Sola Scripture? Part Two

Claudia,

There be no gatherings when I come - There should be no collection of money when I come ( doesn't mean the church gathering)

They collected the money on the first days of the week. ( 1 Cor 16:2)

They broke the Bread on the First day of the Week ( Acts 20:7)

You missed the Pentecostal meetings were on Sunday, First fruits day was Sunday.
That's why I believe the Resurrection was on Sunday because the Firstfruits day was Sunday which symbolize the resurrection.

 

He did. Read Exodus 31. The Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel and their generations forever. It is not binding on the Gentiles (Christians) whatsoever. If you and Ellen G. White would study your Bibles, and base your beliefs on sola scriptura instead of the writings of the Great Controversy from which you quote (or more accurately copy and paste [also against BB rules]) you would be more apt to come to that conclusion.

Exodus 31:16-17 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

The Sabbath was for the nation of Israel, and the nation of Israel only. It is not binding on the Christians and there is no command anywhere in the New Testament for the Christian to keep the Sabbath.
DHK

 

"Sola Scriptura" is basically this - Make all your arguments, all your proofs - from the Bible "alone" except to the extent that you are showing how history agrees with the Bible and so you point to generally accepted historical sources.

The "only" exception to this is the "added" source of using "another denomination's" well recognized source that is strongly in favor of that other denomination - and yet is making your point anyway. This is only useful as an "added source" to your sola-scriptura set of proofs when addressing someone from that specific denomination.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Bob,

What about what I just posted, since it is basically quotes from Martyn, and the History of the Puritans, and etc.?

Is that ok?</font>[/QUOTE]Quotes are fine. The "Sola Scriptura" case still has to be made from scripture (as we see in Acts 17:11 and as we see Christ debunking the "traditions of man" in Mark 7).

But I am glad to see other quotes added showing how various traditions challenge the Word.

In the Case of the Sabbath - you do find cases where the RCC will claim that it's own man-made traditions were responsible for the change and no Bible text makes holy the FIRST day as the new Sabbath.

As Mike stated - many Christians today also do not keep the first day in honor of or obedience to the 4th commandment. Rather they are doing it purely as a tradition to honor week-day-one in memory of the resurrection. There is no question that such a tradition is fine - but the question is the scriptural basis for declaring the Ten commandments null and void. (Or at least one of them void).

I don't know of any non-Catholic that would argue that case based on the RC "say so". But would they take "A popular vote" instead?

In Christ,

Bob

 

DHK,

I do study my Bible and I do base my beliefs upon the Scriptures.

Claudia

 

DHK,

We cannot copy and paste anything on the message board here?

I dont understand that because I see lots of stuff on here that seems like people copy and paste it. How would you know if someone copied and pasted something anyway? Im confused. Especially some of the really long posts, I bet people didnt sit there and type it all out

Or do you mean that I am not allowed to copy and paste anything from any book? I thought it was just copyrighted stuff you couldnt use... or something you didnt get permission to post.


Also, arent there Seventh Day Baptists like Ben W on here? He doesnt read Ellen White and I he came to the conclusion that the 7th day Sabbath is still binding, didnt he?

I can read my Bible and from all the Bible texts I have seen on the subject I come to the conclusion that the law of God is still to be kept and that the 7th day is the Sabbth

Claudia

 

Claudia,

I think what DHK meant was copy and pasting looooong, looooong, loooooong sections of books.

I cases like that I believe we are supposed to post...copy and paste if we want...pertinant parts and then link to the whole thing.

Not sure but I THINK that what he meant.

God bless,

Mike

 

ohhhhhhhhhhh okay

 

I'm back - welcome or not welcome, and in a fighting mood, because I'm tired (sick) of okes like you who have nothing to say and just wait for some sore point to you to interject with such nonsensical 'bumps'. You are scared to face the Word of God on the subject of the Sabbath of the Lord your God because you are not willing to follow in the light of that Word. You need introspection, brother!

 

Quoting DHK, "The Sabbath was for the nation of Israel, and the nation of Israel only. It is not binding on the Christians and there is no command anywhere in the New Testament for the Christian to keep the Sabbath."

Baptistboard's service is superb - they helped me to log in again within minutes.

Dear DHK, The Sabbath was for the God of Israel, and for Him only. And that's why it's binding on Christians especially - because there is but One Command in the New Testament for the Christian to keep the Sabbath: The Word of God in living Person, The Lord of the Sabbath Day. even Jesus Christ, and He in resurrection from the dead "IN SABBATH'S-TIME'S-FULNESS" - Mt28:1, 'opse de sabbatohn tehi epifohskousehi eis mian (hehmeran) sabbatohn.

 

That's the difficulty of the 100% sound principle of Sola Scriptura: It's not Sola Scriptura we have any difficulty with - it's its interpretation, the so called translations of the Word - as is clear from my above post.

 

And it mainly is the RCC behind its perversions!

 

I'm back - welcome or not welcome, and in a fighting mood, because I'm tired (sick) of okes like you who have nothing to say and just wait for some sore point to you to interject with such nonsensical 'bumps'. You are scared to face the Word of God on the subject of the Sabbath of the Lord your God because you are not willing to follow in the light of that Word. You need introspection, brother! </font>[/QUOTE]There is no need for such a harsh rebuke to Jim. Usually when you see the word "bump" the poster is "bumping" the thread up to the front because he is interested in what people have to say on it, and often it is a thread that has slipped down to either the bottom of the thread or on to the second page where it is no longer noticed. Kudos to Jim for bumping this very relevant topic up to the top where there it attracts so much attention. DHK

 

Claudia T,
I have written to you before, but obviously in vain.
How do you study the Bible without having noticed the change of Law that there actually was? Namely from the Law upon the stones to the Law nailed upon the Cross, Christ Himself, to rise again the Indestructible Law of Life "according to the law of Milchisedec": "from everlasting to everlasting". That is where the Fourth Commandment derived from, or else it would have been an arbitrary act of the Unchanging God.

 

I'm back - welcome or not welcome, and in a fighting mood, because I'm tired (sick) of okes like you who have nothing to say and just wait for some sore point to you to interject with such nonsensical 'bumps'. You are scared to face the Word of God on the subject of the Sabbath of the Lord your God because you are not willing to follow in the light of that Word. You need introspection, brother! </font>[/QUOTE]There is no need for such a harsh rebuke to Jim. Usually when you see the word "bump" the poster is "bumping" the thread up to the front because he is interested in what people have to say on it, and often it is a thread that has slipped down to either the bottom of the thread or on to the second page where it is no longer noticed. Kudos to Jim for bumping this very relevant topic up to the top where there it attracts so much attention. DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Then I apologise and confess my unchristian attitude. May I say though I am not that familiar with either the American or IT idiomatics, being a "backbush rethoric" agitator (as once called on this Board. No offense taken!

 

Quoting DHK,
"It was not the Sabbath. The Greek clearly shows that the Sabbath was over. Christ arose on the first day of the week--Sunday."

Dear DHK,
You're a Baptist, aren't you? with great respect for AT Robertson? Good so. I too greatly respect him. Now in both his 'Grammar' and Gospel 'pictures', he explains unequivocally Jesus rose from the dead on "that Saturday", and "LONG BEFORE" sundown and the First day, "LATE ON the Sabbath" - NOT, 'after' it.

Calvin agrees on the time and day, and states -assertingly- Christ undid the Sabbath by the very act of His rising that day.

 

A further illustration of how 'Sola Scriptura' has become 'according to (RC) Traditional view:
QUOTE]Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Claudia, There be no gatherings when I come -There should be no collection of money when I come ( doesn't mean the church gathering)

They collected the money on the first days of the week. ( 1 Cor 16:2)

They broke the Bread on the First day of the Week ( Acts 20:7)

You missed the Pentecostal meetings were on Sunday, First fruits day was Sunday.

That's why I believe the Resurrection was on Sunday because the Firstfruits day was Sunday which symbolize the resurrection. [/QUOTE]

Eliyahu,
Every assertion you make is FALSE, one way or the other.
"They collected the money on the first days of the week. ( 1 Cor 16:2)", Correct - so as not to do it on the Sabbath!

"They broke the Bread on the First day of the Week ( Acts 20:7)&gt;&gt; False, false false - so 'translated' as to support Sunday observance. The Greek says they on the first day of the week were together gathered still after having had assembled together for Holy Communion when Paul discussed matters with the disciples mentioned earlier in the same chapter. Conclusion: They had to have gathered the previous day, the Sabbath, for Holy Communion. Thanks, your perversions don't go up!
"You missed the Pentecostal meetings were on Sunday, First fruits day was Sunday."

You missed the Pentecostal meetings were on Sabbath Day, First fruits day was Sabbath Day - and that's why I, believe the Resurrection was on Sabbath Day because the First Sheaf Wave Offering Day was Sabbath Day which symbolize the resurrection, when God "finished all His works" acc. to Hb4:4-5, and Mt28:1-3.

The first Pentecost (Shavuot) also fell on the Sabbath Day. By co-incidence? Never! By God Almighty's eternal council yes!

 

Claudia T,
I have written to you before, but obviously in vain.
How do you study the Bible without having noticed the change of Law that there actually was? Namely from the Law upon the stones to the Law nailed upon the Cross, Christ Himself, to rise again the Indestructible Law of Life "according to the law of Milchisedec": "from everlasting to everlasting". That is where the Fourth Commandment derived from, or else it would have been an arbitrary act of the Unchanging God. </font>[/QUOTE]I really dont think there is any need for either you or DHK to accuse me of not studying the Bible just because I happen to disagree with you.

Claudia

 

is Gerhard for or against the Sabbath? One minute he sounds like hes for it and then next minute he isnt

 

If a Jew becomes a Christian then when Paul kept the Sabbath why dont you think we need to? If he was a Christian. This isnt making any sense to me