SDA Hypocrisy?

It looks like the Roman Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday and it looks like plenty of Protestants besides the Seventh Day Adventists realize Sunday is not the Sabbath:


At the Council of Laodicea, the Sabbath was officially changed by the Papacy on the date of March 7, 364 A.D. --43 years after Constantine declared Sunday the day for Christians to honor as the Sabbath day.


CATHOLIC DECLARATIONS about Sunday Sabbath:

"I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to any one who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says, 'Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.' The Catholic Church says, 'No; by my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day, and command you to keep holy the first day of the week.' and lo! The entire civilized world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church. 'Priest Enright, C.S.S.R., Kansas City, Missouri.

"The pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ."-Decretal de Translat, Episcop. Cap.

"The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret, even divine laws....The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and loosing the sheep."-From the Prompta Bibliotheca published in 1900 in Rome by the press of the propaganda.

"The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."-Catholic Mirror, Sept. 23, 1893.

The pope's will stands for reason. He can dispense above the law, and of wrong make right by correcting and changing laws."-Pope Nicholas, Dis. 96.

"Question.-Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?"

"Answer.-Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her,-she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."-Rev. Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism, p. 174.

"Of course the Catholic church claims that the change was her act .... And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters."-C.F. Thomas, Chancellor.


PROTESTANT DECLARATIONS about Sunday Sabbath:


Episcopalian: "The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday."-Neander, The History of the Christian Religion and Church, p. 186, translated by Henry John Rose, B.D. (Philadelphia: James M. Campbell & Co., 1843).

Presbyterian: "The Christian Sabbath (Sunday) is not in the Scripture, and was not by the primitive church called the Sabbath.'Dwight's theology, vol. 4, p. 401.

Lutheran: "The observance of the Lord's day (Sunday) is founded not on any command of God, but on the authority of the church."-"Augsburg Confession of Faith," quoted in Cox's Sabbath Manual, p. 287.

Methodist: "it is true there is no positive command for infant baptism .... Nor is there any for keeping holy the first day of the week."-Rev. Amos Binney, Theological Compend, pp. 180, 181, 1902 ed.

Congregational: "There is no command in the Bible requiring us to observe the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath." Fowler, Mode and Subjects of Baptism.


Baptists: Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, author of The Baptist Manual, before a group of ministers, made this statement:

"There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges, and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament, absolutely not. There is no Scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week. Of course, I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religious day, as we learn from the Christian fathers and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of Paganism, and christened with the name of the sun god, when adopted and sanctioned by the papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism!"-From a paper read before a New York Ministers' Conference, held Nov. 13, 1893.

 

I have given you "detail" in the text above - which you totally ignore as if you can not understandin the conversation.

How in the world do we discuss a Bible topic if you keep doing that?

#1. you killed your own Isiah 66 argument with your OWN Mark 2 confession that Mark 2 SHOWS an ALL MANKIND scope Pre-Cross as the ORIGINAL scope for Sabbath. (How much more obvious can this point be as you ignore it post after post???)

#2. By KILLING your own POINT - you leave only MINE in Isaiah 66 which has been REPEATEDLY shown to be the SAME NEW EARTH and eternal scope that we see in Rev 21 "NEW earth" AND that we see in Mark 2 "ALL MANKKIND" and that we see in Gen 2:3 with the making of MANKIND and the Sabbath! This has been stated "repeatedly"!!

Once it is admitted (even by you) that the Mark 2 scope IS ALL MANKIND for Christ the Creator's Sabbath - then "the reason" for having to REPEAT that basic truth (which in this case is the Jewish man-made-traditions arguing against Him) - does not help your POV and does not change the salient point about "original scope for the Sabbath".

You have given NO argument for how that changes anything EXCEPT to blunder into the realm of claiming that "the original intent and scope is NOW CHANGED" when none of your "NO LONGER KEEP" language is found in the text!!

Christ argues "nothing but original scope" in Mark 2. A Devastating and "inconvenient detail" for your view.

How can a discussion of Isaiah 66 - WHICH I KEEP BRINGING up - be devastating WHEN I am the ONLY ONE proposing a CONSISTENT view of Christ the Creator's Sabbath BETWEEN BOTH Isaiah 66 and Mark 2?

How in the world do you expect any of these wild claims to survive even the most cursory review?

I spell it out for you here --
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3919/16.html#000227

I reminded you of that same point again - here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3919/16.html#000232

In Christ,

Bob

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Still can't do it, can you Bob?
I'll be waiting.
DHK

 

DHK, I myself am waiting for that exegesis, but I won't hold my breath. So what I will do is offer Bob a gracious opportunity to bow out of the corner he's painted himself into (Seriously-- if putting "the Creator" after "Christ," which sounds like something a weird cult would do, is the best way you have to unite the law of Moses with the new commandments of Christ [John 13:34 "But I am giving you a new command"], then you are in way over your head here.).

So in this opportunity for Bob to gracefully withdraw without facing further embarassment, I will present a few Scripture passages that he may not have seen before.

Romans 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

We see it is no difference whether it is a single day or every day. More on this in a moment.

Colossians 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

So we see the law of Moses is itself a shadow of things to come-- this is why Jesus fulfilled the Law. If we had yet to fulfill it, then Christ clearly did not. It is in Christ-- abiding in His new commands-- that we live as having already fulfilled the Law's demands for righteousness. Hebrews ties this together very nicely.

Hebrews 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on.
9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God,
10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.
11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.

Notice that the reference to "Sabbath" is not a "day," but it is something more. Rememeber from Colossians, the fullness belongs to Christ. This is to say that the fullness of the Sabbath cannot be realized or contained within a SINGLE DAY; it requires all of eternity to contain the rest of God. We are to rest from our works-- our striving to fulfill the Law by our works-- just as the ancient Israelites had to rest from their work on their day of Sabbath.

But in case this is too much for you to handle all at once, Bob, I will make further provision for any material that may have went over your head and repeat the core passage that you need to meditate on.

Colossians 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.
17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Look at that-- this says I don't have to listen to you, because you are standing in the wilderness claiming it to be the Promised Land. I will take the Promised Land found in abiding in Christ over the shadowlands of legalism.

If you ignore this, Bob, then you condemn yourself by your own words which claim to be "sola scriptura." Well, I gave you "sola scriptura." What comes next is up to you. But know that your honor, integrity, and credibility are at stake.

Blessings,
SpyHunter

 

A future global scope – global catastrophe

The sword of God is on “all flesh” in this future judgment. He is to execute judgment by fire and He does not approve of eating mice and detestable things. (Some of this is even agreed to by some Christians today). Clearly that future judgment does not anticipate God’s faithful chewing in rats, cats dogs and bats.

In the above verses we see the return from the Diaspora predicted. And we see the Reality in Ezra chapter 1. But an even bigger reality at the 2nd coming.

As for priests – there is no mention of sacrifices. The priests were teachers as well as those who administered the sacrifices. The prediction above in that future time – (if not applied to Ezra and to the days before Christ) may reference Priests as teachers.

However the next part definitely goes beyond the first coming of Christ – and even the 2nd coming.

Here then is the scope of the Sabbath given as “ALL Mankind” for all eternity in the New Heavens and New Earth – as perfectly intended by God after all His enemies are destroyed. All mankind is to come and worship before Him “From Sabbath to Sabbath” – Certainly this is true starting with the Millennium but here we find that it continues to be true “n the NEW EARTH” and John tells us when this is in Rev 21.

But then – notice also that in that same context – at the time of the New Earth we will see the following regarding the wicked. Here again we see “mankind” not only is worshipping before God but they are also viewing the destruction that has just taken place upon all the wicked “with abhorrence”. So also John presents the millennium and the great judgment upon the wicked in Rev 20 that is followed by the Rev 21 event of the “New Heavens and New Earth”.

 

I have to admit - I did not think that DHK would engage in "gaming" as the response to this post.

I have given you "detail" in the text above - which you totally ignore as if you can not understand the conversation.

How in the world do we discuss a Bible topic if you keep doing that?

#1. you killed your own Isiah 66 argument with your OWN Mark 2 confession that Mark 2 SHOWS an ALL MANKIND scope Pre-Cross as the ORIGINAL scope for Sabbath. (How much more obvious can this point be as you ignore it post after post???)

#2. By KILLING your own POINT - you leave only MINE in Isaiah 66 which has been REPEATEDLY shown to be the SAME NEW EARTH and eternal scope that we see in Rev 21 "NEW earth" AND that we see in Mark 2 "ALL MANKKIND" and that we see in Gen 2:3 with the making of MANKIND and the Sabbath! This has been stated "repeatedly"!!

Once it is admitted (even by you) that the Mark 2 scope IS ALL MANKIND for Christ the Creator's Sabbath - then "the reason" for having to REPEAT that basic truth (which in this case is the Jewish man-made-traditions arguing against Him) - does not help your POV and does not change the salient point about "original scope for the Sabbath".

You have given NO argument for how that changes anything EXCEPT to blunder into the realm of claiming that "the original intent and scope is NOW CHANGED" when none of your "NO LONGER KEEP" language is found in the text!!

Christ argues "nothing but original scope" in Mark 2. A Devastating and "inconvenient detail" for your view.

How can a discussion of Isaiah 66 - WHICH I KEEP BRINGING up - be devastating WHEN I am the ONLY ONE proposing a CONSISTENT view of Christ the Creator's Sabbath BETWEEN BOTH Isaiah 66 and Mark 2?

How in the world do you expect any of these wild claims to survive even the most cursory review?

I spell it out for you here --
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3919/16.html#000227

I reminded you of that same point again - here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3919/16.html#000232

In Christ,

Bob [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

#1. you killed your own Isiah 66 argument with your OWN Mark 2 confession that Mark 2 SHOWS an ALL MANKIND scope Pre-Cross as the ORIGINAL scope for Sabbath. (How much more obvious can this point be as you ignore it post after post???)

#2. By KILLING your own POINT - you leave only MINE in Isaiah 66 which has been REPEATEDLY shown to be the SAME NEW EARTH and eternal scope that we see in Rev 21 "NEW earth" AND that we see in Mark 2 "ALL MANKKIND" and that we see in Gen 2:3 with the making of MANKIND and the Sabbath! This has been stated "repeatedly"!!</font>[/QUOTE]Now that you have admitted this much:

You need not to bring up the reference again.
As you admit, this is true starting with the Millennium... Those are your words. Thus it has no relevance to us whatsoever. It is a future event not applicable to us today. Don't bring up the reference again. You are just taking Scripture out of context. Catholics can do better. Now that we have gotten past Isa.66 we can look at Mark 2.

Mark 2:27-28 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
--Don't ignore the audience. He was speaking to Jews, especially the Pharisees. In what context did he say this?

Mark 2:23-24 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
--The Pharisees were accusing the disciples of Jesus of breaking the Sabbath because they were "working" (plucking corn) on the Sabbath Day. They said plainly in verse 24 that it was not lawful for them to do this. They would know. They were well trained in the Torah, the law of Moses.

It was a matter of the law, and the law being able to save. The law couldn't save; it only condemned. Jesus replies with such an example:

Mark 2:25-26 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
--David also "broke the law" for the greater good.

Jesus applies this to the Sabbath, but remember he is speaking to the Jews.

Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
--When he uses the word man he doesn't say all men. Man is used in a generic sense. His audience is the Jew. He is referring to the Jews.
Be that as it may, He is simply saying that the Sabbath was made for man's benefit. It was beneficial for the disciples of Jesus to eat on the Sabbath even if under Jewish law they had to break it.
Man was not made for the Sabbath. Man was created before God rested. Man came first, not the sabbath. Man was not created to be a slave for the sabbath. In fact man was created to have dominion over all things. In application, he was saying because the sabbath was made for man the disciple should go ahead and pluck corn and eat of it, that they may indeed have proper rest. They were not bound any longer by the restrictions put on the Sabbath by Old Testament law.

Jesus said: "I am the way the truth and the life."
He is the only way to Heaven.
The Sabbath and the law could not save. Christ had come to fulfill the law. But Christ was the only way to heaven. It was no longer through the law and the sabbath.
DHK

 

What part of "Repeatedly shown" gets translated into "Now that you have finally said that" by DHK???

Hint for DHK: Click on one or two of the linke where I have been saying the same thing about Isaiah 66.

I have been pointing to ISaiah 66's "New Earth" as the FUTURE event of Rev 21 (which if you check out Rev 20 -- happens "after the millennium) for a few days now. Why "pretend" that this is a surprise??

Indeed. As I have "repeatedly shown" Isaiah 66 points to the future just as Mark 2:27 points BACK to the origin of Christ the Creator's Holy day and BOTH show that the SAME scope applies.

How much more obvious can this point get???

What a "wonderful quote from you DHK"!!! I can't believe just how willing you are to take these nose dives.

You did it on Mark 2 first on admitting to the scope and origin being "ALL MANKIND" and admitting that "you needed a change".

And NOW you admit that you "need to argue" that the Jews were taking the position "SOLA SCRIPTURA" while Christ was arguing for "verbal doctrine/tradition that ABOLISHES scripture"!!!

I can't believe you are really "this willing" toss your argument under a bus!!

My argument "by Contrast" will be that CHRIST is arging FOR the Word of God - FOR scripture - and aGAINST "man-made tradition" JUST as we see him doing in Mark 7 AND JUST as we see him doing in Matt 5!!

You show in your statements above that you "NEED" Christ to say in Mark 2 "I have come to ABOLISH the initial intent of scripture - of MY Holy Word. YOU Jews are in error in that you are still clinging to and honoring the Word of God without realizing that The Sabbath is now abolished PRe-Cross without nailing ANYTHING to the Cross I fully and freely abolish My Word.

Pay no attion to the ORIGIN of this Holy Day as made FOR mankind and binding on mankind. It is no longer of any signficance at all. Violate this part of scripture at your pleasure from now on!".

Your argument for Christ's PRE-CROSS statement SHOWS that you "needed" HIM to not only contradict His OWN word in Matt 5 you also need HIS referenece to "Sabbath ORIGIN" to be of the form "The Sabbath NO LONGER applies to MANKIND as SCRIPTURE indicates in the MAKING of Sabbath FOR Mankind! The Sabbath is NOW changed - NOW abolished!".

NEITHER do se see Christ arguing "THe Sabbath USED to be able to SAVE MANKIND just as you say. Your appeal to scripture is CORRECT! But NOW I have changed the Sabbath, CHANGED scripture so that My Holy Day no longer can be used for salvation and so is NO LONGER applicable to ALL MANKIND".

All of your arguments are collapsing in Mark 2 DHK! The "needed arguments" that would have been great for your POV HAD they actually been IN Mark 2 just are not there!

Furthermore - No such language CAN be found in Mark 2 DHK! Your attempts to eisegete such a wrench-and-twist into the text would be better spent on something a little more in the realm of "possibility"!

And yet you are so happy to admit that this is what you need to do in Mark 2?!!!

How "Convenient for me".

Many thanks! Another post for LINKing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It really is very simple Bob.
1. There is no command in Genesis to keep the Sabbath. God rested on the Sabbath. There is no command there.
2. There is no command in Mark 2 to keep the Sabbath. The Sabbath is made for man. That is not a command to keep the Sabbath.
3. Isaiah 66 is a future event with no relevance for today.
4. The Ten Commandments were given to the Jewish Nation, and not to us.
5. Out of the Ten Commandments, God chose one commandment and set it aside as a sign between Him and the Israelites forever. That was the Sabbath. That is fully explained in Exodus 31. God ratified his covenant with Israel using the Sabbath Day as a sign. He has never gone back on his promise.
The rest of that moral law (Ten Commandments) he gave to all men. He even wrote it upon their hearts:

Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

These verses teach that in every nation of the world (no matter where you go) people automatically know that it is wrong to steal, wrong to murder, wrong to commit adultery, etc. They have God's law written on their hearts. But the one law that they don't have written on their hearts is keeping holy the Sabbath Day. You don't find people automatically knowing that it is Saturday that is a supposed holy day. The reason being because it is not, and it never was intended to be.

God's sign to the Jewish nation is the Sabbath. It has never been anything else but. To try to enforce that on Gentile believers is akin to doctrine of demons.
DHK

 

Three options are available for those reading so far when it comes to choosing a model for salvation and the Work of Christ vs His Word "Scripture" the OT!

#1. Christ came and during His entire ministry, perfectly refuted, rejected, abolished and transgressed scripture teaching his followers to ignore the "Sola Scriptura" model and simply follow His lead.

After that He died for our sins and nailed the already discredited Word of God to the cross! Anyone showing honor and respect for what the NT saints Called "scripture" - the "Word of God" the "Commandments of God" as we find them before the cross is to be derided and condemned IF they think that scripture of that kind is really "applicable to mankind" as it was when given. Only the text of scripture written after the cross and describing doctrine/teaching "post cross" is to be read and obeyed.

The Jewish leaders by contrast were perfectly correct on their "sola scriptura" interpretations but their "error" was in thinking that "Scripture" was still to be obeyed even while the Messiah was alive!

#2. Christ perfectly endorsed, kept and fulfilled scripture and the "sola scriptura" model as well as repeatedly condemning the man-made-tradition of the Jews. He taught His disciples to hold God's word in high regard - to honor and obey as He did.

The Jewish leaders by contrast were perfectly sold-out to "Man-made-tradition" resulting in corrupted views of scripture, twisting-and-wrenching Christ's Word "Scripture" to suit their own man-made tradition. Christ never affirmed them in doing this - He always condemned it.

Then He died on the cross - paid for our sins and abolished His Word - "Scripture" nailing it to the cross if it commanded mankind to "do something". - Some may view this as "just abolishing it for His Followers - but insisting that unbelievers pay close attention to it and honor it".

#3. Christ perfectly endorsed, kept and fulfilled scripture and the "sola scriptura" model as well as repeatedly condemning the man-made-tradition of the Jews. He taught His disciples to hold God's word in high regard - to honor and obey as He did.

The Jewish leaders by contrast were perfectly sold-out to "Man-made-tradition" resulting in corrupted views of scripture, twisting-and-wrenching Christ's Word "Scripture" to suit their own man-made tradition. Christ never affirmed them in doing this - He always condemned it.

Then He died on the cross - paid for our sins and upheld the law by maintaing the penalty for violation that HE called for in HIS Law. He never abolished "His Law" and never taught His disciples to show disregard for it. (Pre-cross or post-cross)


-- As for me and apparently D.L.Moody and a few others on this board (possibly MOST others on this board) we choose option 3!

In Christ,

Bob

 

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” KJV Colossians 2:16-17

The sabbath days (plural) referred to here cannot be the weekly Sabbath: memorials point backwards not forward! Paul is clearly referring to the ceremonial sabbaths delineated in Leviticus chapter 23. The ceremonial sabbaths pointed forward to Yahshua, things to come, and this is why they were termed shadows, the weekly Sabbath points backwards to the creation of the world and was never given the term “shadows” in the scripture. The weekly Sabbath was not caught up in meat, drink oblations as were the ceremonial sabbaths. Clearly, the text above can in no way be applied to the weekly Sabbath.

It is this exegesis that antinomians fail to recognize in their interpretation of other texts such and Roman 14:4 and the like.

“For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” Hebrews 7:12

A change in the law is not the same as the abolition of the law as antinomianism suggests. When studied out in depth the change was in the nullification of the ceremonial laws and the sabbath days attached (i.e. texts often quoted by antinomians)—otherwise Yahshua could not be a priest. Arguments against the Decalogue through grace are examples of poor understanding. Grace does not abolish the generic moral absolute of honoring our parents or any other moral absolute of the Decalogue.

Certainly we are saved by grace but grace does not abolish the moral absolute that it is righteous to honor our parents. Grace supplies the ability to fulfill the righteous and moral requirement of honoring our parents.

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Romans 8:3-4

Grace through sanctification grants the power to overcome and live a righteous life. Observing the Sabbath precept is merely an outward manifestation of His grace. Upholding of the Sabbath is concomitant with upholding honoring our parents. By placing the fourth commandment in the center of the Decalogue it is clear that the Father gave the commandment the same standing as the other nine. Moreover, he stressed the fourth by emphasizing that we “remember” it. I’m not insisting that anyone honor their parents, but if they say they love Yahweh they shall—even when it is revealed that in some particular they fail. The fourth commandment is no different.

I don’t see Bob in a corner at all. It’s clear DHK is in that position.

Michael

 

DHK - your Mark 2 position has gone from bad to completely indefensible. I don't blame you for not responding to a single point posted today exposing the errors in your views of Mark 2. Possibly that "is" the only solution now that you have gone so far out on that limb.

But be "assured" that your attempts to gloss over the points exposing your flawed views - could only work with a small group that is "already inclined to do so" and to ignore the more detailed exegetically sound model "by contrast" that I have demonstrated here. If you really convinced that "ignoring the points raised" is your best defense then "so be it". But please do not refer to that retreat from the field in the future as a kind of "complete answer" to the problems you are now avoiding.

In Christ,

Bob

 

DHK claims that a CHANGE in Sabbath should be "inserted" eisegeted INTO Mark 2! He claims that though it WAS MADE for MANKIND that MANKIND was "NO LONGER" obligated to honor it when Christ arrived!

How sad that this self-conflicted contradictory "teaching" is all that is left for the model DHK suggests instead of an exegetically sound approach to Mark 2!

In the "flopped" version of DHK's statement - he insists that we only consider the Exodus 31 statements written about the Sabbath and NOT consider GOD's WORD spoken in Exodus 20:8-11 for the entire doctrine must be limited COMPLETELY to Exodus 31 to the EXCLUSION of the Ex 20:8-11 Words spoken by God!

And so we see that DHK's model starts "abolishing" God's Word - "scripture" during the time of Moses! long before the arrival of Christ!

in Christ,

Bob

 

I am more than happy to discuss Col 2 or Romans 14 as its own topic with you. Up until now I have not found you to be that serious about actually following through with a Bible discussion.

If you are serious - lets start a thread on it. Pick something you are actually willing to study through - "in detail".

If not - then "no news here".

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is a key piece of eisegesis in DHK's argument. He does not SHOW from scripture that the unqualified term "MAN" (as in Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God) means "Jews ONLY" - but DHK "pretends" to insert just such a definition into scripture "as his tradition requires it".

There were NO JEWS in Gen 2:3 when the 7th day was MADE holy!

Christ said that the Sabbath was MADE for mankind in Mark 2:27 WHEN IT WAS MADE!

DHK ADMITS that it WAS "MADE FOR MAN" but then claims "MAN is NO LONGER bound by it".

IF he means "made for JEWS but JEWS pre-Cross in Mark 2 were NO LONGER to honor Christ the Creator's Sabbath" then DHK needs to actually "MAKE THAT CASE" instead of simply ending in a befuddled point that appears to be floundering.

If he means "MADE for MANKIND but MANKIND no longer needs to honor it" then HE has refuted HIS OWN argument about "MADE for JEWS ONLY and NEVER for MANKIND" AND he would still need to show the CHANGE LANGUAGE he "inserts" (eisegeted) into Mark 2 --

Either way - DHK seems to be in a bit of a pickle to me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am not the one reading into Scriptures things that are not there.
The only clear command to keep the Sabbath is here:

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.

By your insistence to say that the Sabbath is to be kept today is simply demonstrating your denial or your unbelief in the clear teaching of the Word of God, which needs no explanation in these verses.
DHK

 

Bob,

Do you stick to Holy Spirit or to the Law?

What if there is a difference between the will of HS and the Law?

The reason why I mention to you this is because I found some significant problem with SDA belief when I discuss with Claudia on the Goats and Sheep thread.

If you claim Sabbath as Romans 14:5-6, it is OK, but if you are stuck onto the Law, then it is problem!

 

Romans 14 is about the Lev 23 annual Sabbaths. In Romans 14 "one man observes one day ABOVE another while another man observes EVERY ONE of the days".

The only SET OF DAYS that they had to select "for observance" were those listed in Lev 23. That is what they found "in scripture". REcall that the NT saints operated "Sola Scriptura" when it comes to doctrine and practice. This comes as a surprise to some on this thread!

The "conclusion" in Rom 14 is that EITHER practice is acceptable! Either selecting ONE of the Lev 23 Holy days to observe ABOVE the others - or selecting ALL of them to observe - was just fine.

My own preference when it comes to the ANNUAL Sabbaths listes in Lev 23 is that I don't observe any of them. That is an option not even listed in Rom 14!! But I make not condemnation of those who DO choose to honor 1 of the annual holy days ABOVE the others or those who choose to honor and OBSERVE them ALL!

AS far as dividing up the WORD of God against the SPIRIT that INSPIRES and AUTHORS that Word - I have no idea where you and Claudia were going on that topic.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eliyahu,

I can so absolutely no reason why you say you had a significant problem with me on the sheep and goats thread. You asked if a goat could become a sheep. I said yes.

We are all unsaved "goats" until we listen to the voice of Christ and become decide to become Christians.

Then you got the idea that I somehow meant we save ourselves (or something like that)... so I explained that I didnt mean that at all... that God saves us, etc... by faith we come to God, etc and so on.

So I just really cannot see why you are making a big deal about that at all.

WHTAT is the big problem, anyway?

Claudia