The Sabbath Law

[The Biblicist]

You are confusing the Sabbath Law PRINCIPLE of six days (equal periods of time- 24hours, months, years, etc.) preceding and following the Seventh day Sabbath

Hint - no such statement in all of scripture as "Sabbath Law PRINCIPLE of six days (equal periods of time- 24hours, months, years, etc.) preceding and following the Seventh day Sabbath" so you make it up and quote "yourself".

You are confusing INTERPRETATION of a command with VERBAL PRECISENESS of a command. I never stated the fourth commanded contained this verbal expression. The idea of a 'PRINCIPLE" does not refer to the verbal preciseness of a command but to the INTERPRETATION of a command.

When you add "of the week" that is INTERPRETATION not verbal preciseness, so I can and I do make the same charge when it comes to verbal preciseness. However, it is my INTERPRETATION that is offered to counter your INTERPRETATION of this command. If this is above your head, then please let me know and I will attempt to simplify it for you.

In all those cases God never stated that He was applying 4th commandment to any other day.

God does not have to announce "I am making an application of the fouth commmandment here!!!!!!" The very fact that he identifies it as "Sabbath" demands it is an application of the fourth commandment because that is where "Sabbath" originates and how "sabbath" is defined.

in all of those case God actually states "in the text" the day He selects.

I agree. When I told you to select any date, it was merely for the purpose to illustrate the principle, not to suggest that we can do that as only God can do that and God did that in Levitcus 23 many times and he did in Psa. 118:24 in regard to the resurrection day of Christ and the first day of the week.


Look, your mind is hopeless as it is fogged over by SDA dogma. I really am not trying to convince you. I am pointing my efforts to the unbiased reader.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree. When I told you to select any date, it was merely for the purpose to illustrate the principle, not to suggest that we can do that as only God can do that and God did that in Levitcus 23 many times and he did in Psa. 118:24 in regard to the resurrection day of Christ and the first day of the week.

As we both know there is nothing in Ps 118 telling David or his readers or anyone - to replace the 7th day as specified in the 4th commandment - with "week day 1".

Your attempt to eisegete in to the text - what is not even remotely there at all was already exposed.

Your summary of it -always includes the missing detail that was not available to you in the text itself - but it is yet another case of "you quoting you" to find the source and substance of support for your assumptions.

Your use of Ps 118 is a classic circular argument if ever there was one. Thus it serves your methods to refer to the text location - but never the text language.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

As we both know there is nothing in Ps 118 telling David or his readers or anyone - to replace the 7th day as specified in the 4th commandment - with "week day 1".

Your attempt to eisegete in to the text - what is not even remotely there at all was already exposed.

Your summary of it -always includes the missing detail that was not available to you in the text itself - but it is yet another case of "you quoting you" to find the source and substance of support for your assumptions.

Your use of Ps 118 is a classic circular argument if ever there was one. Thus it serves your methods to refer to the text location - but never the text language.

in Christ,

Bob

I provided an expanded explanation of Psalm 118:20-24 and you gave no response and still have no response. I pointed out the Hebrew term translated "made" which is used in the fouth commandment to indicate an observation inferred. I pointed to Peter's direct quotation of Psalm 118:23 to the act of God raising Christ from the dead and verse 24 is inseparably connected in a consequence relationship to verse 23.

You have provide NOTHING but a denial empty of substance.

 

[BobRyan]

I provided an expanded explanation of Psalm 118:20-24 and you gave no response and still have no response.

I did respond to it - pointed out that you used tortured logic and eisegeted into the text all that you "wished it had said" without actually showing that any of your ideas were in fact IN the text itself about wee-day-1 being the new 4th commandment Sabbath or EVEN that week-day-1 is the Lord's Day.

Surely you "noticed".

I pointed out the Hebrew term translated "made" which is used in the fouth commandment to indicate an observation inferred.

Indeed you "inferred" a lot - but never showed that the text supported your highly creative, imaginative "out of whole cloth" inferences. So it was stuck at the point of blatant eisegesis.

I pointed to Peter's direct quotation of Psalm 118:23 to the act of God raising Christ from the dead

And there "again" failed to show how a new Testament writer and Apostle such as Peter takes "this is the Lord's doing it is marvelous in our eyes" - then finally comes up with the missing-link statement "week day 1 is the Lord's Day" or "week-day-1 is the new 4th commandment Sabbath replacement" or any such thing.

BY CONTRAST

when you looked for near-NT authors that DID believe something like that - you show how they say - pretty much as you would.

So it is not as if these writers simply did not know how to say it when they actually believe it.

Thus the silence of the NT writers in making your claims by contrast to the loud insistence of it by other writers - who actually believe what you believe - is pretty hard to ignore.

Thus you keep "missing the point" but this is the elephant in the living for your eisegesis of Ps 118 and trying to put words into Peter's mouth.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Sabbath Law demands that only six equal divisions of time precede and follow the Seventh Sabbath, whether it is a 24 hour sabbath or a month,

wrong. No such statement in all of scripture to support it - so you "quote you". No six minute Sabbath, no six hour Sabbath, nor "Sabbath followed by six days" language in the Bible.

You simply make up whatever you need to make your case.

How convenient.

The Messianic Feasts in Levitius 23 and 25 all place emphasis upon a Sabbath that falls on another day "of the week"

God selects the day - not man made tradition.

God did not say in Lev 23 that any of this replaces/edits/changes the 4th commandment Sabbath - which destroys your entire argument.

Were we "not supposed to notice"??


Then comes your most strained - most convoluted most bend-and-wrench of the text yet.

The Jewish seventh day of the week Sabbath has its final fulfillment in this SIN CURSED EARTH final seventh millennium while the new covenant first day of the week has its final fulfillment in the eighth and eternal millennium of a NEW HEAVEN and a NEW EARTH where again, God can look upon all the works of his hands and again say, "very good." The New Covenant Sabbath commemorates a BETTER and GREATER work than the first creation - the word of redemption and a BETTER and GREATER new heaven and earth. It is a BETTER Sabbath without any of the Mosaic Sabbath legislation that encumbered man under the Old Covenant but is a day that we are commanded to "rejoice and be glad in it" (Psa. 118:24). It is the "Lord's Day" for worship at the "house of God" and a witness to the world of the resurrection victory over death, hell and the grave and thus the hope of the Christian. The "Lord's Day" is the greatest visible testimony of the Christian hope that God has given His people. It his HIS day distinct from all the other days of the week as it does not say "the Lord's DAYS" plural but singular - and thus we should treat it as "the Lord's" just as we treat His Supper as "the Lord's" Supper.

In all of that bending and wrenching NOTHING that says
"week-day-1 is the Lord's day"
"week-day-1 is the new 4th Commandment Sabbath"
"each week-day-1 is now Sabbath".

Sadly then - bending-wrenching of the text, combined with tortured logic and pure eisegesis - did not get you to the goal.

Were we "not supposed to notice"??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ignatius pastor of Antioch and companion of the Apostles in about A.D. 70 says, (Writing about 100-118 AD)

And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, “To the end, for the eighth day,” on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ… Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James Editors, The Ante-Nicene Father’s, “Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians” Vol. I, p. 63
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthre...44#post2008344

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in A.D. 250 says,

The eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath is the Lord’s Day.
[FONT=&quot]http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=87193&page=12[/FONT]

You are shooting yourself in the foot! You are proving that BEFORE CONSTANTINE they universally saw the resurrection day as THE LORD'S DAY distinct from the JEWISH Sabbath. Thus Revelation 1:10 was viewed as SUNDAY!

You are using circular logic again.

1. In the quote above I contrast writers that want to make a statement about week-day-1 and the Lord's day - with your eisegete-bend-and-wrench of scripture where you try to bend scripture into saying what it does not say.

I point out that the difference between the NT text that is NOT saying what you "wished" and then finding some actual sources that do make some statements to your liking - is obvious. the NT text is not helping you - it is only the extrabiblical man-made-tradition sources that work somewhat in your favor.

2. The references above do not show "universal anything" so you once again "make it up".

3. You simply ignore the elephant in the living room - which is that even THESE "tradition" sources - are not using the term "Sabbath" to refer to week-day-1 ---- Which is your whole argument so far!!

4. You are using the "straw man" that no error - no man-made-tradition could arise before Constantine - which is not an argument I have ever agreed with. It is another fiction you apparently use in your collection of myths for this topic.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"? -- again??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

I did respond to it - pointed out that you used tortured logic and eisegeted into the text all that you "wished it had said" without actually showing that any of your ideas were in fact IN the text itself about wee-day-1 being the new 4th commandment Sabbath or EVEN that week-day-1 is the Lord's Day.

Surely you "noticed".



Indeed you "inferred" a lot - but never showed that the text supported your highly creative, imaginative "out of whole cloth" inferences. So it was stuck at the point of blatant eisegesis.




And there "again" failed to show how a new Testament writer and Apostle such as Peter takes "this is the Lord's doing it is marvelous in our eyes" - then finally comes up with the missing-link statement "week day 1 is the Lord's Day" or "week-day-1 is the new 4th commandment Sabbath replacement" or any such thing.

BY CONTRAST

when you looked for near-NT authors that DID believe something like that - you show how they say - pretty much as you would.

So it is not as if these writers simply did not know how to say it when they actually believe it.

Thus the silence of the NT writers in making your claims by contrast to the loud insistence of it by other writers - who actually believe what you believe - is pretty hard to ignore.

Thus you keep "missing the point" but this is the elephant in the living for your eisegesis of Ps 118 and trying to put words into Peter's mouth.

in Christ,

Bob

Is this the best you have in a way of response???????? weak!

The Prophetic Sabbath

This is the day which the Lord hath made: we will rejoice and be glad in it ​

– Psa. 118:24

Not only does the Old Testament provide a precedence in a shift from the seventh day Sabbath under the “old” covenant to a first day Sabbath under the “new” covenant in the very nature of the Sabbath law, in the Messianic Feast Sabbaths, Deuteronical Messianic type Sabbath, but also in the Messianic prophecy of the Old Testament.
Psalms 118:20-24 is clearly Messianic in nature and predicts the establishment of the first day of the week Sabbath as a memorial by God to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
For example, in verses 20-21 the very subject is the “gate” of salvation:
This gate of the Lord, into which the righteous will enter, I will praise thee: for thou hast heard me, and art become my salvation – vv. 20-21
This “gate” is identified as “thou” or as stated in the New Testament “I am the door.”
The next two verses describe how the Lord became his salvation. Psalm 118:22-23 is directly quoted in the New Testament five times. In all five times it is directly applied to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Mt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10; Lk. 21:17; Acts 4:10-11, 1 Pet. 2:7). Hence, there is no question it is a Messianic prophecy and directly applied to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In Psalm 118:22 we have the phrase “the stone which the builders rejected” which is interpreted by Christ to refer to his own death at the hands of the religious leaders of Israel. In the parable of the vineyard this is directly applied to the slaying of the only son of the Master of the vineyard (Mt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10; Lk. 21:17). This is directly quoted by Peter in Acts 4:11 as the response of the Jews to their Messiah IN CONTRAST to God raising him from the dead (Acts 4:10).
In Psalm 118:22-23 the phrases “become the head of the corner” and “this is the Lord’s doing” describes God’s response to the rejection and slaying of His Son by Israel.
They rejected him by killing him but God vindicated and established him by raising him up from the grave.

Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved​

. – Acts 4:10-12

However, this was the predicted response by God to their rejection and slaying of his Son. Not only is the resurrection “is the Lord’s doing” but “this is the day the Lord hath made and we will rejoice and be glad in it.”
The Hebrew term translated “made” is the very same Hebrew term used in the Deuteronical redemptive account of the fourth commandment that is translated “keep the Sabbath.” Therefore, Psalm 118:24 “is the day the Lord hath made to be [kept] observed” is the idea not only conveyed by this term but by the remaining words of this verse. The remaining words provide a description of how it is to be observed – “we will rejoice and be glad in it.”
David is predicting that the resurrection is the Lord’s doing as well as the establishment of the resurrection day as a Sabbath to be observed. The message of the Psalmist is that the significance of this “day” is what the Lord did on this day.
The seventh day Sabbath is a “sign” under the “old” covenant of Law without Christ that commemorates the old creation defiled by sin.
The first day Sabbath is a sign under the “new” covenant as a cause of rejoicing and gladness inclusive of Christ’s redemption of fallen man from sin and writing of the law upon the hearts of men looking forward to an eighth day millennium or eternal Jubilee in a sinless heaven and earth.

 

[The Biblicist]

wrong. No such statement in all of scripture to support it - so you "quote you". No six minute Sabbath, no six hour Sabbath, nor "Sabbath followed by six days" language in the Bible.

You simply make up whatever you need to make your case.

How convenient.

How desperate can you be? You know very well it is applied to the Hebrew "yom" which is used in direct relationship to the Creation in regard to 24 hour day (Gen. 2;3) as well as LONGER periods than a 24 hour day (Gen. 2:4). All your examples are SHORTER than the 24 hour day while all the Biblical examples are LONGER (7th month preceded by and followed by six months. 7th year preceded and followed by six years).

You are intentionally trying to deceive as you intentionally down sized it to SHORTER than a 24 hour day when EVERY example I gave was LONGER.


When you are wrong and shown to be wrong you simply get desperate, deceptive and evasive. Why not try honesty for a change?

 

[The Biblicist]

Ignatius pastor of Antioch and companion of the Apostles in about A.D. 70 says, (Writing about 100-118 AD)

And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, “To the end, for the eighth day,” on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ… Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James Editors, The Ante-Nicene Father’s, “Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians” Vol. I, p. 63
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthre...44#post2008344

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in A.D. 250 says,

The eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath is the Lord’s Day.
[FONT=&quot]http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=87193&page=12[/FONT]



You are using circular logic again.

1. In the quote above I contrast writers that want to make a statement about week-day-1 and the Lord's day - with your eisegete-bend-and-wrench of scripture where you try to bend scripture into saying what it does not say.

I point out that the difference between the NT text that is NOT saying what you "wished" and then finding some actual sources that do make some statements to your liking - is obvious. the NT text is not helping you - it is only the extrabiblical man-made-tradition sources that work somewhat in your favor.

2. The references above do not show "universal anything" so you once again "make it up".

3. You simply ignore the elephant in the living room - which is that even THESE "tradition" sources - are not using the term "Sabbath" to refer to week-day-1 ---- Which is your whole argument so far!!

4. You are using the "straw man" that no error - no man-made-tradition could arise before Constantine - which is not an argument I have ever agreed with. It is another fiction you apparently use in your collection of myths for this topic.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"? -- again??

in Christ,

Bob

You talk about circular reasoning, deceptive and evasive. You know very well that all SDA literature interprets the phrase "the Lord's Day" in Revelation 1:10 to be the Sabbath day and yet there is NO PLACE in the New Testament where "the Lord's day" is called "the Sabbath." SDA Response? They respond it does not need to be called "the Sabbath" as "The Sabbath" is the only "Lord's day." So you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel and being completely hypocrtical as you know full well they called the resurrection day the "Lord's Day" which was thier day of worship set apart from the other six days of the week - bingo! Their Sabbath day of worship unto the Lord.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You are confusing INTERPRETATION of a command with VERBAL PRECISENESS of a command. I never stated the fourth commanded contained this verbal expression. The idea of a 'PRINCIPLE" does not refer to the verbal preciseness of a command but to the INTERPRETATION of a command.

Heeee Hee Hee Hee ... Hoooo Ho Ho Ho ... Haaaa Ha Ha Ha ...

Save your resourcefulness for the last day, chum!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What you are failing to see is that name and number do not equal application as Leviticus 23-25 obviously proves that name and number do not equal application. Name and number in connection with six working days before and after = principle not application. The application varies because the principle is sufficient broad to include the various applications.

The seventh day "of the week" is one application but not the only or limited application. The first day "of the week" is another equally valid application of the very same principle.

Most obvious - not blunder but - bluffer, is this one,
<<Name and number in connection with six working days before and after ...>> re: <<...before and after>>
There is NOTHING in all Scripture like this nonsensical hallucination.
The real thing is six days work and after the six days of man's work comes GOD'S Rest-Day: Name-by-number: by Scripture: "the day The Seventh Day Sabbath-Rest-Day of the LORD GOD".

You fail to see that the number is the name of the day: “the day The Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD GOD”.

What you do not see is that the name of the day not necessarily is the number of the day, but that ‘rest-day’ or ‘sabbath’ can be merely a day to rest on—a day not necessarily or specifically the day-the-Seventh-Day-to-rest-on-OF-THE-WEEK.

Therefore <the principle>, <<The application varies because the principle is sufficient broad to include the various applications>>, is just your own fabricated whim to provide in the arbitrary needs of your scheming aiming at scoring the <<first day "of the week">> at the cost of the ONLY valid application by law or principle of law of “The Seventh Day Sabbath”.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Ignatius pastor of Antioch and companion of the Apostles in about A.D. 70 says, (Writing about 100-118 AD)

And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, “To the end, for the eighth day,” on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ… Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James Editors, The Ante-Nicene Father’s, “Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians” Vol. I, p. 63
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthre...44#post2008344

Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in A.D. 250 says,

The eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath is the Lord’s Day.
[FONT=&quot]http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=87193&page=12[/FONT]



You are using circular logic again.

1. In the quote above I contrast writers that want to make a statement about week-day-1 and the Lord's day - with your eisegete-bend-and-wrench of scripture where you try to bend scripture in Ps 118 into saying the first day of the week is the Lord's Day or more specifically in your case "the first day of the week is the Sabbath of the 4th commandment"

I point out that the difference between the NT text that is NOT saying what you "wished" and then finding some actual sources in church tradition that do make some statements to your liking - is obvious. the NT text is not helping you - it is only the extrabiblical man-made-tradition sources that work somewhat in your favor.

2. The references above do not show "universal anything" so you once again "make it up".

3. You simply ignore the elephant in the living room - which is that even THESE "tradition" sources - are not using the term "Sabbath" to refer to week-day-1 ---- Which is your whole argument so far!!

4. You are using the "straw man" that no error - no man-made-tradition could arise before Constantine - which is not an argument I have ever agreed with. It is another fiction you apparently use in your collection of myths for this topic.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"? -- again??

You talk about circular reasoning, deceptive and evasive. You know very well that all SDA literature interprets the phrase "the Lord's Day" in Revelation 1:10 to be the Sabbath day

Indeed. Because

1. Mark 2:28 says Christ is "LORD of the Sabbath"
2. Is 58:13 calls the Sabbath the "Holy Day of the Lord"
3. There IS NO other text specifying another day for "The LORD's Day" in all of scripture
4. Thus the weekly Seventh day is given honor in title and name as not only "Sabbath" but also as "Holy Day of the Lord" and Christ being "Lord of the Sabbath" - no such honorary name ever associated with the weekly cycle of week-day-1 in all of scripture.

Your wild claim above that applying these two texts to the Rev 1:10 text of the "LORD's day" - as being an example of "circular reasoning" on the part of SDAs - falls flat.

(Or where you about to "Quote you" again to support your own accusation - in yet another example of circular reasoning?)

and yet there is NO PLACE in the New Testament where "the Lord's day" is called "the Sabbath."

No place in OT or NT where week-day-1 is called Lord's day or Sabbath - in a repeating weekly cycle.

So you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel and being completely hypocrtical as you know full well they called the resurrection day the "Lord's Day"

"They" in this case not being one single Bible writer.

"They" in this case being questionable sources where even a half dozen or so of Ignatius of Antioch's supposed letters are agreed to be forgeries.

"They" in this case being sources that appear AFTER the first century.

"They" in this case being the primary source for man-made-tradition.

Or where we simply "not supposed to notice"??

Hint: The RCC itself "Noticed"

The appeal to man-made-tradition over the Bible to make your case - is specifically noticed by the Catholic Church. Pretty hard to miss actually.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And obviously that last point brings us to ---


Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of Godin order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER';(Exodus 20:12) and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

What you are failing to see is that name and number do not equal application as Leviticus 23-25 obviously proves that name and number do not equal application. Name and number in connection with six working days before and after = principle not application. The application varies because the principle is sufficient broad to include the various applications.

The seventh day "of the week" is one application but not the only or limited application. The first day "of the week" is another equally valid application of the very same principle.

Most obvious - not blunder but - bluffer, is this one,
<<Name and number in connection with six working days before and after ...>> re: <<...before and after>>
There is NOTHING in all Scripture like this nonsensical hallucination.
The real thing is six days work and after the six days of man's work comes GOD'S Rest-Day: Name-by-number: by Scripture: "the day The Seventh Day Sabbath-Rest-Day of the LORD GOD".

You fail to see that the number is the name of the day—the ONLY number-name of the ‘rest-day’ which is “the (ONLY) day The Seventh Day-Sabbath of the LORD GOD”.

You fail to see “the day The Seventh Day Sabbath=Rest Day of the LORD GOD” is “THE Sabbath-Rest day” “BESIDES”, OTHER, ‘rest-days / sabbaths’ of Israel’s ‘feasts’, in particular the “rest day / sabbath” of the passover


You fail to see the ‘rest-days / sabbaths’ of Israel’s ‘feasts’, in particular the “rest day / sabbath” of the passover, is in Exodus 12:14 for the ONLY time DATED “on the fourteenth day of the First Month”.

You fail to see the “rest day / sabbath” of the passover already had become “the fifteenth day of the First Month” in Exodus 12:1,41.

You fail to see “the fifteenth day of the First Month” in Leviticus 23:6 Numbers 33:3; 28:16,17

—which “fifteenth day of the First Month” you fail to see forty years later, in Deuteronomy 27:9-11.

You fail to see this “fifteenth day of the First Month”, “this day” in Deuteronomy 27:2, 9-11, a little later in Deuteronomy 32:48, “the selfsame BONE-day”.

You fail to see this “fifteenth day of the First Month” became “the fifteenth day of the First Month” in Josua 5:11—“the selfsame BONE-day” on which Israel ate unleavened cakes IN the Promised Land.


What you fail to see, is, that a descriptive word for any supposed day NEED NOT BE ITS NAME AT ALL, like in Leviticus 11,15,16, “the sabbath” in the phrase, “the day after the sabbath=rest-day” of the passover. Because the real name of this “rest-day // sabbath” of the passover’s was “The Feast”; and ‘feast’ means ‘to EAT’; and during passover “The Feast Day” was “Day of Unleavened Bread Eaten”. “Day of Unleavened Bread Eaten”—in fact “The First Day (of) Unleavened Bread” Exodus 12:15B—, is the actual NAME of “the rest-day // sabbath” of the passover’s “seven days you must EAT unleavened bread.”

What you do not see is that the name of the day not necessarily is the number of the day, but that ‘rest-day’ or ‘sabbath’ can be merely “A DAY TO REST ON”—a day not necessarily or specifically the day-the-Seventh-Day-to-rest-on-OF-THE-WEEK : by the ‘principle-of-Law’ of the Fourth of the ‘Ten Commandments’, but “a day to rest on” <<APART FROM>> “the day The Seventh Day SABBATH-OF-THE-LORD-GOD”.

What you do not see is that <the principle>, <<The application varies because the principle is sufficient broad to include the various applications>>, is just your own fabricated whim to provide in the arbitrary needs of your scheming aiming at scoring the <<first day "of the week">> at the cost of the ONLY valid application by law or principle of law of “The Seventh Day Sabbath”.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dear Bob, your signature-line, <<John 8:32 "The Truth shall make you free">>

Why your fears for the truth?
Why your preference for the untruth?

You animadversion is so good!

But it is wanting in courage.

You kick against the sharp nails of God’s TRUTH with every effort you make to AVOID to FACE the TRUTH, or try to side-step it with every VAIN attempt of yours to NEGATE the obvious from the Old Testament and the eye-hitting apparent reality of its fulfilment in Jesus Christ in the New Testament.
For Christ’s ROSE from the dead, “SABBATHS”—“Sabbath’s-time”, “IN the Sabbath”, “ON the Sabbath”, “in the FULLNESS-of-the-Sabbath” having FULFILLED “all the Scriptures concerning the Christ that He had to SUFFER-PASSOVER.”

 

[The Biblicist]

Most obvious - not blunder but - bluffer, is this one,
<<Name and number in connection with six working days before and after ...>> re: <<...before and after>>
There is NOTHING in all Scripture like this nonsensical hallucination.
The real thing is six days work and after the six days of man's work comes GOD'S Rest-Day: Name-by-number: by Scripture: "the day The Seventh Day Sabbath-Rest-Day of the LORD GOD".

You fail to see that the number is the name of the day: “the day The Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD GOD”.

The jews copied the creation days by giving numbers to their days "of the week" as the names of their days instead of the pagan names like "Saturday." However, God was not providing Calendar names but simply providing a numerical order of the events according to the number of days covering those events. The Sabbath day occurred on the Seventh day in this record. To suggest that God is providing proper names instead of merely recording the numerical order of days on which those events occurred is a leap not warranted by the facts.

If that were true than it would be unbiblical for Christians to use the heathen names as that would be in direct violation to Biblical names given by God for that very purpose. Therefore, do you and Bob and your congregations/denominations refuse to call the second day of the week "Monday"? Do you print up your own calander's to honor what you claim are DIVINE NAMES for the days of the week????? Or is this just another means to argue for what God has abolished and replaced by the "first day of the Week" or "Lord's Day"????

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The jews copied the creation days by giving numbers to their days "of the week" as the names of their days instead of the pagan names like "Saturday." However, God was not providing Calendar names but simply providing a numerical order of the events according to the number of days covering those events. The Sabbath day occurred on the Seventh day in this record. To suggest that God is providing proper names instead of merely recording the numerical order of days on which those events occurred is a leap not warranted by the facts.

If that were true than it would be unbiblical for Christians to use the heathen names as that would be in direct violation to Biblical names given by God for that very purpose. Therefore, do you and Bob and your congregations/denominations refuse to call the second day of the week "Monday"? Do you print up your own calander's to honor what you claim are DIVINE NAMES for the days of the week????? Or is this just another means to argue for what God has abolished and replaced by the "first day of the Week" or "Lord's Day"????

It’s so frivolous and callous I enjoy answering your post with no post.

 

[The Biblicist]

Most obvious - not blunder but - bluffer, is this one,
<<Name and number in connection with six working days before and after ...>> re: <<...before and after>>
There is NOTHING in all Scripture like this nonsensical hallucination.
The real thing is six days work and after the six days of man's work comes GOD'S Rest-Day: Name-by-number: by Scripture: "the day The Seventh Day Sabbath-Rest-Day of the LORD GOD".

You fail to see that the number is the name of the day: “the day The Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD GOD”.

What you do not see is that the name of the day not necessarily is the number of the day, but that ‘rest-day’ or ‘sabbath’ can be merely a day to rest on—a day not necessarily or specifically the day-the-Seventh-Day-to-rest-on-OF-THE-WEEK.

Therefore <the principle>, <<The application varies because the principle is sufficient broad to include the various applications>>, is just your own fabricated whim to provide in the arbitrary needs of your scheming aiming at scoring the <<first day "of the week">> at the cost of the ONLY valid application by law or principle of law of “The Seventh Day Sabbath”.

Nowhere in Scripture does it ever say or do we ever read "the number of the Sabbath is its name." That is your imagination gone wild.

The facts are that the Sabbath law is applied beyond any particular day "of the week" in leviticus 23-25. It is applied to the resurrection first day of the week (Psal. 118:20-24; acts 4:10-11; Mk. 16:9). Nothing you have said changes those facts but only contradicts those facts.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nowhere in Scripture does it ever say or do we ever read "the number of the Sabbath is its name." That is your imagination gone wild.

The facts are that the Sabbath law is applied beyond any particular day "of the week" in leviticus 23-25. It is applied to the resurrection first day of the week (Psal. 118:20-24; acts 4:10-11; Mk. 16:9). Nothing you have said changes those facts but only contradicts those facts.

jesus said that whoever receives Him thru faith as their Messiah already have passed over from death to life, have eternal life now, wonder why he forgot to add in, also those who keep sabbath day?

 

[Yeshua1]

And obviously that last point brings us to ---


Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of Godin order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER';(Exodus 20:12) and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

Amazing that you can with a straight face quote traditions of men to Him, while you hold to the false teaching on the Sabbath binding to NT saints of your false Prophetess Ellen White!