For SDA's on Sunday worship

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ said "If you Love Me KEEP My commandments" - pre-cross to His pre-cross Jewish followers. The Commandments of God were fairly well known at that time - especially to the Jews.

That they would know this to include the 10 commandments is obvious. That they would know it to include the Deut 6:5 commandment to Love God with all the heart - as well as the Lev 19:18 command to Love our neighbor as ourselves - is also evident. That they might come to think of those commandments as "God's bad ideas" is not well supported in scripture.

Apparently the readers of James chapter 2 - were equally well informed on those points and had no misgivings about "the Commandments showing a lack of love for Christ". The point seems to be consistent with the Words of Christ "IF you Love Me KEEP My commandments".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In James 2 mentioned above - we are to "live and act as those who Are to be judged by the Law of Liberty" and the quote for that Law - came from the 10 commandments in James 2.

So it is no wonder that Christ tells His pre-cross followers (Jewish followers) "If you Love Me -- Keep My Commandments".

It is no wonder that in Rev 12 we find John continuing that them showing us that the saints of God are those that "Keep the Commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus".

The same author - showing a continuous theme from pre-cross Gospel teaching to post-cross gospel teaching.

And you are correct to observe that they are not "earning salvation" in either case. Neither in the OT pre-Cross obedience to God - nor in the post-Cross examples of obedience. None of it is "earning salvation by works" as you point out.

In Christ,

Bob

 

But the Jews only recognized one coming. they thought all of this would be done at the first coming. This is a large part of the reason for their rejection of Christ. What they missed was that they were not pleasing God to His satisfaction, and a first coming would then be needed before the rest of that happens. Once again, There could be siome sort of Sabbath observance in the Kingdom, but it would be much different than the shadow commanded to Israel, as it is, in spirit, to us today, who were not cammanded in the NT to cease from work on a particular day.

But then to be consistent, you must regard all non-Sabbathkeepers as not true followers or saints. Not only when the mark of the Beast is received, but now as well. This is the ultimate proof that this issue cannot really be one of obedience to something God commands all to keep. As I told No deceit on the "true Cult" thread, he and people like Darwin Fish may be more consistent in regarding all they see as disobeying the Bible as unsaved, but we need to make sure these issues we divide over are really essential or what God commands of all. Else, you might as well go on and regard yourself as the only true Christian.

 

Eric Said --

Unless you are arguing that "God was confused" when He gave this message to Isaiah - or that
Isaiah was confused when he wrote what God told him... You have no way to make your case based on the idea that "some Jews of Isaiah's day were in error on some point".

Recall that many Jews "expected the Messiah" to come and deliver them from Rome. That did not stop Messianic prophecy from being true, that did not obligate John the Baptist to teach error, that did not obligate Christ or the disciples to teach error before the cross.

So ... we can trust the Isaiah 66 statements AND when we see John USE those very statements in Revelation - we can not that the Word of God is in full and complete harmony with itself.

There has only "ever been" --- "One Gospel" according to Gal 1:6-9

As for what "is repeated" in the NT. ...

In the book of Malachai there is no "repeat" of the Ten Commandments - yet they do not end.

In John 14 Christ said "before the Cross" -- "If you love Me KEEP My Commandments". Clearly the 10 commandments are not "repeated" pre-cross in the Gospels - but are still in force - all agree to this.

The idea that "failure to repeat equals abolish" is not found in all of scripture.


In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it is no wonder that Christ tells His pre-cross followers (Jewish followers) "If you Love Me -- Keep My Commandments".

It is no wonder that in Rev 12 we find John continuing that them showing us that the saints of God are those that "Keep the Commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus".

The same author - showing a continuous theme from pre-cross Gospel teaching to post-cross gospel teaching.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not "author" the text of scripture - I simply accept it. You argue that if we accept it - then we must denounce all Christians that do not know to follow in obedience as Christ said in John 14 or as John says in Rev 12. However that is a conclusion that you are drawing about what it means to fail to understand some of those areas.

Notice that in Rev 18 God says to those that are in the errors of "Babylon" - "Come out of her MY people". Clearly God is not making the distinction that you have made - because He appears to STILL regard them as "MY people" even though they are in the doctrinal errors of Babylon.

This principle could easily be extended to anyone that did not understand the clear teaching of Rev 12 and John 14 regarding Christ's words "If you Love Me Keep my Commandments".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I did not say anything about "confusion" or "error". God did not reveal two comings at that point, so when a Jew wrote or read that, they thought Isaiah 66 would be fulfilled at the first coming. Neither they were in error or confused, because they simply wrote/preached/believed what God revealed to them up to that point, and nor was God in error, confused, or doing the confusing, because He could reveal what He wanted to men when He wanted, and it did not contradict. The eternality of the Old Covenant was conditional upon Israel's obedience, and God knew the covenant would be broken, but did not reveal it in that particular chapter. God was slowly writing the lesson in Israel's history.

Once again, I keep saying nothing is "abolished", only changed by being "magnified" in the NT. The sacrifices, feasts, circumcision, etc. were not really "abolished" in principle; they just carried on in their spiritual intentions. It's the physical "letter" applications which were not repeated.

Those told to "come ut of her, my people", are those who have compromised or backslidden a bit, into the error of a religio-political system that will work through cunning deception and force. Many Christians get caught up in false politics or practices, but that is a far cry from accusing them of deliberately breaking a solid, clear commandment of God, out of "rebellion". If someone totally disregarded the other commandments and openly practiced murder, adultery, blasphemy or witchcraft, and not only that, but believed they were OK, we would not believe they were really Christian.
So since the majority of Christians do not practice the 7th day Sabbath, either they are all false anti-God rebels, or perhaps there is some principle they have gotten from God and His Word and Spirit, that ceasing from work an a particular day every week is no longer binding on Christians.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bob said
Unless you are arguing that "God was confused" when He gave this message to Isaiah - or that
Isaiah was confused when he wrote what God told him... You have no way to make your case based on the idea that "some Jews of Isaiah's day were in error on some point".

Recall that many Jews "expected the Messiah" to come and deliver them from Rome. That did not stop Messianic prophecy from being true, that did not obligate John the Baptist to teach error, that did not obligate Christ or the disciples to teach error before the cross.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said

#1. Your point is that God is free to lie to them about when the New Heavens and New Earth would occur - and they were simply believing just what God was saying - which of course -- was not true.

Obviously you might expect us to differ on the views we take here - however I don't think that makes a compelling case even at best.

#2. You are simply wrong when you declare that God lied to them about the New Heavens and New Earth because He would not tell them about the first and 2nd coming.

In Zech 9 we see clearly - the first coming of Christ - and Zech-9 is quoted in the Gospels as such.

In Zech 14 we see the second coming of Christ - and it is also quoted in the NT as such.

Both are found in the OT.

You even have the conditions of the Millenium described in the OT.

In Daniel 9 you have the first coming of Christ predicted right down to the year and the event of His baptism.

But in Daniel 8 you are given an even broader view - showing a 2300 year period of history that is taken in Daniel 9 showing that the 490 year segment of that 2300 years takes us to the first coming of the Messiah.

So not only do they have the two appearances of Christ - they even have indication of at least an 1800 year time frame separating them.

Moses predicted Israel's failure in Deuteronomy saing "I KNOW that after I am gone you will rebell". So they had "indication" of failure.

God never made "heaven" conditional on the obedience of Israel - any more than He has made "heaven" conditional on the church not going into apostacy in the dark ages.

The timeline (like that of Israel in the wilderness for 40 years instead of 40 days) can be extended due to rebellion - but the ultimate goal and plan remains the same. The redemption of mankind and the gospel method of salvation has been the same in all ages.

When God says of the New Heavens and New Earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worsthip" - then it is beyond question that ...

#1. The Sabbath is applicable to "ALL mankind". Christ confirms this again in the NT saying "The Sabbath WAS MADE for mankind" Mark 2.


#2. The keeping of sabbath and the fact that all mankind does so perfectly in this prophetic view of the future shows that in the perfect New Earth - when All mankind (not just the jews) is in perfect harmony with God - all mankind keeps the Sabbath.

Truly are difficult sequence to avoid.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I wish you would stop accusing me of SAYING that God "lies", and other stuff like that. God may have revealed bits of the truth of the first coming elsewhere, but Israel did not have the whole picture. (And this is proven by the fact that they expected Christ to put down Rome right then if He was the Messiah. Even the disciples were caught up in this).
God does not "lie", but then He does not reveal everything at once either. Why is this a "lie"? Ha has a definite plan, and revealed what He saw fit as time went on.

Notice, it doesn't say "KEEP" as we are accustomed today. We will WORSHIP, that is all it says. It does not prove that we are to cease from work in this age. We don't even know what a weekly routine in the eternal kingdom will be like, so to say that they are working 6 days and RESTing on a sabbath then is adding to the text something that is not there. As I have repeatedly said, the scope of the commandment is magnifies, and will be magnified even more then, so we will more than likely be worshipping God everyday. In this fallen earth, life basically revolves around survival (go to work, to buy place to live and food, etc, then raise children to follow the process all over again), but in the Kingdom, it will all revolve around God. We will not be devoting only one day a week to Him. And at the same time, we will always be in a state of "rest".

 

Actually - Ive just run across something in studying the Hebrew

Who made the Sabbath Saturday? - I see no evidence that God has done so

Id like to be shown where it says God does

 

As Christians we accept that Christ was raised from the dead on the first day of the week. We know that was Sunday - because we have accurate calendar data for the Roman empire and the first century AD.

Obviously - that means we are in perfect "sync" with the Jewish observance of the 7th day and it is clear to see that BOTH those who keep Sabbath and those who don't rely on Sunday being the first day - and Saturday being the Sabbath.

In the NT text we find that both the Apostles (Acts 13, 17) and Christ Luke 4:31 engaged in Bible studies on Sabbath - and hence "knew" what day it was.

The argument is sometimes made that the Jews might have forgotten which day of the week it really was - since they were given the 10 commandments on Sinai and that Christ - as the Creator of all mankind who claimed that He "Made the Sabbath for Mankind" (Mark 2:27) and that "He was Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:28) -- just might also have "forgotten" which day it was - and so was just keeping whatever they customarily kept in the first century A.D.

There "are those" who go along with that idea. Most do not. (too many "just might" key points in that kind of argument. Also God speaks to the Hebrews about Sabbath through Isaiah and others even after Sinai. The argument would have to also speculate "God just might not have cared about their changing the day in the OT even while instructing them on the Sabbath through His prophets)

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am simply "showing" that you have not made a case for the alternative to simply accepting the Isaiah 66 teaching that in the New Earth (the real New Earth that is also affirmed in Rev 21) the scope is "All Mankind" and the instruction is "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall All Mankind come before Me to Worship".

I would love to hear your "alternative" for when God WAS saying "All mankind" was the true and correct "scope" for applying the Sabbath command.

Was it when God "Made the Sabbath for mankind" in Gen 2:3 - a time when you "suppose" that He "kept it a secret from all mankind"?

Is it in the OT days after the fall of Adam - when you claim that "God only gave the Sabbath to the Jews and NOT all mankind"?

Is it post Cross - when you claim that it actually displeases God if we obey Him and honor His 7th-day memorial of the creation of mankind?

Or is it sometime after the 2nd coming - when Isaiah 66 described the New Earth and "All mankind" coming before God to worship?

Or are you claiming that the People of God were kept so far in the dark in all of these areas - that they had no hope of having any understanding of the "New Heavens and New Earth" or when it would be and so any application of anything in that mythical - unknown time can not be counted on - even when the message comes from God Himself? Since (after all) the Jews were confused.

Bascially you have not put forward a compelling alternative to simply accepting the text and using the Rev 21 clarification - where God explains in detail where His message about the New Earth is pointing in the timeline.

You argue instead that When God speaks of the New Earth in Isaiah 66 and then He speaks of it in Rev 21 - He is not clear on what He means - or is forgetting to be consistent in what that means.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric said --

In Exodus 20 it is identified as having its origin in the Gen 2:3 fact. Christ said that "it was Made For mankind" and Lev 23 declares it to be given as "a day of holy assembly" before God.

Then in Isaiah 66 it tells us that in the New Earth it is still a day for "all mankind".

A day for "All mankind to come before Me and worship".

I fail to see how this can be in any way "confusing" or how it shows that direct rebellion against the Sabbath commandment - regarding work - would "be ok".

"Exegesis" means that when we observe the correct and doctrinally accurate view of the primary audience as they read "From Sabbath to Sabbath" - and we accept this as the intent of the author - we are avoiding the supposed confusion and ambiguity you propose above.

In fact - if we kept hitting the reset button and redefined terms in each chapter of the Bible - claiming that they are "unknown" though clearly spelled out for the primary audience in previous books - we would have no hope for objective compelling points of Bible study - even today.

Your supposition of ambiguity on such a clearly spelled-out subject like the 7 day sequence of Gen 1-2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11 is without a basis. The idea that the primary audience would read Isaiah 66 and say "hmm ... from Sabbath to Sabbath... I wonder what that means... can't possibly mean what God has told us it means... so I wonder what it could be" -- can not be supported.

Which brings me back to my prior point - you are not offering a logical believable alternative.

Your tactic is just the simplistic "anything but the real Sabbath". It does not try to build a believable - compelling case other than the "not-Sabbath" hope.

Eric Said

No doubt - as we see the Love for God commandment of Deut 6:5 and the Love for our neighbor commandment of Lev 19:18 - expanded and deepened.

That does does not mean that we will start worshipping all beings - whereas we only worship and love the Triune God with all our heart today.

Nor does the deepening and enforcing of the Sabbath commandment mean "not worshipping" on Sabbath OR "adding new Sabbaths".

In fact "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" shows a cyclic sequence that requires the days in between NOT to be treated as "the same as Sabbath" since it creates "mush" out of a cyclic statement "From Sabbath to Sabbath" shall some event take place.

Today "Even Sabbath keepers" have devotion and worship - each day - not just on Sabbath. But that has never obliterated their ability to show the distinctive recognition of rest, worship and honor the Creator requires on His 7th-day memorial of Creation - made a holy day for mankind in Gen 2:3. (Since it was in fact "made for mankind")

God delcares that in Gen 2:3 it was "made a holy day" that is in the "unfallen earth".

Christ declares that it was "MADE for mankind and that mankind was not MADE in Gen 1 for the Sabbath". This giving of the Holy day was given before Sin - Gen 2:3 and God says in Exodus 20 that its origin is in the fact that "God rested" on that 7th day - an act which in itself "made it" a holy day. An act that made creation week - 7 days instead of 6. And low and behold - we "still" have that 7 day week.

But even more - God says that in the New earth the cycle - the sequence still applies "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall All mankind come before Me to worship"..

Your statement is of the form "oh no! There will be no need for it in the New Earth - the entire 7 day week and Sabbath definition won't exist it will be changed to some as yet undetermined idea".

In Christ,

Bob

 

</font>[/QUOTE]When did I say that? I said He did not reveal everything on the coming of Messiah at that time.

the rest of mankind-- the gentiles, we see repeatedly condemned for their idolatry and witchcraft, sexual immorality, murder, and it is also shown as wrong for them to blashpeme, lie, steal and covet. But never are they condemned for not keeping the Sabbath. Only if a "stranger" joined the nation of Israel was he ever expected to keep the sabbath (as well as the rest of the Laws). Once again, you ignore that there were Noahide laws, which were the universal commands for all men, and this did not include the sabbath. Once again, it was Moses who wrote Genesis, and it was teaching them who God was, and giving the sabbath that would become a sign of their identity its significance. It never says God ever exopected all men to keep it.

Never said this. Rom.14 says if a man observes a day, let him observe it to the Lord. You were so busy trying to say this was only certain days, you didn't realize that if I believe this, then I won't condemn you for keeping the Sabbath, so why would I say it was displeasing to God (It is sometimes others --the ones who insist on Sunday who say that, but they are just as wrong).

Not consistent? Israel broke its part of the covenenat, and they would no longer be the particular vehicle He would use in His kingdom. No inconsistency on God's part; He just adapts the plan when man fails. So rather than the Mosaic system continuing in the Kingdom, the Sabbath will take on a new application.

So the Sabbath is established in Genesis and Exodus, os given a place in the Kingdom in Isaiah, but its universal eternal application hinges on Leviticus. Does this mean the rest of the Laws in Leviticus will still be in effect?

 

cont'd:
And once again, no one is teaching "rebellion". If God does not command everyone to do it, then they are not rebelling.

No, of course they wouldn't say that. It would mean to them what it meant to them, according to their perspective. "God will send His Messiah, and establish Israel as His Kingdom. All will be forced to come and worship Him on the Sabbath, which Israel keeps now. This was God's original intent". But elsewhere, it is revealed that all of this would be broken if Israel did not keep here end of the covenant, and this would also be realized by the reader. No "lies", no "deception", no "confusion", no "inconsistency" no "kept in the dark", no "ambiguity", etc. God's promises and the prophecies that rest on them were conditional: IF you do this, THIs will come true, IF you do not, then it won't; and I don't know why you can't understand this and not throw up these charges of what God would be doing if that were true.

Of course one commandment does not "magnify" verbatim the same exact way as the other. Worshipping God means not only avoiding literal "other gods", but also anything in our lives that takes place of God. The former is the "letter"; the latter is the "spirit" of the Law. One could keep the letter and think he was truly keeping the commandment, but its INTENT is more than that. "Worshipping all things" violates the commandment, so how could it magnify into that? Now, with the sabbath, what is the INTENT? Just to test our love and obedience by the inconvenience of having to stop everything you're doing and focus on God for this one day? No, it was made for man and man was not made for it. It was for rest and worship, and Hebrews shows that the whole state of being in the Kingdom is rest and worship. You keep referring to Genesis (before the Fall), but it was the SDA's who emphasized more than many others that the Creation week was a foretype of the whole history of Creation. So you can't keep using this to prove that the weekly sabbath was an eternal command. The whole age will be the antetypical Sabbath, and this fulfills anything written before.
You like to take Genesis and Isaiah and try to fuse them together into a universal command, and then read it into Rev.21. But if it was that essential to worship, and did not change, it would be reiterated there. We see all the other practices that "defiles" and will disqualify one from the Kingdom there (as well as in Paul's writings), but NEVER not keeping a sabbath. They are all deafeningly silent on it. Why is it only with that, that you have to go only to the OT? Once again, things changed between the covenants, and OT prophecy is the shadow, while Rev. is the final word. You cannot interpret it by the OT like that, except to support the teachings that are clear there (e.g. how Dan.2 & 7 set the foundation for Rev. 13 & 17)

This is because we are looking at it from the perspecive of this age, where we do have a cyclical existence. We are in the dark about what exactly the Kingdom will be like, because as Corinthians says, "we see in a glass darkly". To take it the next step further, don't you think that you will show that same level of distinctive worship and honor all the time?

[ December 06, 2003, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

Just courious, you guys are allowed to go on the internet on the Sabbath? Or is paricipating in these debates considered "doing God's work", as is preaching, etc.?

 

Good question.

We turn on the lights, drive to church and post on religious message boards on Sabbath among other things.

What we don't do is go to work (except in the case of certain types of jobs) - go shopping, play ball, watch secular programming etc.

The idea is that it is a day for Bible fellowship and worship with other Christians.

So in this case - even though we do not agree on everything or every doctrinal point - having a Bible study with a fellow Christian is in keeping with the spirit of the Creator's 7th-day memorial of the Creation of mankind.

So I get in a few posts before church (when I can squeeze that in) and then again sometime in the afternoon.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You argue instead that When God speaks of the New Earth in Isaiah 66 and then He speaks of it in Rev 21 - He is not clear on what He means - or is forgetting to be consistent in what that means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --

The Sabbath for "all mankind" in Isaiah 66 says nothing about "All mankind lead by Jews to Keep Sabbath" or "Jews teaching all mankind about Sabbath" as if "Failure of the Jews to remain faithful - will obliterate the option of ALL mankind coming before God to worship From Sabbath to Sabbath".

That is to say - nothing about the Sabbath worship was "negated" at any point in history - by Israel being unfaithful. They could only "negate their OWN practices" they could not "stop the rest of mankind" from the blessing of the Sabbath "made for Mankind and not mankind for the Sabbath".


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Exodus 20 it is identified as having its origin in the Gen 2:3 fact. Christ said that "it was Made For mankind" and Lev 23 declares it to be given as "a day of holy assembly" before God.

Then in Isaiah 66 it tells us that in the New Earth it is still a day for "all mankind".

A day for "All mankind to come before Me and worship".

I fail to see how this can be in any way "confusing" or how it shows that direct rebellion against the Sabbath commandment - regarding work - would "be ok".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said --

Its universal application hinges on the fact that it is given to mankind in Gen 2:3, is delcared to "already" have been "Made for mankind" by Christ in Mark2 and is seen to apply to "all mankind" even in the new earth - in Isaiah 66.

But you are right about Leviticus - for another reason.

In Matt 5:17 Christ said "I have not come to destroy or abolish the Law of God - but to fulfill it". He says that anyone who teaches someone to disregard even the least of its requirements will be "least" in heaven.

He then spends the remainder of Matt 5 giving examples of the Law that He is fulfilling perfectly - and showing how that law CONTINUES to bind His followers - only "more so".

In Acts 15 when laws are applied to the Gentiles - it is the Levitical law regarding eating meat with blood in it and meat offerred to idols that is brought up.

In the Gospels and in James 2 - it is the Law of Lev 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" that is highlighted - as well as the law of Deut 6:5 "Love God with all your heart" - and also the 10 commandments.

There is no cart blanche "freely rebell against My Laws" in the NT or the OT.

Christ "Fufilled" the laws He lists in Matt 5 - and yet all of them still apply - most Christians today still admit that.

Christ perfectly fulfilled the commandment "Love God with all your heart" - and it still applies.

To "get rid of a law" you have to do it with something more then "supposed abolishing".

Regarding the Lev 23 shadow Sabbaths of the annual feast days - we have the Heb 10 statement that Christ has put an end to the sacrificial system -

This then is not guesswork. Nor do we find that in the New Earth we will be "Sacrificing animals" - which would be strong indicator that we had misread something in the NT if such were the case.

In Isaiah 56 the foreigners who worship God were blessed for keeping the Creator's 7th-day memorial of His creation of mankind - but were not required to "become Jews".

In Zech 8:20-23 the people from other lands, languages countries worship the true God - but do not have to live in Israel or "become Jews".

In 1Kings 8:41-43 we see again that the entire earth - all peoples of all nations were called upon to worship the true God - but not to "become Jews".

Circumcision itself was never required of Gentiles in OT or NT. It was only required if they wanted to be considered members of the nation of Israel.

In Christ,

Bob

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship" shows a cyclic sequence that requires the days in between NOT to be treated as "the same as Sabbath" since it creates "mush" out of a cyclic statement "From Sabbath to Sabbath" shall some event take place.

Today "Even Sabbath keepers" have devotion and worship - each day - not just on Sabbath. But that has never obliterated their ability to show the distinctive recognition of rest, worship and honor the Creator requires on His 7th-day memorial of Creation - made a holy day for mankind in Gen 2:3. (Since it was in fact "made for mankind")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said

Exegesis means that the "definition" for "From Sabbath to Sabbath" as read in Isaiah 66 must be taken from the context of the author and the people reading the text. In the book of Isaiah and to the Hebrews of that day - there is no question about "the meaning".

Exegesis does not allow us to "suppose that this is not really a 7 day cycle". There is no basis for it.

So rather than second-guessing God when He tells us something about it - why not simply accept it and assume that He knows full well what meaning the phrase "From Sabbath to Sabbath" instead of "daily" or "continually every day" is going to mean to us.

I don't think it is possible to do two things at once to the same degree that you can do one of them alone.

It is not possible to play ball - and "meditate on God" as well as you could if you were "just" meditating on God.

God clearly provided for man the blessing of BOTH types of activity. Both enterprise AND worship. God recognized that focused attention on one or the other resulted in a higher quality of experience for each. That did not mean that Adam was "pagan" while engaged in activity in the Garden of Eden. No doubt he was very God-honoring and thoughtful. YET - even he had "the blessing" of the Sabbath as a gift from his creator.

In Christ,

Bob

 

well, I have this wild theory that the seventh day isnt actually a fixed specific (cardinal) day, but rather a relative (ordinal) day - and as such could be a Tuesday - if observed properly

People seem to put such wild and great value on a certain day - but Sabbath itself does not refer to a time, but to actions

1) to cease, desist, rest
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to cease
1a2) to rest, desist (from labour)
1b) (Niphal) to cease
1c) (Hiphil)
1c1) to cause to cease, put an end to
1c2) to exterminate, destroy
1c3) to cause to desist from
1c4) to remove
1c5) to cause to fail
2) (Qal) to keep or observe the sabbath

However since the Sabbath does have the fellowship component to it as well - a widely accepted day for worship could become known as the Sabbath, and while acceptable, would not become the sole allowable day for Sabbath.

 

But it was never COMMANDED of the rest of men, for the Jews to negate it for them. They did negate their own practices, since God had goven it only to them (never see Him demand any other people to observe it, regardless of Gen. 2, which once again, says nothing about a universal command.)

No, that's the Noahide laws, which predate the Levitical laws, which were never given to other peoples.

Once again, this is not "rebellion". Of all the rebellion He condemns the pagans for, we never see sabbathbreaking in the list. It was not expected of them. Even the Jews know this. (You would think they more than anyone would believe in the universality of the Sabbath, but even they criticize 7th day Christian groups for not knowing what the Law was about.

You just said it yourself. It is not about "becoming Jews", but about becomning apart of the nation of Israel.

We're going around in circles now. I maintain that the Sabbath is not commanded of everyone, you point to Genesis, Isaiah and Mark 2. I point out it is not renewed post-Cross, you say "God is not making it OK to rebel now". I point out it is not rebellion because the applications of the Law is magnified beyond a literal "resting" on a day of the week, and you go back to Gen., Isaiah amd Mark, even though you have not proven that these are "commands" for all men all the time to keep the sabbath. You are assuming that they are by inference, but it is the same type of inference that leads Sunday people to take the mentions of the first day in the NT as a transfering of the day. ("Inference" also comes up as a proof of limited atonement/reprobation/preterition in the predestination debate, if you may remember). But inference is not enough to establish a universal all-binding doctrine like that.
You're attacking my view point by point, but it is taken as a whole that I believe is what disproves your positon.

 

It was never "commanded" Cain not to kill -

It was never "commanded" the NT saints after the cross "Not to take God's name in vain" --

But the Bible clearly tells us that in the New Earth "ALL mankind" will come "From Sabbath to Sabbath" to worship the Creator.

And The Creator says in Mark 2 "The Sabbath was Made For Mankind".

Seems like a done deal.

In Christ,

Bob