Opposing the 7th day Sabbath of the Lord Thy God

[Beth]

If you are in Christ

If you are in Christ, you are resting in the Sabbath.

Hebrews 4:7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.
8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
11 ¶ Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

Anyone can worship on any day they wish, IMO. Sunday, Saturday, Monday, Tuesday.....it is no longer a day which is the Sabbath, but it is the Lord who IS the Sabbath.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Beth, you are anulling the VERY SCRIPTURE you are quoting! How can you?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Beth, I sympathise with you, for I can clearly see how you could make that big mistake! It is because this was what you have read, as if God's Word: "9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God."

I assure you, you have read the word of a fickle 'translator'. Go back to the AV, and read that text again. Even though I have the greatest respect and admiration for the KJV, this rendering is pitiable. It is worse than pitiable, because it is a blatant contradiction in itself. You see, the original says 'a keeping of the Sabbath Day remains for the People of God"; now the AV 'translates' "a keeping of the Sabbath Day", with, "a rest for the People of God". Were readers able to have the original constantly before their eyes while reading the AV, what would they conclude? Just what I have pointed out, wouldn't they? That "a keeping of the Sabbath Day", is, "a rest for the People of God"! But no one reads their trusted Version so; and so they are deceived into believing that "a keeping of the Sabbath" would actually imply a rejection of "a rest for the People of God"! It is no easy matter; the greater is one's responsibility to arrive at a right understanding of God's Word!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

So, No, 'If you are in Christ, you are resting in the Sabbath' won't do. If you are in Christ, you may rest on the Sabbath for the dual reason in this text given for reason for one's doing so, which is, "If so that Jesus had given them rest" (first aspect, verse 8) and, "For He that is entered into His Own rest as God from His Own works rested" (second aspect, verse 10). Dual single reason, full reason, only reason, and FINAL reason, "FOR: IF SO .... He shall NOT again speak of another day" of salvation. Christ shall not again come to once more give opportunity for us or any ever again, unto salvation. "In these LAST days, God", "through the SON", "THUS CONCERNING THE SEVENTH DAY SPAKE, and God the Seventh Day from all His Works (through and in the Son) RESTED." It is this 'rest' - the 'katapausis'-'rest' of God in Christ, that is offered you this day "today", so harden not your heart; Christ won't come again to work your redemption. He has finished it; "And THEREFORE remains for the People of God their keeping of the Sabbath Day". (I speak to 'you', as to me myself.)

 

[BobRyan]

Would a safe assumption to where the worship day change came from was due to the temples destruction in AD 70, that temple worship ceased (of course) and probably the emphasis on the Sabbath had a physical end after already having a spiritual end?

Why wouldn't Paul and the other apostles continue preaching on the Sabbath, everybody was going to be there, right? It makes sense seeing that the custom hadn't changed yet if the temple was still there.

David

Notice that Paul argues in Phil 3 and in Acts 21 and numerous times beyond that "I AM a Pharisee" instead of "I changed religions", "I AM a Jew" instead of "I changed religions".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Jews worshiped on Sabbath, while Christians worshiped on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:1, 2).

As has already been mentioned --

NO worship service at all mentioned for 1Cor 16:1

Acts 20 - an "incident" of a farewell event and a possible communion service on "week-day one" not on "the Lord's Day" and no mention of "As was our custom we met on the Lord's Day in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord".

Not once in all of scripture is that ever stated.

Yet that sunday-Lord's day connection is mentioned among those who "believe it" every month if not every week.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Alcott]

But "the obvious" point is that I am free to argue that "it is at the very least CONSISTENT" to accept TCGreek's statement that Christ obeyed that actual Sabbath of the actual 4th commandment while He was here on earth and to say that when I follow Christ in that regard that shows a level of consistency with the point John makes in 1John 2 that Christians "should WALK as Jesus walked"

This is some of the silliest evasion and talk-around you have done on this board.

Do non-sabbath keepers know God if they believe in his son? Yes or No?

 

[BobRyan]

Obviously - SDAs have always said that non-Sabbath keeping Christians are "saved".

Obviously it makes perfect sense to see that "walking as Christ walked" taken to the point of "ALSO" keeping Christ our Creator's 7th day memorial of HIS work in Creation -- is at the very LEAST "consistent".

So far I state only the "obvious" and your only response is to complain about it to the point of whining that I am not "condeming enough people" -- THAT my friend is the "silly" aspect of the discussion.

AND it is at the very least "instructive" for the unbiased objective reader.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

Obviously - SDAs have always said that non-Sabbath keeping Christians are "saved".

Not true. SDA's don't believe that anyone is "saved".

Theirs is a works based system.

 

[Alcott]

You really answer the questions, don't you?...
Do non-sabbath keepers know God if they believe in his son? Yes or No?

Obviously - SDAs have always said that non-Sabbath keeping Christians are "saved".

Besides refusing to answer yes or no, nothing is obvious about your statement.

Yes or No... are those Christians(?) who do not keep the sabbath breaking a commandment?
Yes or No... if they are, do they-- or can they-- know God anyway, in spite of what I John 2 says?

 

[donnA]

The way I see it, I can not possibly vote in your poll. It is so biased it's pitiful that it tries to look like a poll. Even the 'other' option is not usable. The poll assumes that if the voter does not agree with you they are anti biblical.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Alcott:
"Do non-sabbath keepers know God if they believe in his son? Yes or No?"

GE
May I phrase your question so, 'Do they who believe in the Son, know God? Yes or No?' And the answer is easy, Yes!
But do they who believe in the Son and are known of the Father, necessarily know about Sabbath-keeping? Then the answer - from the point of view of the Scriptures - should be most evident, Yes! But since everyone reads what he gets to read in the Scriptures, that answer has completely lost its self-evidence.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Bethelassoc
Why wouldn't Paul and the other apostles continue preaching on the Sabbath, everybody was going to be there, right? It makes sense seeing that the custom hadn't changed yet if the temple was still there.

GE
What had the existence of the temple to do with the Believers' worship on the Sabbath Days? Not even do we read that on Pentecost the Believers worshipped in the temple; not even of the Day of atonement did the Believers worship in the temple. The Christian Community took the Synagogues over, so to speak. The entire Synagogue mostly - it seems - have become the Christian Church. So your hopes are disappointed; you cannot get away from the to you very annoying fact the Christian Church existed in and as the 'Jewish' Synagogue or 'Church'!

 

[BobRyan]

Not true. SDA's don't believe that anyone is "saved".

If by that you mean "they don't believe in OSAS" then - that has already been established here -- they don't. And neither do about half a dozen other non-SDA posters here.

What is your "point"???

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You really answer the questions, don't you?...

Yes - in the most obvious manner possible.

Do non-sabbath keepers know God if they believe in his son? Yes or No?

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Obviously - SDAs have always said that non-Sabbath keeping Christians are "saved".

The answer is they can be saved. I never argue that all non-Sabbath keepers or that all Sabbath-keepers are saved.

The obvious conclusion (GIVEN that they are saved as has been stated repeatedly) is that they must know God for how else can they be saved?

What part of this -- is not "obvious to you"???????

Alcott

Besides refusing to answer yes or no, nothing is obvious about your statement.

Ok - so you are still in the fog.

Not sure how you manage to stay there.

Yes or No... are those Christians(?) who do not keep the sabbath (Commandment as God gave it) breaking a commandment?

Is this the part where you are confused? You want to know if "it is good to break the Ten Commandments"???

James says "if you break one -- you break them all" but in your question you seem to ask "yes but is that wrong".

Yes it is wrong just like it is wrong for Catholics to use images in worship service.

But I do not argue that all Catholics are lost nor that all Sunday-keepers are lost because AS God said "to him who knows to do right and does it not - to him it is sin". James 4:14 - The very fact that you keep asking if it is wrong to break God's TEN Commandments EVEN when Paul says "But what matters is keeping the commandents of God" 1Cor 7 - testifies to the confused "fog" that exists among many Christian groups on this subject.

How can you be missing that point -- even if you missed all others here?

the SAME James that says "to break one commandment is to break them all" - says "to him who KNOWS to do right and does it not - to him it is sin"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Further, there isn't one verse in Exo thru Deu that applies to gentiles in Everett, WA. It is a social contract of the Land of Israel.

When the NT saints read the NT letters quoting heavily from the "scriptures" (that would be the OT for those in Rio Linda) do you suppose they were being told "scripture is not meant for Gentiles to read"??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[TCGreek]

As has already been mentioned --

NO worship service at all mentioned for 1Cor 16:1

Tell me, Do you have Scripture to demonstrate that Christians worshiped on the Sabbath as the Lord's Day?

Acts 20 - an "incident" of a farewell event and a possible communion service on "week-day one" not on "the Lord's Day" and no mention of "As was our custom we met on the Lord's Day in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord".

Nothing but a slightling of the inspired penman.

 

[BobRyan]

Tell me, Do you have Scripture to demonstrate that Christians worshiped on the Sabbath as the Lord's Day?

Hmm - that would be page 4 ...

Originally Posted by BobRyan
If we keep this "sola scriptura" then we all agree on the following -- that the following statements are not found in scripture.

A.We all agree we are not going to ever find (IN SCRIPTURE) that

1, "week-day-one" is ever called "the Lord's day"
2. "week day one " is never called "Day of the Lord"
3. nor any text saying "Christ is Lord of Week Day one"
4. NOR that "God sanctified week-day one"
5. Nor that "God made week-day one holy"
6. Nor that Christ said "meet on week-day one in rememberance of My resurrection"
7. Nor that any NT writer ever said "we meet on week-day one in rememberance of our Lord's resurrection".

B. We ALSO all agree on the obvious fact that the following texts ARE found in the Bible.

1. Isaiah 58 -- the "Sabbath is the Holy Day OF the LORD".
2. Mark 2:28 "The Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath".
3. Isaiah 66 regarding the New earth "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to Worship"
4. In Gen 2:3 God said that "He rested on 7th day THEREFORE HE blessed IT and made IT Holy" - Sanctified it on the 7th day of Creation week itself.

C. We also will probably agree that even though the above list of facts are obvious to all - you will never hear this list of facts from the pulpit.

Where we DIFFER is on "WHY" these clear yet "inconvenient" Bible facts are never mentioned in modern pulpits.

But if we go back to "D.L.MOODY" we WILL see some pretty strong statements on the "Sabbath commandment" -- as we all agree.

So it is interesting - the inconvenient facts that we can all agree to - while also finding room to differ.

I then observe that in Acts 20 -- the one time when we do see a clear reference to a Christian meeting on "week-day-one" for Paul was "departing the next day and the sermon was going long into the night" that it is "instructive" to the extent that we do NOT see the author making the same statements about "we meet on this Lord's Day - week-day-one as is our custom each week in honor of the resurrection of our Lord"... you know - the same way it is done WEEKLy today by those who actually believe that week-day-one is to be called "the Lord's Day".

TCGreek
Nothing but a slightling of the inspired penman.

Are you saying that to "notice" this gap in the argument for "week-day-one" is to be unkind to NT authors (as if we can blame THEM for the man made traditions that came along after them??))

Such a solution would be a "week-day-one solution at all costs to scripture" -- I for one can not go there.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[TCGreek]

Hmm - that would be page 4 ...

I just want one Scripture. I'm not greedy. :thumbs:

I then observe that in Acts 20 -- the one time when we do see a clear reference to a Christian meeting on "week-day-one" for Paul was "departing the next day and the sermon was going long into the night" that it is "instructive" to the extent that we do NOT see the author making the same statements about "we meet on this Lord's Day - week-day-one as is our custom each week in honor of the resurrection of our Lord"... you know - the same way it is done WEEKLy today by those who actually believe that week-day-one is to be called "the Lord's Day".



Are you saying that to "notice" this gap in the argument for "week-day-one" is to be unkind to NT authors (as if we can blame THEM for the man made traditions that came along after them??))

Such a solution would be a "week-day-one solution at all costs to scripture" -- I for one can not go there.

in Christ,

Bob

What day was Jesus raised on? What day would that be on our present calender?

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus was raised on week-day-one. In our present Calendar that is Sunday -- though it could have been late Saturday night and would still qualify as "week-day-one" using God's Bible method of calculating days.

So when we find "Sabbath after Sabbath " meetings in Acts 13 and NO reference at all in all of the NT to "week-day one after week day one" meetings -- it is "instructive".

When we find "THE Seventh day" STILL referenced by NT authors by it's title of honor "the Sabbath" in Acts 13 and Acts 17 and elsewhere - and not ONE single reference in all of scripture to "week-day-one IS the Lord's Day" -- it is "instructive" to the unbiased objective reader.

When we find in Acts 15 that the dispute about Gentiles vs Jews and the need to be fully informed about scripture -- James observes that the scriptures as written by Moses are already available to them being "preached every Sabbath" so that they only need to be reminded of a few details regarding food offerred to idols and the OT prohibition of eating meat with blood in it. This meant that just as Gentiles were not required to be circumcised in the OT -- neither would they have that burden added to them in the NT -- for the rule was to be "scripture" not the tradition of the Jews.

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob