially in contrast to the Mark of the Beast!. So the Catholics' arguments against us have nothing toi do with this.

I have been to many Messianic Christian churches that DO recognize Adventists and other Christian denominations as "Christian". Though I have no doubt you could find some extreme local congregation among them that did not.There are many "messianics" who are just regular evangelical groups who meet on the day to reach Jews. I was referring, basically, to the Assemblies and Houses of YHWH ("sacred names"), and the multitude of others in the Directory of Sabbath Observing Groups. They all one-up each other as not keeping the Law right.
There is a 7th-day Church of God AND a Church of God 7th-day.

The one is open to other 7th day groups (such as ADventists) and the other COG group is somewhat more of a closed group.

Your attempt to paint all with a single brush is not working.

It did not work when the Catholics tried it with non-Catholics either.
You're probably referring to the Denver and Salem groups. The Denver group is a bit more open minded, but they do think the Passover on Nisan 14th is necessary, so they would not agree with the SDA on that. They are officially binitarian, but seem to have opened up on that as well. The Salem group is more exclusive. (It is from them that Armstrong came out of). So you've found one more little group that might accept you. Still, this does not erase the Armstrongs, Sacred Names, etc; all of which claim this one practice ios the sign of God. That is the point.
Well #1 it is refreshing that you will admit that God says it IS a sign between Himself and His people. His people in the OT. They were the ONLY group of people who kept it; so it WAS "the sign". But they did not keep the rest of the Law, so all of that changed with Christ.
#2. It was already shown that there are 7th-day keeping Groups that are not considered to be Christian - (Jews for example). So obviously "THE sign" is not accurate But it's your side that keeps using that statement: "Sign of God vs. Mark of the Beast". Just look at Claudia's posts above. You yourself may not have used the exact phrase, but you can't deny that that is what SDA's do say all the time.
#3. It was already pointed out that a number of 7th-day groups (lawkeeping sects) as you call them, such as Seventh-day Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists do not fit this square hole you have invented for all Sabbath-keeping Christian churches. Answered above.

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term "LawKeeping Sects" was first introduced -- by you.

I was just asking if you were dividing Christdianity into "lawkeeping" vs "lawbreaking" or is it just "law-ignoring"?? It appeared that you wanted to put "lawkeeping" on one side and so that suggests "lawbreaking" for the other.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said

By "Lawkeeping" (should really be cap.) I mean those who insist on a literal application of the OT Law

...The opposite would be "non-Lawkeeping"

(which is NOT the same as "lawBREAKING"!),
Clear as mud.

You seem to be doing a lot of dancing around trying to say "non-law-keeping" in a way that is not actually "law breaking".

Try to non-law-keep the 65 MPH speed limit without actually breaking the law.

You seem to need a lot of doublespeak on this one Eric.

For everyone else - you either go the speed limit or you ignore it but in the end it is "obvious" that you are not limiting yourself to the minimum and maximum speeds posted -- even to the Police who don't know that you are thinking to yourself "non-law-keeping not the same as lawbreaking".

The fact that you choose to ignore the 4th commandment in a "non-law-keeping" way is in no way different than actually not honoring Christ the Creator's own Holy Day.

D. L. Moody on the other hand took the position that we NEED to honor Christ's commandment regarding Sabbath and that it is STILL as authorotative as it ever was when first given to mankind in Eden.

To that extent - he gets it.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been to many Messianic Christian churches that DO recognize Adventists and other Christian denominations as "Christian". Though I have no doubt you could find some extreme local congregation among them that did not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric --
There are many "messianics" who are just regular evangelical groups who meet on the day to reach Jews.I don't know of any Messianic Christian church that does NOT think the Sabbath is Holy.

If you have found one - point that odd bird out to me.

All the ones I have attended think the Ten Commandments are still valid AND they think the 4 th commandment is still one of them.

AND they think the Sabbath is from Friday evening to Saturday evening.

Where in the world would you get the idea that they have some non-Sabbath view "but attend worship on Sabbath anyway to reach Jews"???

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
I copied this from another Christian board, its similar to what the SDA are doing with their strict adherence to the Sabbath:

By "Strict adherence" do you mean "refusal to break Christ the Creator's Holy Day that HE made Holy in Gen 2:3 as God's Word states"???

If so -- will you also condemn D.L. Moody and all those HE quotes in support of the 4th commandment as well as Seventh-day Baptists and anyone who dares to honor Christ the Creator's Holy Day?


http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The_TenCommandments_Text.html


Fundamental Baptist Institute
http://www.fbinstitute.com/

presents


THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

BY THE
DWIGHT L. MOODY
The Ten Commandments:
Exodus 20:2-17

.
The Fourth Commandment
Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 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: for in six days the LORD made heaven and Earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.
THERE HAS BEEN an awful letting-down in this country regarding the Sabbath during the last twenty-five years, and many a man has been shorn of spiritual power, like Samson, because he is not straight on this question. Can you say that you observe the Sabbath properly? You may be a professed Christian: are you obeying this commandment? Or do you neglect the house of God on the Sabbath day, and spend your time drinking and carousing in places of vice and crime, showing contempt for God and His law? Are you ready to step into the scales? Where were you last Sabbath? How did you spend it?

I honestly believe that this commandment is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place.
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was- in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins with the word remember, showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?

I believe that the Sabbath question today is a vital one for the whole country. It is the burning question of the present time. If you give up the Sabbath the church goes; if you give up the church the home goes; and if the home goes the nation goes. That is the direction in which we are traveling.

The church of God is losing its power on account of so many people giving up the Sabbath, and using it to promote selfishness.
.
HOW TO OBSERVE THE SABBATH
"Sabbath" means "rest," and the meaning of the word gives a hint as to the true way to observe the day. God rested after creation, and ordained the Sabbath as a rest for man. He blessed it and hallowed it. Remember the rest-day to keep it holy.
In Christ,

Bob

[Claudia_T]

Just as a side note...

Many false impressions about what Seventh Day Adventists believe and teach are out there, including the idea that we condemn people as being "lost" or as "not Christians"... because they aren't Seventh Day Adventists... which is untrue. The reason that in the Book of Revelation God says "Come out of her My people that you be not partaker in her sins" [Revelation 18:4] is because many who ARE His people are ignorantly bowing to the false idol Sunday Sabbath without realizing there is no Biblical foundation for it.

No one has yet received the mark of the beast. Sundaykeeping is not yet the mark of the beast, and will not be until the decree goes forth causing men to worship this idol sabbath. The time will come when this day will be the test, but that time has not come yet. God has given men the Sabbath as a sign between Him and them as a test of their loyalty. Those who, after the light regarding God's law comes to them, continue to disobey and exalt human laws above the law of God in the great crisis before us, will receive the mark of the beast. The Sabbath will be the great test of loyalty, for it is the point of truth especially controverted. When the final test shall be brought to bear upon men, then the line of distinction will be drawn between those who serve God and those who serve Him not.

While the observance of the false sabbath in compliance with the law of the state, contrary to the fourth commandment, will be an avowal of allegiance to a power that is in opposition to God, the keeping of the true Sabbath, in obedience to God's law, is an evidence of loyalty to the Creator. While one class, by accepting the sign of submission to earthly powers, receive the mark of the beast, the other, choosing the token of allegiance to divine authority, receive the seal of God. None are condemned until they have had the light and have seen the obligation of the fourth commandment. But when the decree shall go forth enforcing the counterfeit sabbath, and the loud cry of the third angel shall warn men against the worship of the beast and his image, the line will be clearly drawn between the false and the true. Then those who still continue in transgression will receive the mark of the beast.

When Sunday observance shall be enforced by law, and the world shall be enlightened concerning the obligation of the true Sabbath, then whoever shall transgress the command of God to obey a precept which has no higher authority than that of Rome, will thereby honor popery above God. He is paying homage to Rome, and to the power which enforces the institution ordained by Rome. He is worshiping the beast and his image. As men then reject the institution which God has declared to be the sign of His authority, and honor in its stead that which Rome has chosen as the token of her supremacy, they will thereby accept the sign of allegiance to Rome--"the mark of the beast." And it is not until the issue is thus plainly set before the people, and they are brought to choose between the commandments of God and the commandments of men, that those who continue in transgression will receive "the mark of the beast."


------------------

Claudia Thompson

http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org
http://www.templatehog.com

[prophecynut]

"Come out of her my people" refers to the descendents of Jacob living in America, and not SDA members.

You are a legalist, insisting on strict adherence to the law, what ever happened to the grace of God, do you have any idea what grace is?

[BobRyan]

D.L Moody appeaers to have more on the ball when it comes to this subject than PN -

How could this be when Moody wrote and taught so long ago.

Could it be that today - people are just not reading?

In Christ,

Bob

[prophecynut]

Moody is mistaken.

I'm finished with you and Claudia. graemlins/wave.gif

[BobRyan]

Outstanding - I am sticking with D.L. Moody's view on this point about the Law continued and the 4th commandment still part of the Ten Commandments -- and being able to read scripture without having to pretend not to see the texts about Christ the Creator's Sabbath past present and future.

[Eric B]

Clear as mud.

You seem to be doing a lot of dancing around trying to say "non-law-keeping" in a way that is not actually "law breaking".

Try to non-law-keep the 65 MPH speed limit without actually breaking the law.

You seem to need a lot of doublespeak on this one Eric.

For everyone else - you either go the speed limit or you ignore it but in the end it is "obvious" that you are not limiting yourself to the minimum and maximum speeds posted -- even to the Police who don't know that you are thinking to yourself "non-law-keeping not the same as lawbreaking".

The fact that you choose to ignore the 4th commandment in a "non-law-keeping" way is in no way different than actually not honoring Christ the Creator's own Holy Day. Once again, you do not keep the ENTIRE Law. You say there are some parts that we do not have to keep, and yet are not a "lawbreaker". It's like if everyone is interpreting the speed limit differently (misreading the signs, or didn't realize it was changed), and someone who earlier saw a 55 MPH speed limit judges you for going 65.
I don't know of any Messianic Christian church that does NOT think the Sabbath is Holy.

If you have found one - point that odd bird out to me.

All the ones I have attended think the Ten Commandments are still valid AND they think the 4 th commandment is still one of them.

AND they think the Sabbath is from Friday evening to Saturday evening.

Where in the world would you get the idea that they have some non-Sabbath view "but attend worship on Sabbath anyway to reach Jews"???
"MEssianic" is a very broad category. The Jews For Jesus and other similar ministries can be considered "Messianic", but they do not keep the day. There are some Churches that meet on the day but do not teach it is Law. Then there are the Sacred Name groups I was mentioning, and they DO keep it, plus the annual days, plus many other things thus they they do not see SDA's as really obedient in that matter. Those were the groups that I was referring to (you are the one who mentioned those who accepted SDA's), and that was my point there.

[BobRyan]

quote: Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear as mud.

You seem to be doing a lot of dancing around trying to say "non-law-keeping" in a way that is not actually "law breaking".

Try to non-law-keep the 65 MPH speed limit without actually breaking the law.

You seem to need a lot of doublespeak on this one Eric.

For everyone else - you either go the speed limit or you ignore it but in the end it is "obvious" that you are not limiting yourself to the minimum and maximum speeds posted -- even to the Police who don't know that you are thinking to yourself "non-law-keeping not the same as lawbreaking".

The fact that you choose to ignore the 4th commandment in a "non-law-keeping" way is in no way different than actually not honoring Christ the Creator's own Holy Day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric --
Once again, you do not keep the ENTIRE Law. You say there are some parts that we do not have to keep, and yet are not a "lawbreaker".
If the Law of God is abolished then "we do not ESTABLISH IT" by our faith because it NO LONGER exists.

Contrary to your abolished law - God says our faith is to ESTABLISH the LAW of GOD and the saints KEEP the commandments of God and the LAW of God is WRITTEN on the heart!!

ON "Tablets of the human heart" 2Cor3 rather than merely "tablets of stone".

So there is nothing here about the 10 commandment unit being done away with in order for you to "non-law-keep" what you "claim to ignore".

Your scenario fails.

Eric said
It's like if everyone is interpreting the speed limit differently (misreading the signs, or didn't realize it was changed), and someone who earlier saw a 55 MPH speed limit judges you for going 65.AS in the case above - even YOU admit that you are NOT honoring Christ the Creator's Seventh day Sabbath! It is NOT a question of "not knowing about it".

Again - your argument fails.

Your "non-law-keeping" is in direct reference to IGNORING Christ the Creator's Holy day of Gen 2:3 MADE for MANKIND and kept by ALL MANKIND from Sabbath to Sabbath in the New Earth of Rev21 (the ONLY place the NEW earth doctrine is spelled out in time in the NT).

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

The Jews For Jesus and other similar ministries can be considered "Messianic", but they do not keep the day. All the "Messianic Jewish" congregations I have attended first hand - DO accept the Ten Commandments, DO accept Christ the Creator's Sabbath as REAL and valid and DO keep the day.

This is true also of Adventists, Seventh-day Baptists and other groups that ACCEPT OTHER Christians.

The point remains about Sabbath KEEPING Christian groups that recognize not only other Sabbath keeping Christians BUT ALSO non-Sabbath keeping Christians.

Your straw man fails because it is simply a snippet approach trying to paint with a broad brush as do the Catholics with non-Catholic Christians.

In Christ,

Bob

[Eric B]

If the Law of God is abolished then "we do not ESTABLISH IT" by our faith because it NO LONGER exists.

Contrary to your abolished law - God says our faith is to ESTABLISH the LAW of GOD and the saints KEEP the commandments of God and the LAW of God is WRITTEN on the heart!!

ON "Tablets of the human heart" 2Cor3 rather than merely "tablets of stone".

So there is nothing here about the 10 commandment unit being done away with in order for you to "non-law-keep" what you "claim to ignore".

Your scenario fails. No, your tactic fails. Because "the Law" is more than the 10 Commandments, and no scripture ever makes such a distinction as you make. (And you do keep some of the others besides the 10, but you use a different criterion fo maintaining those). Once again, the 613 hung on the 10, and the 10 hung on the TWO. Just as many of the 613 can be changed, so can the 10, and it's only the universal moral/spiritual laws that remain.
AS in the case above - even YOU admit that you are NOT honoring Christ the Creator's Seventh day Sabbath! It is NOT a question of "not knowing about it".

Again - your argument fails.
That was an EXAMPLE. Not the best one. but the point it, the speed limit could be changed. It could be changed according to space or time. It could be changed in the same location, or it could change as you drive further down the road. In either case, the person who no longer obeys 55 is not breaking the law.
Your "non-law-keeping" is in direct reference to IGNORING Christ the Creator's Holy day of Gen 2:3 MADE for MANKIND and kept by ALL MANKIND from Sabbath to Sabbath in the New Earth of Rev21 (the ONLY place the NEW earth doctrine is spelled out in time in the NT). Even if this were true, that would be an ex-post-facto. The person doing 65 here, and then the speed goes down to 55 further down could not be judged for what he did back here. Or if he did 65 yesterday, then it is made 55 tomorrow. You are coming up with everything but clear scripture showing that the sabbath is mandated TODAY. We do not rip things out of scripture and apply them where they are not applied, trying to generalize what we think is universal.
All the "Messianic Jewish" congregations I have attended first hand - DO accept the Ten Commandments, DO accept Christ the Creator's Sabbath as REAL and valid and DO keep the day.

This is true also of Adventists, Seventh-day Baptists and other groups that ACCEPT OTHER Christians.

The point remains about Sabbath KEEPING Christian groups that recognize not only other Sabbath keeping Christians BUT ALSO non-Sabbath keeping Christians.

Your straw man fails because it is simply a snippet approach trying to paint with a broad brush as do the Catholics with non-Catholic Christians. So you have a handful of groups that supposedly accept each other and us. The other groups besides the SDA are small and relatively few. The majority of the sabbathkeeping movement, in some way descended from Armstrongism, do not accept anybody. But my point is proved bythe presence of just one sabbathkeeping group that does not accept anybody. You all say it is the SIGN of God. If it was, then God Himself would ensure that all those who kept it had unity. He is involved in this whole thing, isn't He? (Or is it just man and his prideful one-upmanship?) But the true sign must be something other than that.
And it is very debatable about how much you all "accept" us, when you come here to judge and accuse us of "lawbreaking", or "ignoring" things of God. So we don't have the mark of the beast "yet". Big deal! We are still deceived and disobedient to you, nonetheless, so you need to quit pretending to be accepting of us.

[prophecynut]

Originally posted by Eric B:
so you need to quit pretending to be accepting of us. Better yet, you need to quit deceiving us.

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the "Messianic Jewish" congregations I have attended first hand - DO accept the Ten Commandments, DO accept Christ the Creator's Sabbath as REAL and valid and DO keep the day.

This is true also of Adventists, Seventh-day Baptists and other groups that ACCEPT OTHER Christians.

The point remains about Sabbath KEEPING Christian groups that recognize not only other Sabbath keeping Christians BUT ALSO non-Sabbath keeping Christians.

Your straw man fails because it is simply a snippet approach trying to paint with a broad brush as do the Catholics with non-Catholic Christians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
So you have a handful of groups that supposedly accept each other and us. The other groups besides the SDA are small and relatively few.
The SDA are among those that DO accept other Sabbath keeping groups as Christians AND other non-Sabbath keeping groups as well.

Your smear against the Sabbath-keeping Christians claiming they DO NOT accept each other or other Christian groups - has failed just as that same style tactic failed for the RCC when it rants about non-Cathlics claiming "all non Catholics are not agreeing with each other so they must be wrong".

Eric said --
But my point is proved bythe presence of just one sabbathkeeping group that does not accept anybodyNot even close!

If the RCC had been able to sustain ITS case by showing that "even ONE non-Catholic Christian group was critical of the others" they would have rejoiced to "declare victory over themselves". It did not work for them - it is not working for you.


In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

The Catholic argument is that IF the non-Catholics "are being led by the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit is the author of confusion" since "they don't accept each other" IF EVEN ONE does not!!

Eric tries the same ploy here.But my point is proved bythe presence of just one sabbathkeeping group that does not accept anybody. You all say it is the SIGN of God. If it was, then God Himself would ensure that all those who kept it had unity

How "transparent".

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote: Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your "non-law-keeping" is in direct reference to IGNORING Christ the Creator's Holy day of Gen 2:3 MADE for MANKIND and kept by ALL MANKIND from Sabbath to Sabbath in the New Earth of Rev21 (the ONLY place the NEW earth doctrine is spelled out in time in the NT).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
Even if this were true
What??? "Even if it were true that you are NOT choosing to keep Christ the Creator's Seventh-day Sabbath"???

If you ARE claiming to KEEP it - this is the FIRST time I have seen it.

How exactly are you "keeping it"??

Please explain in detail!!

Eric said - The person doing 65 here, and then the speed goes down to 55 further down could not be judged for what he did back here.
Is that your "claim"? Do you "Claim" that the 4th commandment has been "edited"???

What is the "edit"??

In Christ,

Bob

[Eric B]

The SDA are among those that DO accept other Sabbath keeping groups as Christians AND other non-Sabbath keeping groups as well.

Your smear against the Sabbath-keeping Christians claiming they DO NOT accept each other or other Christian groups - has failed just as that same style tactic failed for the RCC when it rants about non-Cathlics claiming "all non Catholics are not agreeing with each other so they must be wrong".

If the RCC had been able to sustain ITS case by showing that "even ONE non-Catholic Christian group was critical of the others" they would have rejoiced to "declare victory over themselves". It did not work for them - it is not working for you.
You're getting further and further from the point. It's no "smear" against sabbath keeping Christians. You and the SDB's and whatever Messianics you are referring to may accept each other, but you do not accept groups that deny the Trinity or who add other laws, and then condemn you for not keeping them. You, just like us, would say that they were "denying faith alone". The fact that there are such groups proves that the sabbath is not the sign, because some keep it, and are yet still "false" (not God's people) in another's eyes.
The Catholic argument is that IF the non-Catholics "are being led by the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit is the author of confusion" since "they don't accept each other" IF EVEN ONE does not!!

Eric tries the same ploy here.But my point is proved bythe presence of just one sabbathkeeping group that does not accept anybody. You all say it is the SIGN of God. If it was, then God Himself would ensure that all those who kept it had unity

How "transparent".Now you're getting back to the point, but once again, it is still a big difference between us claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, and taking a particular PRACTICE and identifying it as "the sign of God". "Led by the Holy Spirit" is a general claim. Anyone can claim it, and we know that men can be wrong and come up with different interpretations; some of them obviously false, claiming the Spirit led them. Sometimes the Spirit did lead them, but certain convictions are only for certain people. But some deny this, and insist everyone should believe exactly the same. Here is where the more radical fundamentalists and the Campbellists, and Catholics all agree. So the fundamentalists use it to push "separation" from anyone they don't agree with. The Campbellites use it to push the Church of Christ as the true Church. And the Catholists use it to push the RCC or the EOC, or (around here) some immaterial ideal of a "one true catholic and apostolic Church".
Once again, this is a general ideal of unity in the Spirit these groups are opposing. Nobody here has identified any one particular practice as the "sign of God"; such as saying "non-Catholicism is the sign of God". Non-Catholisicm is every group except the Catholic Church, and has no claim to any "unity". We can say that leading of the Spirit is the sign of God, but this is not defined by us in terms of one single practice.
It is the sabbathkeepers, in their zeal to prove themselves, that have made the extravagant claim that ONE SINGLE PRACTICE of theirs is the sign of God. So that is why you can be held to a higher standard of "unity". If that was true, then all people who keep the sabbath would be shown to be the people of God. In the OT, it was, but then; it was for the nation of ISRAEL, only!
Eric said --
Even if this were true
What??? "Even if it were true that you are NOT choosing to keep Christ the Creator's Seventh-day Sabbath"???

If you ARE claiming to KEEP it - this is the FIRST time I have seen it.

How exactly are you "keeping it"??

Please explain in detail!!"Even if it were true" that the Sabbath will be kept in the Milennium. Read the context. It was in response to what you posted, and I quoted the whole thing clearly.
Is that your "claim"? Do you "Claim" that the 4th commandment has been "edited"???

What is the "edit"?? That according to Heb.4, our "sabbath rest" is trusting in Jesus rather than trying to work our way to salvation. Just like you would probably admit (and the Armstrongs, and others would accusing you of "making an excuse to ignore") the annual feast of unleavened bread is spiritualized in 1 Cor.5.

[BobRyan]

The fact that there are such groups proves that the sabbath is not the sign, because some keep it, and are yet still "false" (not God's people) in another's eyes. I see your point - however since we all claim to be led by the Holy Spirit -- the point the RCC makes to "disprove that" would INCLUDE the claim of Mormons and JWS (non-Catholics) that other non-Catholic groups would NOT accept as Christian EVEN though ALL of them claim that the Holy Spirit is leading them and that they have no need to listen to Catholic tradition.

You are using the same style of over simplification. My argument is that the argument is no more "effective" at proving that "the Holy Spirit does NOT lead as He says in scripture" than your method is for taking Christ the Creator's Holy day and trying to revoke the "Sign" status Christ gave it as a "Sign between God and His people".

God's Word stands in BOTH cases against that style of argument.

IN Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is that your "claim"? Do you "Claim" that the 4th commandment has been "edited"???

What is the "edit"??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
That according to Heb.4, our "sabbath rest" is trusting in Jesus rather than trying to work our way to salvation.Heb 4 makes no claim to change the Sabbath commandment. In fact it quotes the OT for "rest" in Psalms relying on the SAME fact of rest that WAS ALREADY TRUE at the time of David!

It says nothing about "a change" to the 10 commandments or to the Sabbath commandment.


Just like you would probably admit (and the Armstrongs, and others would accusing you of "making an excuse to ignore") the annual feast of unleavened bread is spiritualized in 1 Cor.5. I don't admit that it is spiritualized away. I claim that from the very beginning the Lev 23 annual sacrifices were given as predictive shadows "predicting" the work of the Messiah. In Heb 10 we have an EXPLICIT statement that all sacrifices and offerings have been "put to an end".

By contrast the work of Christ the Creator in Gen 2:3 is explicit. It is HE who gives the day as a memorial of his finished work at Creation.

ADDING the application of rest in Heb 4 does nothing to abolish the 7th day of rest.

Even D.L. Moody gets this point.

IN Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

It is interesting that the point of HEb 10 stopping all sacrifices and offerings is so explicit that even the Armstrong groups do not try to re-instate them.

[Eric B]

That's the point. That passage is a bit too clear for you to interpret away; else we would have groups still keeping sacrifices. Heb.4 is just as clear on what the sabbath is, only you don't recognize it.
Heb 4 makes no claim to change the Sabbath commandment. In fact it quotes the OT for "rest" in Psalms relying on the SAME fact of rest that WAS ALREADY TRUE at the time of David!

It says nothing about "a change" to the 10 commandments or to the Sabbath commandment.
It APPLIES what originally referred to a physical rest to a SPIRITUAL rest! When it says "they shall not enter my rest", that wasn;t talking about a SABBATH. They were commanded to keep the sabbath, not refused as a punishment. The "Rest" is referring back the "the promised land" wafter the 40 years. We are not aiming to enter that piece of land now, so this is talking about something spiritual! And yet, it is tied to the "Sabbath". This shows, just like the passage on the feast, that the sabbath referred to there is now a spiritual thing. It is about ceasing from "workS", not physical work.
I don't admit that it is spiritualized away. I claim that from the very beginning the Lev 23 annual sacrifices were given as predictive shadows "predicting" the work of the Messiah. But they were "commanded forever" too. The same argument you use to show that the weekly sabbath is forever can be extended to the annual ones. They are shadows of the plan of redemption, which is not yet finished. (The feast of tabernacles represents the Millennium, etc.) Hence, the Armstrongites and Sacred Name claims (who point out that you are using the same argument of those who do not keep the weekly sabbath).
By contrast the work of Christ the Creator in Gen 2:3 is explicit. It is HE who gives the day as a memorial of his finished work at Creation.

ADDING the application of rest in Heb 4 does nothing to abolish the 7th day of rest.
So if you acknowledge that the annual sabbaths were shadows, according to Heb. 10, why can't you see that the weekly ones are shadows of spiritual rest, in Heb.4. (In Col.2:16, both "feasts" and "the sabbath day" are called "shadows"!)

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Eric B:
That's the point. That passage is a bit too clear for you to interpret away; else we would have groups still keeping sacrifices. Heb.4 is just as clear on what the sabbath is, only you don't recognize it.
Well lets see - Heb 10 ACTUALLY SAYS --



8 After saying above, "" SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND sacrifices FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE in them'' (which are offered according to the Law),
9 then He said, "" BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL.'' He takes away the first in order to establish the second.
10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins;
12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,
13 waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET.
14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying,
16 "" THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,'' He then says,
17 "" AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE.''
18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.
"Takes AWAY the first"

"NO LONGER remains offering for sins"

By CONTRAST Heb 4 ACTUALLY SAYS

"THERE REMAINS therefore Sabbath REST for the people of God" --

The idea that one can EQUIVOCATE between "NO LONGER remains" and "REMAINS therefore" is a desperate reach showing how limited your position is here!

You have highlighted the VERY POINT of weaknesss in your own argument!!

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

You "needed" Heb 4 to either say "There NO LONGER remains the 7th day Sabbath" or TO say "The 7th Day sabbath has ended in the form of an actual DAY and is now simply the saintly life devoted to Christ".

(In Which case Christ's Matt 24 prayer for HIS church - HIS People AFTER the cross -- that they should pray that their flight NOT be on THE Sabbath or IN winter is meaningless!)

The REASON you will never find that in the book of Hebrews is because in Heb 11 the author SHOWS the saintly lives of God's people in the OT ALREADY dedicated to Christ ALREADY in Christ, Sanctified, born-again giants of faith some of whom were translated without ever dying!!

So NO change.

In Christ,

Bob

[Eric B]

You're forgetting the principle you quoted there in ch. 10 He takes away the FIRST in order to establish the second.
That does not only apply to just the sacrifices; but rather the WHOLE system. That is the entire point of Hebrews, and the same principle is in ch.4. The principle of "rest" remains, but now it is spiritual, rather than physical. Just like a principle of "sacrifice" REMAINS for us today, only it was the one time sacrifice of Christ, which SPIRITUALly covers us, rather than us physically slaying animals. Same exact principle!
And God says similar things about sabbaths along with sacrifices in Isaiah 1:11ff.

You demand such a clear statement as that (dictating what the scriptures SHOULD say) before you admit a part of the Law is abolished, but the annual sabbaths do not have such a statement (which is why the Armstrong's and other still insis on them), but you admit them are abolished. Because they are called "shadows", but once again, both "feasts" (annual sabbaths) and "sabbath day" are called "shadow" in Colossians.

Also, as I have learned more about the context of the immediate post-Cross NT situation, most Jews still kept the sabbath, especially as the Temple institution was still standing. The Christians were never told to leave the synagogues, but that they would be put out of them, which is something people did not want. I now believe that the preterists had a point in that the people then were in a transition period between covenants, so naturally, they would not want to have to flee on the sabbath, when they would be spotted and additionally persecuted by other Jews. You may say that this is prohecy still for the future; and while I believe there will most likely be a future dual fulfillment; some things could only possibly apply to them. Two verses earlier, He tells "them in Judea" to flee into the mountains. That is obviously not for us.

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Eric B:
You're forgetting the principle you quoted there in ch. 10 He takes away the FIRST in order to establish the second.
On the contrary - I am RELYING on it! The quote in Heb 10 SHOWS a case of a COMMAND to sacrifice being ended. It is ended with EXPLICIT statements about ITS ENDING.

It is not ended by "inuendo and inference of the reader as bias might lead them".


That does not only apply to just the sacrifices; but rather the WHOLE system.
The book of Hebrews relies heavily on QUOTING FROM the OT as VALID and AUTHOROTATIVE!

You can't simply wave your hand over Heb 10 and wrench it from what it DOES say so that it deletes things IT NEVER MENTIONS as ended!!

To do so is the purest form of eisegesis!

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Eric said --
The principle of "rest" remains, but now it is spiritual, rather than physical.
That is the HOPE of those seeking ignore Christ the Creator's Holy Day.

But it is NOT a quote of Heb 4!

Not only that - it is a flat rejection of Isaiah 66 telling us that IN the Rev 21 "NEW EARTH" "ALL MANKIND will come before Me to worship FROM Sabbath TO Sabbath".

Notice it does NOT say "ALL mankind will come beofore Me to offer ANIMAL sacrifices!!"

But Suppose it DID! Suppose the Lord PREDICTED that in the NEW earth ANIMAL sacrifices would CONTINUE and suppose there was NOTHING in Heb 10 explicitly saying they had ended - but rather a statement saying "THERE REMAINS therefore ANIMAL sacrifices for the People of God"!

I can assure you that if such were the case - we would be have a very different discussion here about animal sacrifices.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Eric said --
You demand such a clear statement as that (dictating what the scriptures SHOULD say) before you admit a part of the Law is abolished,
This is a key point. I am CAREFUL to observe when God MAKES a commmand -- that HE is the one saying the COMMAND has ended - rather than simply reling on the "traditions of man" to say it FOR HIM!

This IS the point of showing how the sacrifices are EXPLICITLY ended in Heb 10!!

Notice that you use the term "ABOLISHED" for the LAW of God "written on the heart" under the New Covenant!

It is certainly the case that the SABBATH is not ABOLISHED in the New Earth of Rev 21 for ALL MANKIND as we see in Isiah 66.

But your view has God ABOLISHING the command then RESURRECTING it for ALL MANKIND in Rev 21!!

That should tell you that the traditions of man are misleading you.


but the annual sabbaths do not have such a statement (which is why the Armstrong's and other still insis on them), but you admit them are abolished.The ANNUAL feast days have their ORIGIN in sacrifices. Christ the CREATOR's HOLY day has its ORIGIN in Gen 2:3 when it was "MADE FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27 as a MEMORIAL of Christ the Creator's work in creation WEEK. Sinless man observing PURE Worship!

When the sacrifices that CONSTITUTE the Annual feasts are gone - WHAT are you going to do ON the FEAST day?? The core has been removed. Go through Lev 23 and SHOW how the feast is kept WITHOUT the offering and sacrifice!! It is "gone".

But even then Paul himself CONTINUES to keep those annual feast days. IN Rom 14 Paul argues that SOME people select ONE of those days ABOVE another and continue to observe it -- while others SELECT ALL of those days and continue to observe them. He shows that this is "ok".

Eric --
both "feasts" (annual sabbaths) and "sabbath day" are called "shadow" in Colossians.
Nope - just the Annual Sabbaths in Col 2. They are the only PREDICTIVE services pointing FORWARD to redemption.

The Gen 2:3 Holy Day of Christ the Creator is a MEMORIAL pointing BACK to creation week!

Hard to miss!

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Eric said --
Also, as I have learned more about the context of the immediate post-Cross NT situation, most Jews still kept the sabbath, especially as the Temple institution was still standing.
Jews today STILL keep the Sabbath so "nothing new there".

But perhaps you mean to identify the Jewish Christians - as in ALL the NT AUTHORS except Luke!!

In that case - lets look at Acts 15 where these NT Jewish Christians - who "Attend the SYNAGOGUES" from Sabbath to Sabbath by your own admission -- say that the Gentiles will be instructed in scripture because "Moses is preached in the Synagogue EACH Sabbath".

As you point out - we know that THEY were in that synagogue each sabbath throughout all the lands where they were dispersed. We also know from Acts 13 that even the GENTILES where in that synagogue if they were worshiping the ONE TRUE God!

Given your "discovery" that ALL church leadership (ALL the Apostles) and ALL early Christians (NT Jewish Christians) along with GENTILES of Acts 13 ilk -- were ALL in the synagogues FROM Sabbath to SABBATH hearing scripture read -- what does this say about the "point" they are making (to this SAME effect) in Acts 15?

It is says that James was arguing that gentiles were going to be instructed in scripture even WITHOUT being circumcised as JEWS so there was no need to extend that ADDEd requirement on them. (A requirement NEVER extended to gentiles in the TEXT of Moses or the OT)


Eric said --
The Christians were never told to leave the synagogues, but that they would be put out of them, which is something people did not want.
Very true. So in Acts 15 they are STILL in the synagogues AS James states -- every Sabbath! And THIS is HIS argument for NOT having fear that Gentiles uncircumsized will not be educated in scripture!

A very good point given the fact that we SEE THEM being educated in the synagogue on Sabbath and "Sabbath after Sabbath" in Acts 13.

In Christ,

Bob

[Eric B]

On the contrary - I am RELYING on it! The quote in Heb 10 SHOWS a case of a COMMAND to sacrifice being ended. It is ended with EXPLICIT statements about ITS ENDING.

It is not ended by "inuendo and inference of the reader as bias might lead them". It is no more "innuendo and inference" than saying the annual sabbaths were shadows.
The book of Hebrews relies heavily on QUOTING FROM the OT as VALID and AUTHOROTATIVE!

You can't simply wave your hand over Heb 10 and wrench it from what it DOES say so that it deletes things IT NEVER MENTIONS as ended!!
That is the HOPE of those seeking ignore Christ the Creator's Holy Day.

But it is NOT a quote of Heb 4! Once again, it is shown in the fact that when it speaks of "enter my rest", it wasn't talking about a DAY they were commanded to keep, but rather a state they could be barred from. The "Rest" is referring back the "the promised land", and now, it is a spiritual state, and you can even add the future promised land. THIS is the "sabbath rest" that "remains" for us!
It is certainly the case that the SABBATH is not ABOLISHED in the New Earth of Rev 21 for ALL MANKIND as we see in Isiah 66.

But your view has God ABOLISHING the command then RESURRECTING it for ALL MANKIND in Rev 21!!
Not only that - it is a flat rejection of Isaiah 66 telling us that IN the Rev 21 "NEW EARTH" "ALL MANKIND will come before Me to worship FROM Sabbath TO Sabbath". Notice it does NOT say "ALL mankind will come beofore Me to offer ANIMAL sacrifices!!"

But Suppose it DID! Suppose the Lord PREDICTED that in the NEW earth ANIMAL sacrifices would CONTINUE and suppose there was NOTHING in Heb 10 explicitly saying they had ended - but rather a statement saying "THERE REMAINS therefore ANIMAL sacrifices for the People of God"!

I can assure you that if such were the case - we would be have a very different discussion here about animal sacrifices. Likewise, neither does it say "there remains therefore the Keeping of a sabbath DAY in which no physical work is to be done, by the people of God". I keep telling you that Isaiah was conditional on the OLD Covenant lasting, and God ruling through the physical people of the Covenant.
The proof of this, once again, which you keep ignoring is that in v.21 the "priests and Levites" are included in this scenario! We do not see them in Rev., so you can't paste these passages together. Isaiah was the conditional picture of the new earth, while Rev. is the final picture of the new Earth in the NT.
Notice that you use the term "ABOLISHED" for the LAW of God "written on the heart" under the New Covenant! Paul uses the word in 2 Cor.3:13, and Eph.2:15. (I wasn't referring to the spiritual "law written on the heart", but rather the letter, as Paul is referring to).
This is a key point. I am CAREFUL to observe when God MAKES a commmand -- that HE is the one saying the COMMAND has ended - rather than simply reling on the "traditions of man" to say it FOR HIM! That should tell you that the traditions of man are misleading you. It is not the traditions of man. When I first came to Christ, I was in the sabbathkeeping movement. But then when I was shown Col. Gal. and other passages; I resisted for a while, but after studying it, I saw that those interpretations were right, and that much of modern sabbatarianism is one-upmanship--just finding an issue to cause division and exalt onesself over. (Just like Campbellism, KJVO, etc).
The ANNUAL feast days have their ORIGIN in sacrifices. Christ the CREATOR's HOLY day has its ORIGIN in Gen 2:3 when it was "MADE FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27 as a MEMORIAL of Christ the Creator's work in creation WEEK. Sinless man observing PURE Worship!

When the sacrifices that CONSTITUTE the Annual feasts are gone - WHAT are you going to do ON the FEAST day?? The core has been removed. Go through Lev 23 and SHOW how the feast is kept WITHOUT the offering and sacrifice!! It is "gone". They are still SABBATHS, and holy convocations. So you cease from work and have a religious service without the sacrificial trappings, just like you do on the weekly sabbath. The Armstrong and sacred name groups put the leaven out of their houses on that feast, and camp out in tabernacles on that feast. You continue to observe the days, realizing the the sacrifice is now spiritual. But even then Paul himself CONTINUES to keep those annual feast days. IN Rom 14 Paul argues that SOME people select ONE of those days ABOVE another and continue to observe it -- while others SELECT ALL of those days and continue to observe them. He shows that this is "ok".
He does not say anything about annual days! Who kept SOME of them, but not ALL, amyway? You're making that up! On one hand, you demand 'explicit' language, but then you read your own implicit meanings into passages like this that are explicit!
Nope - just the Annual Sabbaths in Col 2. They are the only PREDICTIVE services pointing FORWARD to redemption.

The Gen 2:3 Holy Day of Christ the Creator is a MEMORIAL pointing BACK to creation week! Col.2 mentions BOTH "a holy day"(feasts), and "the Sabbath".
The annual holy days also point to the present and future aspects of the plan of salvation, once again. But if the spiritual application of those annual days means that they do not have to be kept, then the same thing applies to the weekly sabbath. We are looking forward to a NEW Heaven and Earth, not this old one that is passing away; nor the conditional one under the Old Covenant we see in Isaiah.
Jews today STILL keep the Sabbath so "nothing new there".

But perhaps you mean to identify the Jewish Christians - as in ALL the NT AUTHORS except Luke!! That is what I meant.
In that case - lets look at Acts 15 where these NT Jewish Christians - who "Attend the SYNAGOGUES" from Sabbath to Sabbath by your own admission -- say that the Gentiles will be instructed in scripture because "Moses is preached in the Synagogue EACH Sabbath".

As you point out - we know that THEY were in that synagogue each sabbath throughout all the lands where they were dispersed. We also know from Acts 13 that even the GENTILES where in that synagogue if they were worshiping the ONE TRUE God!

Given your "discovery" that ALL church leadership (ALL the Apostles) and ALL early Christians (NT Jewish Christians) along with GENTILES of Acts 13 ilk -- were ALL in the synagogues FROM Sabbath to SABBATH hearing scripture read -- what does this say about the "point" they are making (to this SAME effect) in Acts 15?

It is says that James was arguing that gentiles were going to be instructed in scripture even WITHOUT being circumcised as JEWS so there was no need to extend that ADDEd requirement on them. (A requirement NEVER extended to gentiles in the TEXT of Moses or the OT)

Very true. So in Acts 15 they are STILL in the synagogues AS James states -- every Sabbath! And THIS is HIS argument for NOT having fear that Gentiles uncircumsized will not be educated in scripture!

A very good point given the fact that we SEE THEM being educated in the synagogue on Sabbath and "Sabbath after Sabbath" in Acts 13.And I forgot to add that after the temple was destroyed, that would be the end of all of that. The synagogues would go on, but the temple and its rituals they were centered on would be gone, and the Jewish Christians would be completely freed from the pressure to keep the Law. That is one reason sabbathkeeping diminished by the end of the first century. (along with the reverse pressure from gentiles, becoming ant-isemitic, to not keep it).

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope - just the Annual Sabbaths in Col 2. They are the only PREDICTIVE services pointing FORWARD to redemption.

The Gen 2:3 Holy Day of Christ the Creator is a MEMORIAL pointing BACK to creation week!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Col.2 mentions BOTH "a holy day"(feasts), and "the Sabbath".Actually it meantions "Sabbaths" NOT "The Sabbath".

The "Sabbaths" are the list of Lev 23 annual Sabbaths.


Colossians 2:

o Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Let no one, then, judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths,

o Darby Translation (DARBY)
Let none therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in matter of feast, or new moon, or sabbaths,

o New Living Translation (NLT)
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.

o New King James Version (NKJV)
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,

o Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)
Therefore no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in part of feast day, or of new moon, or of sabbaths, It points out that these the ones that POINT FORWARD to the work of Christ's sacrifice. These are the annual Sabbaths of the sacrificial system "Shadows" pointing FORWARD to Christ.

For example in 1Cor 5 we find this "Christ OUR PASSOVER has been slain"!

We never find "Christ OUR SABBATH HAS BEEN SLAIN". The Slaying of animals is not metioned in Gen 2:3 NOR was it practiced then.

It is not in Isaiah 66 "FROM Sabbath to SABBATH" in the NEW earth.

And the slaying of animals is not part of the Exodus 20:8-11 COMMAND as spoken by God.

Only the annual "SABBATHS" are rooted 'and ORIGINIATED' in animal sacrifices POINTING to the redemption of mankind. "Christ OUR PASSOVER has been SLAIN".

You do not "SLAY" Christ the Creator's Holy Day given as a MEMORIAL of Creation. But you DO SLAY the "Passover Lamb"!!

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case - lets look at Acts 15 where these NT Jewish Christians - who "Attend the SYNAGOGUES" from Sabbath to Sabbath by your own admission -- say that the Gentiles will be instructed in scripture because "Moses is preached in the Synagogue EACH Sabbath".

As you point out - we know that THEY were in that synagogue each sabbath throughout all the lands where they were dispersed. We also know from Acts 13 that even the GENTILES where in that synagogue if they were worshiping the ONE TRUE God!

Given your "discovery" that ALL church leadership (ALL the Apostles) and ALL early Christians (NT Jewish Christians) along with GENTILES of Acts 13 ilk -- were ALL in the synagogues FROM Sabbath to SABBATH hearing scripture read -- what does this say about the "point" they are making (to this SAME effect) in Acts 15?

It is says that James was arguing that gentiles were going to be instructed in scripture even WITHOUT being circumcised as JEWS so there was no need to extend that ADDEd requirement on them. (A requirement NEVER extended to gentiles in the TEXT of Moses or the OT)

Very true. So in Acts 15 they are STILL in the synagogues AS James states -- every Sabbath! And THIS is HIS argument for NOT having fear that Gentiles uncircumsized will not be educated in scripture!

A very good point given the fact that we SEE THEM being educated in the synagogue on Sabbath and "Sabbath after Sabbath" in Acts 13.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And I forgot to add that after the temple was destroyed, that would be the end of all of that. The synagogues would go on, but the temple and its rituals they were centered on would be gone,The Synagogues would CONTINUE to hold services 'every Sabbath' as the Acts 15 statement claims. And in those services they would CONTINUE to read scripture.

The NT Church would CONTINUE to HEAR the Word of God in those settings JUST as JAmes claims! "In the Synagogues"!!

IN Christ,

Bob

[Eric B]

Actually it meantions "Sabbaths" NOT "The Sabbath".

The "Sabbaths" are the list of Lev 23 annual Sabbaths. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colossians 2:

o Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Let no one, then, judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths,

o Darby Translation (DARBY)
Let none therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in matter of feast, or new moon, or sabbaths,

o New Living Translation (NLT)
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.

o New King James Version (NKJV)
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,

o Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)
Therefore no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in part of feast day, or of new moon, or of sabbaths,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO!!! Those are the "feasts" or "certain holy days" mentioned there. The weekly sabbath can be pluralized, as well, so that does not make that the annual sabbaths.
It points out that these the ones that POINT FORWARD to the work of Christ's sacrifice. These are the annual Sabbaths of the sacrificial system "Shadows" pointing FORWARD to Christ.

For example in 1Cor 5 we find this "Christ OUR PASSOVER has been slain"!

We never find "Christ OUR SABBATH HAS BEEN SLAIN". The Slaying of animals is not metioned in Gen 2:3 NOR was it practiced then. But it is Christ's being slain that brings us the spiritual rest and thus made Him our "sabbath". So the weekly sabbath pointed forward to Him as well, as He brings in a new Creation!
The Synagogues would CONTINUE to hold services 'every Sabbath' as the Acts 15 statement claims. And in those services they would CONTINUE to read scripture.

The NT Church would CONTINUE to HEAR the Word of God in those settings JUST as JAmes claims! "In the Synagogues"!! Acts and James were not written after the destruction of the Temple in AD70! That was what I was referring to; when what remained of the Old Covenent would be ended for good.

[BobRyan]

Col 2:16
o Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Let no one, then, judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon, or of Sabbaths,

o Darby Translation (DARBY)
Let none therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in matter of feast, or new moon, or Sabbaths,

o New Living Translation (NLT)
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.

o New King James Version (NKJV)
So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths,

o Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)
Therefore no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in part of feast day, or of new moon, or of Sabbaths,
Col 2:16 refers to “SabbathS” plural that are the “predictive” SHADOW Sabbaths of Lev 23 pointing FORWARD in “sacrifices” to the death of the Messiah. Notice the point Paul makes of this in 1Cor 5 “Christ OUR PASSOVER has been SACRIFICED”. These SHADOW SabbathS point FORWARD and are based in animal SACRIFICE pointing to the death of Christ.

Christ the Creator’s Seventh-day Sabbath “by contrast” is a MEMORIAL given in Gen 2:3 as THE Holy Day of worship for mankind “made FOR mankind” – without any reference at all to its origin being “IN ANIMAL sacrifice”.

So the fact of the plural LIST of SabbathS given in Lev 23 combined with the SHADOW function (predictive function) of the annual SabbathS based in animal Sacrifices – identifies the object clearly in Col 2:16 as the Annual Sabbaths!


Col 2:16 refers explicitly to judging one another (within the Christian group) regarding our observance of food and drink regulations, festivals, new moon celebrations, "or a Sabbath day". This is not a new sin that became sin only after the cross - rather judging one another was sin before anything was nailed to the cross (Matt 7:1-4). “Judge NOT that you be not JUDGED” a PRE-Cross violation regardless of whether it is ANNUAL or WEEKLY – the PRE-Cross rule was not to judge others on how well they observed it..

Furthermore - Col 2:16 identifies the things about which they were judged to include the things of God - whose origin was in the word of God - his shadow (predictive) Sabbaths given in Lev 23. "things which are a mere shadow of things to come". That is, things which point not to present or past reality but to a future events that "belong to Christ". Things already given for the people of God - prior to Paul's day that pointed predictively toward the messiah when given.

These annual feast days -- shadow Sabbaths -- point forward to a future event regarding the Messiah. But “the traditions of man” had turned these “shadow Sabbaths” into a kind of alternative to the Savior who died for our sins and paid our debt. Their judgmental spirit is condemned in the Matt 7 statement of Christ saying “Judge not that you be not judged” and Paul says that even after the cross – the spirit if judging was not to be tolerated. In Romans 14 Paul observes of these annual feast days "one observes every day and another observes one above another but all observe to the Lord" Rom 14,

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It points out that these the ones that POINT FORWARD to the work of Christ's sacrifice. These are the annual Sabbaths of the sacrificial system "Shadows" pointing FORWARD to Christ.

For example in 1Cor 5 we find this "Christ OUR PASSOVER has been slain"!

We never find "Christ OUR SABBATH HAS BEEN SLAIN". The Slaying of animals is not metioned in Gen 2:3 NOR was it practiced then.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
But it is Christ's being slain that brings us the spiritual rest and thus made Him our "sabbath". So the weekly sabbath pointed forward to Him as well, as He brings in a new Creation!You are attempting an "either-or fallacy". The issue is NOT that Christ can not be SLAIN if HE ALSO is the Creator and has His Gen 2:3 Holy Day.

There is no such confict as you suppose in scripture!

There is also NO statement in scripture saying "Christ is now our Sabbath".

So you "make it up".

Surely that would only work on someone who was already comitted to not honoring Christ the Creator's Holy Day of Gen 2:3. Making things up would not be "compelling" for someone not doing that already.

Agreed?

The point remains - those PREDICTIVE Sabbaths "shaddows of the sacrifice of Christ" were pointing FORWARD to the work of the Messiah WHEN THEY WERE GIVEN!

But the Holy Day of Christ the Creator of Gen 2:3 HAD NO reference to DEATH or to SACRIFICE. It did NOT point Adam forward to a time when He would be redeemed from a sin he did not have!

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Synagogues would CONTINUE to hold services 'every Sabbath' as the Acts 15 statement claims. And in those services they would CONTINUE to read scripture.

The NT Church would CONTINUE to HEAR the Word of God in those settings JUST as JAmes claims! "In the Synagogues"!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
Acts and James were not written after the destruction of the Temple in AD70!
ARe you suggesting that we cut out the Gospels and the book of Acts AND the book of James???

You are getting down to a pretty tiny Bible!! All for "Sunday"???

There is NO statement in ALL of scripture saying that there was a change in covenant OR a change in LAW at the destruction of Jerusalem.

The STATEMENT in ACTS 15 says NOTHING about the Temple - only the Synagogues.

JEWS today STILL keep Sabbath in the Synagogues - NO change to the Temple -- affects that in any way!

Which means that the UNIT of TEN that Paul identied in Eph 6 AND that James references in James 2 -- remains.

Furthermore -- John writing long AFTER the temple is destroyed says of the SAINTS - in Rev 12 that these are they who "KEEP the Commandments of God".

And of course Isaiah 66 points to the New Earth of Rev 21 saying that IN That NEW Earth - ALL MANKIND comes before God to Worship - FROM SABBATH TO SABBATH.

No basis AT ALL for arguing a Sabbath-death takes place in 70AD.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

This all just points to the continued validity of D.L. Moddy's main argument for Sabbath!


http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The_TenCommandments_Text.html


Fundamental Baptist Institute
http://www.fbinstitute.com/

presents


THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

BY THE
DWIGHT L. MOODY
The Ten Commandments:
Exodus 20:2-17

.
The Fourth Commandment
Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 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: for in six days the LORD made heaven and Earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.
THERE HAS BEEN an awful letting-down in this country regarding the Sabbath during the last twenty-five years, and many a man has been shorn of spiritual power, like Samson, because he is not straight on this question. Can you say that you observe the Sabbath properly? You may be a professed Christian: are you obeying this commandment? Or do you neglect the house of God on the Sabbath day, and spend your time drinking and carousing in places of vice and crime, showing contempt for God and His law? Are you ready to step into the scales? Where were you last Sabbath? How did you spend it?

I honestly believe that this commandment is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place.
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was- in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins with the word remember, showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?

I believe that the Sabbath question today is a vital one for the whole country. It is the burning question of the present time. If you give up the Sabbath the church goes; if you give up the church the home goes; and if the home goes the nation goes. That is the direction in which we are traveling.

The church of God is losing its power on account of so many people giving up the Sabbath, and using it to promote selfishness.
.
HOW TO OBSERVE THE SABBATH
"Sabbath" means "rest," and the meaning of the word gives a hint as to the true way to observe the day. God rested after creation, and ordained the Sabbath as a rest for man. He blessed it and hallowed it. Remember the rest-day to keep it holy.

[Eric B]

Col 2:16 refers to “SabbathS” plural that are the “predictive” SHADOW Sabbaths of Lev 23 pointing FORWARD in “sacrifices” to the death of the Messiah. Notice the point Paul makes of this in 1Cor 5 “Christ OUR PASSOVER has been SACRIFICED”. Neither does it ever say "Christ our unleavened bread has been sacrificed". Or "Christ our Pentecost has been sacrificed", or "Christ our Trumpets has been sacrificed", "Christ our Day of atonement" has been sacrificed", "Christ our feast of Tabernacles has been sacrificed", or "Christ our Last Great Day has been sacrificed". So if you are looking for a direct statement like that, then all of those other days must still be in effect.
These SHADOW SabbathS point FORWARD and are based in animal SACRIFICE pointing to the death of Christ.

Christ the Creator’s Seventh-day Sabbath “by contrast” is a MEMORIAL given in Gen 2:3 as THE Holy Day of worship for mankind “made FOR mankind” – without any reference at all to its origin being “IN ANIMAL sacrifice”. The point remains - those PREDICTIVE Sabbaths "shaddows of the sacrifice of Christ" were pointing FORWARD to the work of the Messiah WHEN THEY WERE GIVEN!

But the Holy Day of Christ the Creator of Gen 2:3 HAD NO reference to DEATH or to SACRIFICE. It did NOT point Adam forward to a time when He would be redeemed from a sin he did not have!
And that "memorial" was of this old Creation, which points forward to Christ the Creator's NEW Creation! It was not involved with sacrifices, because there was originally no Fall, which is what necessitated sacrifice in the first place. But not only did the Fall necessitate tha, it also corrupted this old Creation leading to the need for a NEW one! THAT is what we are looking forward to now; not back to the foundation of the old!
So the fact of the plural LIST of SabbathS given in Lev 23 combined with the SHADOW function (predictive function) of the annual SabbathS based in animal Sacrifices – identifies the object clearly in Col 2:16 as the Annual Sabbaths!

Col 2:16 refers explicitly to judging one another (within the Christian group) regarding our observance of food and drink regulations, festivals, new moon celebrations, "or a Sabbath day". You keep flatly ignoring that word "FESTIVALS" in there! The annual days were FESTIVALS. So you have them represented twice, as you try to force "sabbath" to refer to them as well with this "sacrifice" logic of yours.
This is not a new sin that became sin only after the cross - rather judging one another was sin before anything was nailed to the cross (Matt 7:1-4). “Judge NOT that you be not JUDGED” a PRE-Cross violation regardless of whether it is ANNUAL or WEEKLY – the PRE-Cross rule was not to judge others on how well they observed it..

Furthermore - Col 2:16 identifies the things about which they were judged to include the things of God - whose origin was in the word of God - his shadow (predictive) Sabbaths given in Lev 23. "things which are a mere shadow of things to come". That is, things which point not to present or past reality but to a future events that "belong to Christ". Things already given for the people of God - prior to Paul's day that pointed predictively toward the messiah when given.

These annual feast days -- shadow Sabbaths -- point forward to a future event regarding the Messiah. But “the traditions of man” had turned these “shadow Sabbaths” into a kind of alternative to the Savior who died for our sins and paid our debt. Their judgmental spirit is condemned in the Matt 7 statement of Christ saying “Judge not that you be not judged” and Paul says that even after the cross – the spirit if judging was not to be tolerated. In Romans 14 Paul observes of these annual feast days "one observes every day and another observes one above another but all observe to the Lord" Rom 14, That is so ridiculous, and you are not even aware of what you were doing. If "judging" over these DAYS was forbidden before the Cross, then there was no way to enforce these days in the Old Covenant when they were in effect! That would mean they were never really in effect at all! In the OT, if someone broke these SABBATHS, they were to be judged, like with the weekly sabbath or any other law. You are really stretching things now!
You are attempting an "either-or fallacy". The issue is NOT that Christ can not be SLAIN if HE ALSO is the Creator and has His Gen 2:3 Holy Day.

There is no such confict as you suppose in scripture!You lost me there. I don't get your point.
There is also NO statement in scripture saying "Christ is now our Sabbath".

So you "make it up"."Come unto ME, and I will give you rest" (Matt.11:36). This sets the principle.
Surely that would only work on someone who was already comitted to not honoring Christ the Creator's Holy Day of Gen 2:3. Making things up would not be "compelling" for someone not doing that already. We see above where you make things up. That "judge" argument would only work on someone already committed to hjudging others over days (rather than keeping them unti the Lord), so you must prove that that means something else, and is not what you are blatantly violating.
ARe you suggesting that we cut out the Gospels and the book of Acts AND the book of James???

You are getting down to a pretty tiny Bible!! All for "Sunday"??? I'm not arguing for Sunday. And who said anything about cutting out the books?
There is NO statement in ALL of scripture saying that there was a change in covenant OR a change in LAW at the destruction of Jerusalem.

The STATEMENT in ACTS 15 says NOTHING about the Temple - only the Synagogues.

JEWS today STILL keep Sabbath in the Synagogues - NO change to the Temple -- affects that in any way!
No basis AT ALL for arguing a Sabbath-death takes place in 70AD.
No, but the Temple institution did enforce the Law over its people, including those who became Christians. When that system was removed, it was the final validation of the freedom they had in Christ. Remember, Christ did not tell anyone to leave the Temple. They may have been put out of it, but as long as it was there, the people still continued their practices. Even you once used as an example Paul having Timothy circumcized. It is the same thing with the sabbath. Once that system was gone, all of that was over. Of course, Christ-rejecting Jews would continue to try to keep the Law in their synagogues. (But without the Temple they could never keep all of it). But this no longer had any bearing on Christians.
Which means that the UNIT of TEN that Paul identied in Eph 6 AND that James references in James 2 -- remains.
Furthermore -- John writing long AFTER the temple is destroyed says of the SAINTS - in Rev 12 that these are they who "KEEP the Commandments of God". That does not say it is the same "commandments" as in the OC. John himself says "love" is the "commandment". (1 John 3:23, 4:21, John l3:31, 15:12)
And of course Isaiah 66 points to the New Earth of Rev 21 saying that IN That NEW Earth - ALL MANKIND comes before God to Worship - FROM SABBATH TO SABBATH. Once again, this has no bearing on us now. That is not the same New Earth as we are now promised.

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not a new sin that became sin only after the cross - rather judging one another was sin before anything was nailed to the cross (Matt 7:1-4). “Judge NOT that you be not JUDGED” a PRE-Cross violation regardless of whether it is ANNUAL or WEEKLY – the PRE-Cross rule was not to judge others on how well they observed it..

Furthermore - Col 2:16 identifies the things about which they were judged to include the things of God - whose origin was in the word of God - his shadow (predictive) Sabbaths given in Lev 23. "things which are a mere shadow of things to come". That is, things which point not to present or past reality but to a future events that "belong to Christ". Things already given for the people of God - prior to Paul's day that pointed predictively toward the messiah when given.

These annual feast days -- shadow Sabbaths -- point forward to a future event regarding the Messiah. But “the traditions of man” had turned these “shadow Sabbaths” into a kind of alternative to the Savior who died for our sins and paid our debt. Their judgmental spirit is condemned in the Matt 7 statement of Christ saying “Judge not that you be not judged” and Paul says that even after the cross – the spirit if judging was not to be tolerated. In Romans 14 Paul observes of these annual feast days "one observes every day and another observes one above another but all observe to the Lord" Rom 14,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric --
That is so ridiculous, and you are not even aware of what you were doing. If "judging" over these DAYS was forbidden before the Cross, then there was no way to enforce these days in the Old Covenant when they were in effect!Let's look at the PRE-CROSS injunction against "judging others" that CHRIST gives in Matt 7.


Matthew 7
1 ""Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
3 ""Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
4 "" Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?
5 ""You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Paul condemns this same form of abuse in Col 2.

Sin is "sin" in both OT and NT (as it turns out).

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Honor your Father and Mother.. which is the FIRST commandmente WITH a promise" Eph 6:3

Which means that the UNIT of TEN that Paul identied in Eph 6 AND that James references in
James 2 -- remains.


Furthermore -- John writing long AFTER the temple is destroyed says of the SAINTS - in Rev 12 that these are they who "KEEP the Commandments of God".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
That does not say it is the same "commandments" as in the OC. John himself says "love" is the "commandment". (1 John 3:23, 4:21, John l3:31, 15:12)None of your lists is "Quoted by Paul" in his quote of the 5th commandment. (But it is interesting that you would go to PRE-CROSS LISTS as in the case of John 13 and John 15 don't you think?)

ALL translators/scholars SEE clearly that Eph 6 is quoting from the Ten Commandments - your "need" to avoid the obvious is certainly apparent but your results are conflicted at best.

Paul says IT IS THE FIRST in that list WITH a promise. Did you think that Christ was BREAKING the Commandments up in the Gospels "pre-cross" with a NEW LIST that excluded the "Sabbath MADE for MANKIND"??

Where is the commandment about taking God's name in vain?

Your anything-but-Christ-the-Creator's-Sabbath approach is getting you into all kinds of self-conflicted statements.

Try another approach.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And of course Isaiah 66 points to the New Earth of Rev 21 saying that IN That NEW Earth - ALL MANKIND comes before God to Worship - FROM SABBATH TO SABBATH.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
Once again, this has no bearing on us now. That is not the same New Earth as we are now promised. To the Contrary - the book of Revelation relies heavily on "scripture" which as Christ said "Can not be broken" to tell its story.

Isaiah 66 and Rev 21 are BOTH addressing the "NEW EARTH" and God's Word here - "can not be broken".

Your attempt to trash Isaiah 66 is certainly a "must do" for you view of "Get rid of Christ the Creator's Sabbath at all costs" -- but I don't think it is helping your argument.

Why not just accept the Bible?

The Sabbath was "MADE FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27

It is FIRST made a Holy Day by Christ the Creator in Gen 2:3.

From this ALONE we see that the SCOPE of the Sabbath was ALL MANKIND.

It is VERY consistent then to find that "FROM SABBATH to SABBATH ALL MANKIND" is to come before God and "WORSHIP" in the NEW EARTH according to Isaiah 66.

This is nothing more than the SAME SCOPE for Christ the Creator's memorial of Creation that was ALREADY true for Adam in Gen 2:3!

This part is really very easy.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Although D.L. Moody does not put it together as I just did above in as short a space --- I see him making pretty much the same point.

Don't you?

Originally posted by BobRyan:
This all just points to the continued validity of D.L. Moddy's main argument for Sabbath!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
http://www.fbinstitute.com/moody/The_TenCommandments_Text.html


Fundamental Baptist Institute
http://www.fbinstitute.com/

presents


THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

BY THE
DWIGHT L. MOODY
The Ten Commandments:
Exodus 20:2-17

.
The Fourth Commandment
Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 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: for in six days the LORD made heaven and Earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath Day, and hallowed it.
THERE HAS BEEN an awful letting-down in this country regarding the Sabbath during the last twenty-five years, and many a man has been shorn of spiritual power, like Samson, because he is not straight on this question. Can you say that you observe the Sabbath properly? You may be a professed Christian: are you obeying this commandment? Or do you neglect the house of God on the Sabbath day, and spend your time drinking and carousing in places of vice and crime, showing contempt for God and His law? Are you ready to step into the scales? Where were you last Sabbath? How did you spend it?

I honestly believe that this commandment is just as binding today as it ever was. I have talked with men who have said that it has been abrogated, but they have never been able to point to any place in the Bible where God repealed it. When Christ was on earth, He did nothing to set it aside; He freed it from the traces under which the scribes and Pharisees had put it, and gave it its true place.
"The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
It is just as practicable and as necessary for men today as it ever was- in fact, more than ever, because we live in such an intense age.

The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins with the word remember, showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?

I believe that the Sabbath question today is a vital one for the whole country. It is the burning question of the present time. If you give up the Sabbath the church goes; if you give up the church the home goes; and if the home goes the nation goes. That is the direction in which we are traveling.

The church of God is losing its power on account of so many people giving up the Sabbath, and using it to promote selfishness.
.
HOW TO OBSERVE THE SABBATH
"Sabbath" means "rest," and the meaning of the word gives a hint as to the true way to observe the day. God rested after creation, and ordained the Sabbath as a rest for man. He blessed it and hallowed it. Remember the rest-day to keep it holy.
</font>[/QUOTE]

[Eric B]

Let's look at the PRE-CROSS injunction against "judging others" that CHRIST gives in Matt 7.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew 7
1 ""Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
3 ""Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
4 "" Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?
5 ""You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul condemns this same form of abuse in Col 2.

Sin is "sin" in both OT and NT (as it turns out).
That has nothing to do with the annual days versus the weekly sabbath. If this means you can't judge someone for breaking an annual day, then it would mean you couldn't judge anyone for breaking the weekly sabbath either. The weekly day points back to the old Creation, which is a shadow of the new Creation.
None of your lists is "Quoted by Paul" in his quote of the 5th commandment. (But it is interesting that you would go to PRE-CROSS LISTS as in the case of John 13 and John 15 don't you think?)

ALL translators/scholars SEE clearly that Eph 6 is quoting from the Ten Commandments - your "need" to avoid the obvious is certainly apparent but your results are conflicted at best.

Paul says IT IS THE FIRST in that list WITH a promise. Did you think that Christ was BREAKING the Commandments up in the Gospels "pre-cross" with a NEW LIST that excluded the "Sabbath MADE for MANKIND"??

Where is the commandment about taking God's name in vain?

Your anything-but-Christ-the-Creator's-Sabbath approach is getting you into all kinds of self-conflicted statements. If you love God, you will not take His name in vain. If you love your fellow man, you will honor your mother and father. That's how it works, Bob. Those are universal, and all included in the Two commands, so they can be reiterated from the 10. Likewise, if we love God, we will also rest and trust in Him. This was what the sabbath was about.
To the Contrary - the book of Revelation relies heavily on "scripture" which as Christ said "Can not be broken" to tell its story.

Isaiah 66 and Rev 21 are BOTH addressing the "NEW EARTH" and God's Word here - "can not be broken".
No they are not, exactly. Isaiah is still looking at it under the old covenant, with its priests and Levites. Revelation is after Christ, when the final plan has been revealed, and there is "no more Temple", and the "holy nation" is now spiritual. There, we do not see sabbaths mentioned.

Your attempt to trash Isaiah 66 is certainly a "must do" for you view of "Get rid of Christ the Creator's Sabbath at all costs" -- but I don't think it is helping your argument.

Why not just accept the Bible?

The Sabbath was "MADE FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27

It is FIRST made a Holy Day by Christ the Creator in Gen 2:3.

From this ALONE we see that the SCOPE of the Sabbath was ALL MANKIND.

It is VERY consistent then to find that "FROM SABBATH to SABBATH ALL MANKIND" is to come before God and "WORSHIP" in the NEW EARTH according to Isaiah 66.

This is nothing more than the SAME SCOPE for Christ the Creator's memorial of Creation that was ALREADY true for Adam in Gen 2:3!You cannot find anywhere that says that it was to be universally "observed" by all of man of ALL TIME, by ceasing from work. You earlier mentioned something about "inference and innuendo", and that is clearly what you are using here. Find somewhere where God commands others beside Israel in THIS world to keep the sabbath, or condemns them for breaking the sabbath. (The closes you can find is Zech.14, with Egypt, but oh, that's talking about the Feast of Tabernacles! Doesn't that mean this is still in effect now?) If not, then let us just do what God tells us for THIS time period, and not try to jmp other things over to us.

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your attempt to trash Isaiah 66 is certainly a "must do" for you view of "Get rid of Christ the Creator's Sabbath at all costs" -- but I don't think it is helping your argument.

Why not just accept the Bible?

The Sabbath was "MADE FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27

It is FIRST made a Holy Day by Christ the Creator in Gen 2:3.

From this ALONE we see that the SCOPE of the Sabbath was ALL MANKIND.

It is VERY consistent then to find that "FROM SABBATH to SABBATH ALL MANKIND" is to come before God and "WORSHIP" in the NEW EARTH according to Isaiah 66.

This is nothing more than the SAME SCOPE for Christ the Creator's memorial of Creation that was ALREADY true for Adam in Gen 2:3!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric
You cannot find anywhere that says that it was to be universally "observed" by all of manAs D.L. Moody points out in Gen 2:3 "ALL MANKIND" observed that FIRST Holy Day -- on the SEVENTH-day of Creation week and every week following for ALL mankind was merely "Adam" and "Eve".

Mark 2:27 shows - Christ the Creator "thinks" that HIS Holy Day was MADE "FOR MANKIND".

In Isaiah 66 - Christ the Creator tells us that from "Sabbath TO Sabbath ALL MANKIND will come before Me to WORSHIP IN the NEW Earth".

The doctrine on the New Earth is explicitly addressed in Rev 21!

This is just too easy to get -

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

How you are able to get "All MANKIND" to mean "Just OT Israel" is impossible to grasp!!

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None of your lists is "Quoted by Paul" in his quote of the 5th commandment. (But it is interesting that you would go to PRE-CROSS LISTS as in the case of John 13 and John 15 don't you think?)

ALL translators/scholars SEE clearly that Eph 6 is quoting from the Ten Commandments - your "need" to avoid the obvious is certainly apparent but your results are conflicted at best.

Paul says IT IS THE FIRST in that list WITH a promise. Did you think that Christ was BREAKING the Commandments up in the Gospels "pre-cross" with a NEW LIST that excluded the "Sabbath MADE for MANKIND"??

Where is the commandment about taking God's name in vain?

Your anything-but-Christ-the-Creator's-Sabbath approach is getting you into all kinds of self-conflicted statements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --
If you love God, you will not take His name in vain. If you love your fellow man, you will honor your mother and father. That's how it works, Bob.Paul said the Fith commandment is the FIRST ONE in the list with a promise.

This is NOT true of the books of Genesis and Exodus. We find promises BEFORE Exodus 20 vs 12.

The only way for his statement to be TRUE is to have an actual ordered LIST in which the FIFTH commandment is the FIRST one where a promise is found.

Again - this is so obvious that all attempts to squirm out of it are totally impossible.

D.L.Moody's approach is the only sane one here.

In Christ,

Bob

[Eric B]

As D.L. Moody points out in Gen 2:3 "ALL MANKIND" observed that FIRST Holy Day -- on the SEVENTH-day of Creation week and every week following for ALL mankind was merely "Adam" and "Eve". I don't follow Moody, and he didn't teach us to keep the 7th day. You are quoting him more than the Bible now, and I think it is a clear sign that you are out of arguments.
Mark 2:27 shows - Christ the Creator "thinks" that HIS Holy Day was MADE "FOR MANKIND". The way you're taking it, we were made for it. Man was made to worship God, and if worshipping God was all about the sabbth, then man was made for the sabbath.
In Isaiah 66 - Christ the Creator tells us that from "Sabbath TO Sabbath ALL MANKIND will come before Me to WORSHIP IN the NEW Earth".

The doctrine on the New Earth is explicitly addressed in Rev 21! The concept of the New Earth has changed since the Old Tesament prophecies. Once again, new moons, priests and Levites are mentioned there, and Egypt is condemned if they do not keep one of the annual feasts. You once before tried to say "well maybe those days will be kept again", but then that could be said of the weelky sabbath, and this this is not proof of what is to be kept today.
How you are able to get "All MANKIND" to mean "Just OT Israel" is impossible to grasp!! "observing" the day by ceasing from work. That was the "sign" for Israel, and only they. Spiritual rest is for all, by spiritual rest is not confined to a day.
Paul said the Fith commandment is the FIRST ONE in the list with a promise.

This is NOT true of the books of Genesis and Exodus. We find promises BEFORE Exodus 20 vs 12.

The only way for his statement to be TRUE is to have an actual ordered LIST in which the FIFTH commandment is the FIRST one where a promise is found.

Again - this is so obvious that all attempts to squirm out of it are totally impossible. No one is denying that it was an ordered list. Everyone was familiar with it, so it could be quoted from. That has nothing to do with what we are discussing. For Christ's magnification of it into such spiritual sins as lust and hatred are not in the Ten, and if your philosophy of "only the Ten; no more, no less" is right, those must be excluded as well. That is why in the NT, we are pointed to the TWO. The ten can be used to highlight the finer points of the two, but clearlyl the two is the new "list" for th eNT.

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark 2:27 shows - Christ the Creator "thinks" that HIS Holy Day was MADE "FOR MANKIND".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric
The way you're taking it, we were made for it. Man was made to worship God, and if worshipping God was all about the sabbth, then man was made for the sabbath. You argue that if we are not free to abolish and ignore Christ the Creator's OWN Holy Day then it must not really be FOR US.

It is like arguing that if we are not REALLY allowed to abolish MARRIAGE then MARRIAGE was not really made FOR US.

You argue that IF Marriage has bounds and a binding relationship then it must not really be "a blessing".

This is how you are arguing against Christ the Creator's Holy Day where HE CLAIMS it is MADE FOR MANKIND (speaking of the MAKING of BOTH mankind AND His own Holy Day).

Surely you can not be satisfied with such an approach.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Isaiah 66 - Christ the Creator tells us that from "Sabbath TO Sabbath ALL MANKIND will come before Me to WORSHIP IN the NEW Earth".

The doctrine on the New Earth is explicitly addressed in Rev 21!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said
The concept of the New Earth has changed since the Old Tesament prophecies.There is nothing in the PRE-CROSS statements of Christ OR THE POST-Cross statements of the Jewish authors of scripture to indicate that they did not take SCRIPTURE as an AUTHORITATIVE source OR that they considered the prophecies of scripture to be "void".

In the case of the NEW EARTH of Isaiah 66 - show me even one place in the NT where it is argued that the NEW EARTH of SCRIPTURE (the NT used the OT as SCRIPTURE) was no longer valid!!

It is not there!

So "you make it up".

I understand your "need" to do it. But that does not make it an compelling argument. I would need to ALREADY have rejected Christ the Creator's own Holy day to even consider such a desperate line of reasoning.

Agreed?

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul said the Fifth commandment is the FIRST ONE in the list with a promise. (Eph 6:1-3)

This is NOT true of the books of Genesis and Exodus. We find promises BEFORE Exodus 20 vs 12.

The only way for his statement to be TRUE is to have an actual ordered LIST in which the FIFTH commandment is the FIRST one where a promise is found.

Again - this is so obvious that all attempts to squirm out of it are totally impossible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Eric said
No one is denying that it (the TEN commandments) was an ordered list. Everyone was familiar with it (The TEN), so it could be quoted from.
I believe we are finally getting to another obvious point that you will admit to.

Frankly - I am happy to be here.

If Paul is admittedly quoting FROM the TEN and arguing that this 5th commandment IS binding on Christians today - AND ALSO pointing out that WITHIN THE TEN this is the FIRST one with a promise - then he IS using the TEN as an authorotative document.

It would be silly to say "The Easter Bunny has TEN rules and THIS one rule is the one with the most cabbage involved so we have every possible motivation to honor it". Obviously "EASTER BUNNY" rules have no weight at all - and the fact that this one has "more cabbage" attributes does nothing to overcome the more basic problem that easter bunny rules are not taken as binding!

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

For Christ's magnification of it into such spiritual sins as lust and hatred are not in the Ten,The "spirit of the LAW" ALWAYS magnifies and EXPANDS the scope of the written text. This rule applies in all cases.

You have said repeatedly that your position is about ABOLISHING and IGNORING the Sabbath commandment.

Are you suggesting you would like to find a NT means of EXPANDING and HONORING Christ the Creator's Holy Day??

Are you now going with D.L.Moody's idea of CONTINUED honor and obedience to God's Ten Commandments???

In Christ,

Bob

[Eric B]

You argue that if we are not free to abolish and ignore Christ the Creator's OWN Holy Day then it must not really be FOR US.

It is like arguing that if we are not REALLY allowed to abolish MARRIAGE then MARRIAGE was not really made FOR US.

You argue that IF Marriage has bounds and a binding relationship then it must not really be "a blessing".

This is how you are arguing against Christ the Creator's Holy Day where HE CLAIMS it is MADE FOR MANKIND (speaking of the MAKING of BOTH mankind AND His own Holy Day). A person can be not married at all. Jews took marriage being made "For mankind" to mean that every single person was almost obligated to get married, or else, something was wrong with them. But that is not the case. "for" does not imply "obligation", Bob.
There is nothing in the PRE-CROSS statements of Christ OR THE POST-Cross statements of the Jewish authors of scripture to indicate that they did not take SCRIPTURE as an AUTHORITATIVE source OR that they considered the prophecies of scripture to be "void".

In the case of the NEW EARTH of Isaiah 66 - show me even one place in the NT where it is argued that the NEW EARTH of SCRIPTURE (the NT used the OT as SCRIPTURE) was no longer valid!!

It is not there!

So "you make it up".

I understand your "need" to do it. But that does not make it an compelling argument. I would need to ALREADY have rejected Christ the Creator's own Holy day to even consider such a desperate line of reasoning. The "New Earth" was not void, but certain DETAILS about it in that scenario were. Once again, you do not keep new moons, the feat of tabernacles, or the temple services with priests and levites. You make up your criteria for what is still in effect, and it is not even consistent.
If Paul is admittedly quoting FROM the TEN and arguing that this 5th commandment IS binding on Christians today - AND ALSO pointing out that WITHIN THE TEN this is the FIRST one with a promise - then he IS using the TEN as an authorotative document. He is using it as a familiar doument that has universal laws that are still authoritative.
The "spirit of the LAW" ALWAYS magnifies and EXPANDS the scope of the written text. This rule applies in all cases. No; but you are insisting now that is is only what is in the Ten. That would rule out any "magnification". So your line of reasoning changes again!
You have said repeatedly that your position is about ABOLISHING and IGNORING the Sabbath commandment.

Are you suggesting you would like to find a NT means of EXPANDING and HONORING Christ the Creator's Holy Day?? Uh, yes, Bob. That's what I've been saying all along! It ewxpands to EVERY day, and is not about ceasing from physical work on ONE day anymore. YOU think that is "abolishing", because you are fixated upon the physical letter of the Law, and have missed its intent completely. With all this talk of "Christ's holy day" it is more about proving yourself more obedient to God (a better Christian) than others, than it is about Christ, anyway.