SDA Hypocrisy?

..."Sabbath as a necessity" in your words.

In fact you even admitted that the Isaiah 66 scope DOES apply to "ALL MANKIND" where it says "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND" come before Me to Worship.

Using proper exegesis we see clearly that Isaiah's readers - his contemporaries - clearly KNEW what it meant to "Come before God to worship from Sabbath to Sabbath" - so we know the meaning to the primary intended audience.

The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

First we note the Words of Christ "Sabbath WAS MADE FOR MANKIND" this is a reference to the initial and original intent for Christ the Creator's own Holy Day - HIS memorial of creation that etablished the Seventh-day of creation week. When IT was made - the week MANKIND was MADE.

Christ's statement goes to origin and original intent.

Your argument by contrast goes to something "completely different". Your argument above is that the original intent Jesus is speaking of "PRE-CROSS" for His OWN Sabbath - was that mankind "could break it as often as they wish".

Marriage and Sabbath were both made "for mankind" in Eden.

By "contrast" to your speculative proposal on ignoring our Creator's command we Have Christ Actually saying that not only is He LORD of the Sabbath in Mark 2 - but we have HIS specific words "If you Love ME KEEP My commandments".

Your attempt to make this Mark 2 case "IF you Love Me you are free to BREAK My commandments" Stands out in stark contrast.

Good to have that qoute from you though - thanks!

The "MADE for MAN so man can abuse it" argument would not work EITHER with the Creator's OWN Sanctified Holy Day or with Marriage. See Exodus 20:8-11 for the exact way that Christ our Creator phrased that command.

If we are free to abuse, abolish and ignore whatever "Christ is the Lord of " then your Bible is very different than mine -

But what is worse - that kind of reasoning is not exegesis of Mark 2 at all since Christ is not arguing FOR BREAKING HIS own Sabbath Commandment - He is arguing for the HISTORIC accurate and RIGHT view of the Commandment!

This is NO-CHANGE statement intended to RESTORE the Sabbath made FOR MANKIND to its rightful place EVEN in the pre-Cross Context.

Christ "The WORD" John 1:1 consistent with HIS Word did not come to "Abolish His Word" Matt 6.

Obviously.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob said: "But what is worse - that kind of reasoning is not exegesis of Mark 2 at all since Christ is not arguing FOR BREAKING HIS own Sabbath Commandment - He is arguing for the HISTORIC accurate and RIGHT view of the Commandment!"

Thats what I dont understand... it seems so very clear to me that Jesus is doing that there.

What people are really doing in taking the opposite position is agreeing with the caviling Pharisees.

They accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath and they painted God out to bea horrible being who would just allow the sick to die on the Sabbath instead of healing them.

Doesnt anybody remember Jesus said "When you have seen Me you have seen the Father"? That was the very purpose Jesus came... Immanuel... God with us.

Jesus set them straight on how the Holy Sabbath was supposed to be kept.

The Pharisees claimed to be children of Abraham and claimed they kept the commandments, but Jesus said they needed to be set free and do the works of Abraham.. because sin caused them to be in bondage... they were planning on mudering Jesus while claiming to keep the law.

God's name was being dragged through the mud because of their phony service to God. They were supposed to be a light to the surrounding nations but gave out darkness of the misapprehension of God's character.


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

Jesus said IS IT LAWFUL TO DO WELL ON SABBATH OR TO LET THIS MAN SUFFER???
Ane you all are saying its LAWFUL to let them suffer and that Jesus BROKE THE LAW by healing the man!

Matthew 3:

1: And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
2: And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.
3: And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.
4: And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.


In effect, you are accusing our perfect sacrifice, Jesus Christ, of being a SINNER! He couldnt of been our sacrifice is He had sinned.

Jn:8:46: Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

God question, which of YOU convict Jesus of Sin??

Jn:15:10: I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Heb:4:15: For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, YET WITHOUT SIN.

 

This is so obviously wrong - I can't believe you would actually post it!

It is left as a simple exercise for the reader to "discover" if you think mankind will be free to be in open rebellion against the following statement from our Creator "From Sabbath to Sabbath SHALL ALL mankind come before Me to WORSHIP"

DHK your claim to not perceive any command for ALL MANKIND to come before God and worship in the NEW earth EVEN after READING it in Isaiah 66 is a true testament to the extent to which tradition can be inserted in place of scripture on this point.

I applaud the great distance you have made between your position and the actual text - to the extent that you have reached a significant "milestone" - not in the sense that I would ever want to go to such an extreme myself.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

The many ways in which that statement contradicts the text in view - is so "instructive" I just had to post it with the LINK - this one will come up "for reference" I don't want any quote of it to lose the place it has on this board!!

DHK - your "don't keep it any longer" statement above SHOWS that you NEED to insert a "CHANGE" into the words of Christ so that INSTEAD of HIS Words going back to origin and original scope and intent -- what "you need" is a "Change" that says "Don't keep ANY LONGER as you used to have to do by the original intent".

No such CHANGE language is found in Mark 2:27 "at all"!!

Christ's only comment is on the ORIGIN the original scope and intent of Sabbath "as it was MADE" and the original position of MANKIND at the MAKING of MANKIND. The initial scope of the Sabbath AND the relationship of MANKIND to Christ's the Creator's Holy Day - HIS memorial of HIS creatice act -- AS IT was in the beginning - when He "MADE" it!

Your "don't keep it any longer" statement is a huge defeat for you since NOT ONLY is such language NOT found in Mark 2:27 (And why should it be - this is PRE-CROSS!) but ALSO in saying "any longer" you unwittingly ADMIT that IT WAS GIVEN to mankind with intent that mankind should honor it - should "keep it holy"!!

Once you admit that in its origin IT was to be kept THEN Christ's own appeal to ITS ORIGIN as establishing its true role for mankind - utterly wipes out your argument in favor of abolishing Christ the Creator's Holy Day!

How can this be missed even by the most casual reader of that post??!!

The following words are spoken by Christ the Creator AFTER this Mark 2 event. So it appears that He addresses the question of any notion of pre-cross abolishing of His Word "explicitly"

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is so obviously wrong - I can't believe you would actually post it!

It is left as a simple exercise for the reader to "discover" if you think mankind will be free to be in open rebellion against the following statement from our Creator "From Sabbath to Sabbath SHALL ALL mankind come before Me to WORSHIP"

DHK your claim to not perceive any command for ALL MANKIND to come before God and worship in the NEW earth EVEN after READING it in Isaiah 66 is a true testament to the extent to which tradition can be inserted in place of scripture on this point.

I applaud the great distance you have made between your position and the actual text - to the extent that you have reached a significant "milestone" - not in the sense that I would ever want to go to such an extreme myself.

IN Christ,

Bob [/b]</font>[/QUOTE]My argument is consistent. And you have not answered it yet. So what does worshipping during the time of a new heaven and a new earth (vs.22) have to do with today? Is this happening today? What possible relevance does this have for us today? Scripture out of context is only a pretext to try and justify your own pre-conceived tradition.
DHK

 

The many ways in which that statement contradicts the text in view - is so "instructive" I just had to post it with the LINK - this one will come up "for reference" I don't want any quote of it to lose the place it has on this board!!

DHK - your "don't keep it any longer" statement above SHOWS that you NEED to insert a "CHANGE" into the words of Christ so that INSTEAD of HIS Words going back to origin and original scope and intent -- what "you need" is a "Change" that says "Don't keep ANY LONGER as you used to have to do by the original intent".

No such CHANGE language is found in Mark 2:27 "at all"!!

Christ's only comment is on the ORIGIN the original scope and intent of Sabbath "as it was MADE" and the original position of MANKIND at the MAKING of MANKIND. The initial scope of the Sabbath AND the relationship of MANKIND to Christ's the Creator's Holy Day - HIS memorial of HIS creatice act -- AS IT was in the beginning - when He "MADE" it!
</font>[/QUOTE]I don't keep the Sabbath "any longer."
I never kept it in the first place.
There is no command in Scripture for a New Testament believer to keep it, and you have been unable to show that. There is no reason for a believer to keep it. What you have shown here is
somply that the Sabbath is a memorial. It is not a command but a memorial. Jesus never in this passage gives a command to keep the Sabbath. Why do you insist that He does.
DHK

 

Using that reasoning you become like the liberal who denies the supernatural, denies any propecy of Isaiah. Do you deny also Isa.7:14 that it was a prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ? Was everything that Christ wrote, written to his contemporaries. How about Isaiah 53? No, Isaiah wrote plenty of prophetic literature. This was one of them. It is plain for all to see. When you can show me all mankind coming to worship Christ on his throne on earth, then I will believe you that the Sabbath has been reinstitued. But you cannot do that can you? Why can't you follow through with this verse Bob?
DHK

 

I don't have anything more to say on this thread, as I already gave my piece earlier. However, I do have an observation to make, and it is this:

When someone hypocritically ignores scripture passages and accuses others of that same fallacy, then I think "Sola Scriptura" is a very inaccurate description of what's going on. When Scripture must be inverted, cut, and pasted together into a patchwork of text as it has been thus far in certain corners, I think there should be another Protestant precept created to facilitate this particular phenomena.

And so I decree that henceforth all exegetical commentary shall be under the precept of Sola Stupida-- text-proofing alone. Amen.

SpyHunter

 

Do Baptists believe that women are unclean during their menstral period?

Is it a sin or "wrong" not to eat pork? What if I don't eat catfish because they are bottom feeders? Is that wrong?

I never knew what I was missing by letting the SDAs carry on in peace.

 

Ach nein Ich bin zu muede nun. While it is Sabbath now, I'll thank God for it and rest my weary body and soul even wearier. Jesus my Lord and Saviour, save and revive me to serve you with courage and joy. Amen

 

First, “Keep my commandments” in no way refers to the Ten Commandments. They are the commandments of Christ. That is why he said MY commandments. They were HIS, not Moses’s commandmennts. I have listed some of Christ’s commandments for you before. I leave it to you to look them up.
Secondly your comparison between marriage and the Sabbath is like apples and oranges. There is no command to keep the Sabbath in the Book of Genesis. But there are commands regarding the institution of marriage.
A better illustration would be to compare the Sabbath to rest. If I break the Sabbath (pre-law) there are no consequences. This holds true today as well. There are no restrictions regarding rest either. God did not say, “Thou shalt get eight hours of rest each night.” I can get four or ten. There are not restrictions. There is no command. And there is no command to keep the Sabbath. Imposing a restriction to keep one day holy above another takes away soul liberty, and can lead to a doctrine of demons as described in 1Tim.4:1-5. The two that are mentioned in that passage are only examples. They are examples of forcing an unbiblical doctrine on others, which the SDA does. We know this is true by what it says in Romans 14:

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Every day is holy in God’s sight. Man can worship on any day he likes. The New Testament churches worshiped daily. Many churches in Islamic nations worship on Friday, as the Muslims do, because that is the only day they have off from work. It is their day of rest.

Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
DHK

 

First, “Keep my commandments” in no way refers to the Ten Commandments. They are the commandments of Christ. That is why he said MY commandments. They were HIS, not Moses’s commandmennts. I have listed some of Christ’s commandments for you before. I leave it to you to look them up.
Secondly your comparison between marriage and the Sabbath is like apples and oranges. There is no command to keep the Sabbath in the Book of Genesis. But there are commands regarding the institution of marriage.
A better illustration would be to compare the Sabbath to rest. If I break the Sabbath (pre-law) there are no consequences. This holds true today as well. There are no restrictions regarding rest either. God did not say, “Thou shalt get eight hours of rest each night.” I can get four or ten. There are not restrictions. There is no command. And there is no command to keep the Sabbath. Imposing a restriction to keep one day holy above another takes away soul liberty, and can lead to a doctrine of demons as described in 1Tim.4:1-5. The two that are mentioned in that passage are only examples. They are examples of forcing an unbiblical doctrine on others, which the SDA does. We know this is true by what it says in Romans 14:

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Every day is holy in God’s sight. Man can worship on any day he likes. The New Testament churches worshiped daily. Many churches in Islamic nations worship on Friday, as the Muslims do, because that is the only day they have off from work. It is their day of rest.

Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Reckless assertions, each and every one, totally disregarding the Written Word of God. You talk as if you have received all power DHK, which have not.

 

Who is the 'legalist'? - The one who RELIES upon the Law, or the one who DEFIES the Law? The one who ACCEPTS the Law (in whichever form in this case), or the one who DEMANDS a law? The one who SUBMITS (or tries to submit) to the Law, or the one who is ABOVE the Law.

The one my be the Seventh Day Adventists; the other certainly sounds like DHK.

 

A legalist is one who claims to keep the law but doesnt.

The Pharisees were legalists.

Mt:23:23: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

They didnt have the underlying motivation of love. They claimed to keep the law while planning to murder God's Son.


A legalist is also someone who thinks only of the LEGAL aspects of salvation.

In other words they might say "I am so happy Jesus died for me! Thanks God. Period"

They want to be LEGALLY off the hook but care nothing about glorifying God by keeping His commandments. All they care about is "me and my salvation".

 

#1. Even though you say that "Bob said that".. in Exodus 20 God SAYS this day is a MEMORAL "For IN SIX DAYS GOD CREATED" -- in fact GOD is the one speaking there -- not "Bob".

That means that to abolish the Exodus 20 fact spoken by God using Exodus 31 against the Exodus 20 fact of history -- you must eisegete against what God has spoken there - not simply "what I am saying".

Your argument is with God.

Secondly your own argument from Isaiah 66 and Mark 2 is that "the Scope of ALL MANKIND" as listed IN the text pre-cross IS the scope for the Sabbath. Why in the world do you want to challenge that the day was NOT "MADE for MANKIND" by saying "JUST for JEWS" what Christ said it was "MADE for MANKIND" after you have already admitted that the pre-cross scope of Sabbath "MADE for mankind" in Mark 2:27 and intended for "ALL mankind to come before Me to Worship" Isaiah 66 - as applying to ALL MANKIND as the Bible said??

If it was true that we could always eisegete Ex 31 to abolish what was just established in chapter 20 of the same book "FOR IN SIX DAYS THE LORD MADE" (which in this case would not only be to edit and abolish the Word of God but also to edit and revise Creation history) then EACH time we read a new text we could freely abolish what came previously.

Such eisegetical practices lead to predictable conclusions.

Matt 5 and 6 would then be to abolish "scripture" pre-cross known to God's people. (And certainly there ARE those Christian denominations that use that very eisegetical model to get that very result)

I do not.

Exodus 31 EXPANDS on and ADDS to the reasons for God's people to HONOR Christ the Creator's Sabbath - it does not REVISE/EDIT/ABOLISH what was just spoken!

This is so obvious that it hardly bears stating.

In Christ,

Bob


quote:Bob said

[ May 20, 2006, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

No, Using sola scriptura it is called expounding the word of God, comparing Scripture with Scripture, rightly dividing the Word of Truth, avoiding any private interpretaton such as the SDA's private interepretation, adhering to the Scriptures alone instead of the tradtion of the SDA.

Since it goes against the tradition of the SDA which Jesus condemns, and is in harmony with the Bible, it upsets you, and you have no recourse but to make nasty remarks.
DHK

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHK
You claim adherence to the Sabbath is a necessity without Scriptural support. You cannot support your positon with Scripture.

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

In that way I provided a "numbered list" of Bible based arguments IN FAVOR of Christ the Creator's own Holy Day!

Then innexplicably DHK said this --

I agree - your complaint in your #4 has nothing to do with my 4th argument in favor of Christ the Creator's Holy Day. It was not addressing your #4. See the note I have in my #5 as it relates to your comments on Isaiah 66.

Bascially once you admit that Christ really MEANS mankind when HE SAYS "the Sabbath was MADE for mankind" then your argument fails at the start. THis is a PRE-Cross statement of Christ about the ORIGIN of our Seventh-day sanctified and "made holy" in Gen 2:1 according to the Word of God!

Secondly You have already admitted to the "ALL MANKIND" scope stated as the intent for Christ's Holy day in Isaiah 66..

That means that your OWN view on Christ our Creator's Holy Day is that it was MADE FOR MANKIND Mark 2:27 and was INTENDED for ALL MANKIND in its full scope Isaiah 66.

How then can you ever hope to revise/edit/ignore/abolish God's OWN statement "FOR In SIX days the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth and rested the Seventh-day and because of that it was BLESSED AND HE MADE IT HOLY"

THE ONLY event given By God in HIS SPOKEN version of this commanement is the Creation EVENT!

Impossible to ignore for the covenience of tradition over scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Again you confuse your numbered list with mine. I am simply giving a numbered list of the Bible evidence in favor of Christ the Creator's Holy day in response to your opening statement that you can not find evidence in the Bible supporting the Day that our Creator made Holy and that is the basis for our seven day week.

I keep giving those specific references in my detailed "Keep the commandments" quotes from BOTH the PRECROSS and the POST cross contexts!!

I will provide that list "again" for your reading pleasure so you don't need to refer to this as a non-specific reference.

Lets see if in fact "GOD" is not the one that says that (post to follow) - I am just "reporting the news".

Context destroys eisegesis DHK. Christ spoke pre-cross, Christ is God, God is the Author of HIS Commandments both OT and NT both Pre-Cross and Post-Cross.

In John 14:15 Christ speaks pre-cross.

Is it your contention that Christ's Word was abolished BEFORE the Cross!!??? When He speaks in Exodus 20:8-11 and then speaks again in John 14:15 do we understand Him to NOT refer to HIW OWN Word "Keep MY commandments"??

Do we eisegete that idea "so far" that even in Rev 12 and 14 "the Commandments of God" are NOT what we read in Exodus 20.

Is there ANYWHERE after the cross where "The Commandments of God" are shown NOT to come from what the NT authors called "Scripture"?

In Christ,

Bob

 

This post is for DHK's reference to the "Commandments of God"

The pre-cross Commandments of Christ the Creator were to be kept by Christ’s followers.

John 14:15 ”If you love Me keep My commandments”

These are the Words of Christ the Creator as He quotes from the 2nd commandment.

But what exactly did these pre-cross words of Christ “mean” to His Jewish followers – the “primary audience” that exegesis would have us consider?

Lets see if we can discover that by looking at some more statements found in God’s Word.

Instead of “less obedience” to each commandment of Christ the Creator – God calls for “more”.

Instead of “less obedience” to each commandment of Christ the Creator – God calls for “more”. No wonder Paul says --

So lets see. The law will not change in even the minutest way, till heaven and earth pass. Anyone who breaks the law, and teaches others to do so, will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. Thinking about committing sin is now just like actually committing the sin. Ah, the law has been magnified. Christ came and fulfilled the law, observing all of it’s commands, even in thought, not just action.

Yes, lets let the scriptures speak for themselves.

Christ quotes from the 3rd commandment for the statement above.

Christ said that HIS commandment and the Father’s Commandment are one and the same

Notice that John promotes this theme not only with his recording the pre-cross statements of Christ the hCreator – but also the post –cross teaching.

Christ condemns those who would break the Commandments of God for the sake of man-made tradition –

Christ’s followers continue to keep the Sabbath commandment after His command that they should “Love Me and Keep My Commandments” John 14:15 (quoting from the 3rd commandment in Exodus 20)

Why do the Gospel writers take such care to teach us what Christ commanded them?

Notice that John does not try to “divide God” as if God’s commandments are not Christ’s

As for Law and Grace -- Pauls words in Romans 2:13-16 come to mind relative to "justification".

Here the "New Covenant" promise of the "Law written on the heart" is clearly seen.

Is it any wonder that Paul writes

And James 2 tells us to live and act as those "Who are to be judged by God's Law of Liberty".

God is not "calling for rebellion against His Law" as many Christians today "suppose".

Nor is He "abolishing His law" so that only the lost are guilty of breaking it - but the saved can freely transgress and in fact are commanded not to regard it at all. Rather God declares that the name of God is profaned among the wicked by the breaking of His law among the saints. (in Romans 2)