SDA Hypocrisy?

There has been "some attempt" to rewrite the volumes of text given in my posts above as "traditions of the SDA". (As if "anyone" could possibly be talked into believing such a failed argument).

My contention "by contrast" is

#1. These texts were NOT written by SDAs. (Wake up and smell the coffee gentlemen).

#2. SDAs ARE NOT the only ones holding to these texts in strong affirmation as Bro Bob, Ben and many others have attested.

#3. D.L.Moody held to many of the same views on the subject of the literal support and authority of Christ the Creator's Ten Commandments - so also do many - non-SDAs here that DO NOT honor the Seventh-day Sabbath!

The "lonely limb" that those climb out on who seek to "revise" all these texts into "nothing more than SDA tradition" is indeed "a determined one" built on eisegesis "alone". The facts I have enumerated here stand without serious challenge!

In Christ,

Bob

 

DHK,

How in the whole wide world did you come to the conclusion that the SDA church keeping the 7th day Sabbath is going by "tradition" when it was the Catholic Church who changed the Sabbath to Sunday, and in the Ten Commandments (the 4th specifically) God tells us to keep the Seventh Day Holy?

Dont you have that... well... COMPLETELY BACKWARDS??

Claudia

 

SDA traditions, I have to say this is the very first time I have EVER heard such a thing LOL! Talk about revising history!

 

First DHK "admits" that the OT - PRe-Cross scope for "Sabbath" as intended in Isaiah 66 is "ALL MANKIND". This is a text speaking of the same "New Heavens and New Earth" that John speaks to in Rev 21:1-4.

"the Point" is that the OT "context" for Sabbath is known, seen, established in the OT TEXT of Isaiah 66 to be "ALL MANKIND". It was NOT said in Isaiah 66 "The Sabbath day is NOT indended for ALL MANKIND therefore in the NEW Earth when ALL MANKIND does serve Me - I wil only be calling JEWS to come before Me and WORSHIP from Sabbath to Sabbath - for all eternity this is JUST FOR JEWS".

The text SHOWS that the OT view of the SCOPE for Sabbath was ALL MANKIND. So instead of "ABOLISHED for Jews and NEVER intended for ALL MANKIND" as you had hoped to eisegete - the "BEST" you can get from this is "MADE for ALL MANKIND Mark 2:27, And ESTABLISHED for ALL MANKIND for all of eternity in the New EARTH Isaiah 66, Rev 21 -- but NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED for anyone but JEWS - according to the traditions of men -- innexplicably".

So while that is your "best" position - I argue that it falls far short of exegesis and fall short of "Sola scriptura".

I argue that D.L.Moody's position was far more Biblically defensible when it comes to the continued authority of the Ten Commandments (ALL TEN) and the continued scope of the 4th commandments consistent with the scope of ALL TEN!

In Christ,

Bob

 

The Catholic commentary on the Baltimore catechism post
Vatican ii explains that keeping Sunday is in obedience to the Sabbath commandment. Catholics attend "in obedience to the third commandment of God 'remember thou keep holy the Lord's day'"
((from "The Faith Explained" pg 241.))

page 243

Ten Commandments -

Note: Catholic teaching embraces the authority of the 10 commandments - all ten, and makes them obligatory for all Catholics.

 

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3919/15.html#000224

In the above example we "see" that the "challenge to sola scriptura" being made by the RCC is with specific reference to the man made tradition of abolishing Christ the Creator's Holy Day (or at the very least "editing it")

Here then is a good reason for all faithful Christians that take seriously the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" to take a hard and serious look at this topic.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It refers back to Genesis Bob, where God rested on the seventh day. There was no command there; none at all. If you read any command in that Scripture it is pure eisigesis. You might as well read infant baptism into Acts 16:30-35 It is the same thing.

What Gentile Christians were present at Sinai or in Exodus 31. What Gentile Christians was Moses speaking of? Moses spoke of a covenant with the Jews. He never brought any Gentile Christians into this equation.

You are not doing very good in that category.

Mark 2 and Isaiah 66 are not connected. More Scripture taken out of context here. Furthermore there is no command in Mark 2 to keep the Sabbath. Can you show me a command there to keep the sabbath. More eisigesis there. Shall we baptize infants according to Acts 16 as well. The same reasoning is involved.

Wake-up Bob. There is no command in Mark 2 for anyone to keep the sabbath; only an explanation of what the sabbath was for. Now Jesus is our Sabbath. We enter into his rest. The sabbath was but a shadow of what was to come (Christ).
Isa. 66 has nothing to do with Mark 2. For you to tie the two together is gross misrepresentation of facts. It is like you never heard of hermeneutics.
You are the one eisegeting here--really stretching for something to hang on to.

What in Isiah 66 applies to us today? I have asked you this question many times but you fail to answer it. Explain the Isaiah 66 passage in detail and show how the entire passage applies to us today. Would you please do that Bob?

Exodus 31 does not abolish anything except the tradition that Jesus condemned and still remains in your mind. Exodus 31 further establishes the Sabbath as a sign to the Jews alone. It was given to the Jews when on Sinai. Now in Exodus 31 He further restricts it to the Jews alone. We find out later that the rest of the moral law remains applicable to all mankind, but not the Sabbath. The bible says to "rightly divide the word of truth," something you don't want to do.

Now that is just a plain perversion of Scripture.
It plainly says in Exodus 31:

Exodus 31:16-17 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
--There is no way that this can in any way apply to all mankind.
DHK

 

Now... we all SEE the statement above "He was not bound to the rules and regulations of it any longer. "

-- RIGHT??!!

(This just isn't that hard people.)

Bob points out that the "ANY LONGER" language DHK is using as is in "mankind not bount to keep Christ the Creator's Holy day ANY LONGER" is a huge failing for DHK's argument. It means that ORIGINAL INTENT WAS for keeping and that it was CHANGED so that "Mankind NOT bound ... any longer" is the CHANGE in the eisgetical "INSERT" that DHK NEEDS in Mark 2:27!!

Innexplicably DHK then said --

Ummm... that is not addressing the point above. Go back to how you "needed" to eisegete that idea of MANKIND NOT being "bound any longer" by the rules associated with honoring Christ the Creator's HOLY Day!

I.E - respond to the point please.

Failing to do so --- the point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No, you have it backwards. You have made a false allegation, concoted by Ellen G. White who has brainwashed the SDA's. It was not the Catholics that changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Scriptural precedent is already given in the Bible as has already been given. But you reject the Bible in preference to SDA tradition which Christ condemns.
DHK

 

The Catholic commentary on the Baltimore catechism post
Vatican ii explains that keeping Sunday is in obedience to the Sabbath commandment. Catholics attend "in obedience to the third commandment of God 'remember thou keep holy the Lord's day'"
((from "The Faith Explained" pg 241.))

page 243

Ten Commandments -

Note: Catholic teaching embraces the authority of the 10 commandments - all ten, and makes them obligatory for all Catholics.

</font>[/QUOTE]So are you saying that the Catholic Church believes in keeping the 10 commandments but just changes them?

And so does DHK claim SDAs follow church tradition because church tradition keeps the 10 commandments but the Bible says we dont have to?

 

Go back and read your own post.
I responded to the "you" in your post.

 

Hold it - take it easy. The point I am making is just the simple, obvious, easy point of exegesis that you must take into view the obvious meaning of the text as written by the author and given to the his readers - if you have any value at all for exegesis and context.

My obvious and easy point here is that the the meaning "of all mankind" is clear -- no mystery. Jews new about "mankind".

They did not know WHEN the NEW Earth would be - but they new it was future.

They also knew what Sabbath was and they knew what was meant by coming to Worship "from Sabbath to Sabbath".

Isaiah is using terms familiar to the reader to convey truth accurately.

We can not just "make stuff up" -- eisegete as we please in the text.

I am simply showing that Isaiah 66 shows that IN THE OT - the OT authors, and readers KNEW and SAW that the SCOPE of the Sabbath was intended for "ALL MANKIND" they did not have to wait for Christ to come along and say "The Sabbath was MADE FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27 PRE-CROSS before they "see that scope" already applied in God's Word "Scripture" to the Sabbath EVEN if it is in the New Earth for all eternity!

In Christ,


Bob

 

Go back and read your own post.
I responded to the "you" in your post. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]#1. your "I never did keep Sabbath in the first place" response seems to totally miss the point.

#2. In the post I reference YOU admit the Sabbath is stated as being "MADE FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27 and YOU insert the language as in "Not bound ANY LONGER" which shows a change.

I think you really do need to actually address the points raised there - else "the point remains".

I tried to spell it out pretty clearly here -
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3919/16.html#000227

Your "additional point" that ignores the exchange there is that "Mark 2 is NOT another Exodus 20" so if Christ does not re-command what he ALREADY commanded in "scripture" then that portion "not repeated is deleted". Your argument assumes Christ was folling the model "Whatever is not repeated is thereby deleted". You assume something in that new argument of yours (that ignores the "mankind no longer bound as originally intended" argument of yours - where I exposed a problem in your entire position) -- that is never proven to be true.

But as for that "new argument" about "new commandments in Mark 2" I never claimed that "scripture not repeated must be deleted" speculationg ever had merrit in the first place.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I don't care two hoots about the authorities of either the Catholics (Catechism and Magesterium) or the SDA (Ellen G. White). I base my theology on the Bible alone. It is my final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The Catholics claim that they came up with the doctrine of the trinity. That doesn't make it so. They can claim all they want. They can claim that they were the originators of the Bible; I don't really care what they claim. My authority is the Word of God: not the Catholic and certainly not the SDA.
DHK

 

Well at least we have a good starting point.

 

And this is your foolish eisegesis. Isaiah 66 is the only passage that says that the Sabbath is made for all mankind. Yet you have failed to expound that passage and show how and when it is for all mankind. I am waiting for you to do that. You can't can you?
DHK

 

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

Isaiah 66 shows that scope in the future JUST as Christ shows it in the past regarding the origin and initial SCOPE. I have repeatedly stated that the "NEW EARTH" is the same NEW EARTH future stated described by John in Rev 21 and is for "ALL eternity". Do you need a link for that as well?

This is just impossible to ignore. I don't see how you expect to forward your argument while denying the basics in the text of scripture.

The fact that I accept them should not be a basis for the charge on your part of "eisegesis".

I am waiting for you to respond to the point raised in your own response to Mark 2.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Isaiah 66:22-23 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Bob, here is the passage in question.
Nevermind Mark 2, which gives no command to keep the Sabbath.
Just expound this passage of Scripture and show how it is relevant for us today. Expound Isaiah 66:22,23, the passage of Scripture that you keep referring to that supposedly proves that the Sabbath is for all mankind.
DHK

 

Mark 2 shows "the original intent" was "All mankind" this is devastating to the argument you "want" to make in Isaiah 66 which is that "until we come to the NEW Earth the Sabbath is not meant for ALL mankind".

The REASON I keep drawing you back to YOUR OWN statement on Mark 2 is that you totally wiped out your Isaiah 66 argument.

See?

Your argument above that we should ignore Mark 2 if it is NOT in the form of a new REPEAT of Exodus 20, is not "compelling" to say the least. Why make that statement at all?

Once we find that the ORIGIN and the FUTURE are BOTH "All MANKIND" your argument dies. (Hence my appeal to BOTH the ORIGIN And the FUTURE scope for Sabbath as made in the text of scripture and as scripture shows them to be THE SAME).

Now DHK - I "know" you already get this so lets not play games.

What is your response to the argument?

In Christ,

Bob

 

No, you have it backwards. You have made a false allegation, concoted by Ellen G. White who has brainwashed the SDA's. It was not the Catholics that changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Scriptural precedent is already given in the Bible as has already been given. But you reject the Bible in preference to SDA tradition which Christ condemns.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I really fail to see what Ellen White has to do with this at all.

The Catholics freely admit to changing the Sabbath to Sunday.

So you claim the BIBLE changed the Sabbath to Sunday? Id sure like to see that!