Opposing the 7th day Sabbath of the Lord Thy God

[BobRyan]

Let's be honest TCGreek - if you were starting from scratch on this - saw that list of agreed upon Bible facts in Post 78 above and saw that upholding of the "Commandments of God" in 1Cor 7 "but what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" you too would take God's 4th commandment seriously.

At least for a while -- would you not?

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.

And this is the clarity with which the "objective unbiased reader" approaches the "all agree" list above.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:
"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"

GE
I think Alcott's point is this: IF (big 'if') it is good to obey the Ten Commandments, are you thereby SAVED??? ... if you break one -- are you DAMNED thereby???

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HOU DE EPLEONASEN HEH HAMARTIA, HYPEREPERISSEUSEN HE XARIS! Where sin abounded grace the more increased.

DHK has taught me something on another thread I have not before seen: Sin is the transgression of the Law; its wages is death, but gace swallowed up death in the Victory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So sin is the transgression of the Law; it is not damnation for God's Elect.

 

[BobRyan]

"GE
I think Alcott's point is this: IF (big 'if') it is good to obey the Ten Commandments, are you thereby SAVED??? ... if you break one -- are you DAMNED thereby???

I suppose it is possible that this is his question.

Certainly it is true that we are all sinners -- all have violated God's Word - God's Commands so all need salvation.

But as I have said - I believe that Sunday keeping Christians are saved just as I believe there are Catholics who are saved.

(This is the part of the answer I have given repeatedly to Alcott so far)

My position is still that it is still "wrong" to use images in worship service and to ignore God's commandments. For as Paul said in 1Cor 7 "But what matters is keeping the Commandments of God"

Sin is still sin. But accountability is as James as stated it in James 4:17.

The saints themselves then have sin in the case where they are not aware that they are in violation and they also have sin where they are aware that they have violated God's Commands. In the case of sins where we are aware of our failing "If anyone DOES sin we HAVE an advocate with the Father" 1John 2:1 and in 1John 1:9 "IF we confess our sins HE IS faithful and just to forgive us our sins AND to cleanse us from all unrighteousness".

But the "Saved" attitude is this -- 1john 2:1 "These things I write to you that you sin not" -- it is the saved born-again New-Covenant heart with the Law of God "written on tablets of the human heart" that says "I desire not to sin" as Paul says in Romans 7.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

GE
I think Alcott's point is this: IF (big 'if') it is good to obey the Ten Commandments, are you thereby SAVED??? ... if you break one -- are you DAMNED thereby???


BR
I suppose it is possible that this is his question.

Certainly it is true that we are all sinners -- all have violated God's Word - God's Commands so all need salvation.

GE
I think Alcott has another idea, IF we / one obey the Ten Commandments, are you thereby SAVED?, simply. In other words, can one earn salvation; does he not deserve by not doing sin, to be saved?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:
But the "Saved" attitude is this -- 1john 2:1 "These things I write to you that you sin not""

GE:
I cannot recall that I read something from you this good.

 

[Alcott]

Ryan, before I ask another Yes or No question, I will ask this one: are you capable of answering Yes or No to such a question?

 

[TCGreek]

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.

Thank you. My Lord and Savior was raised on Sunday. Hallelujah!

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".

I don't think you need me to respond to your particular use of this Acts 13 reference.

I'll only add this: those people were not NT Christians. Maybe that should help you put things into perspective.

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

James along with Paul and the others were demonstrating from the OT Scriptures what they were witnessing.

Consider Acts 24:14, 15 and 1 Cor 15:1-3, for they are all OT references.

By the way, according to your reference to Acts 15:21, Do you keep the law of Moses without abridgement?

 

[BobRyan]

My reference to Acts 15 shows that the OT text is "still scripture" and is "essential" as the Word of God. No such thing in the NT as "Gentiles please be sure not to read scripture" -- so I read it -- and I follow it as it instructs.

God Himself is the one who gives scripture - He alone determines how it is used -- we can not simply "make up our own ideas about best ways to ignore scripture" and have that "stand up in court" so to speak.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BR:
I suppose it is possible that this is his question.

Certainly it is true that we are all sinners -- all have violated God's Word - God's Commands so all need salvation.

GE
I think Alcott has another idea, IF we / one obey the Ten Commandments, are you thereby SAVED?, simply. In other words, can one earn salvation; does he not deserve by not doing sin, to be saved?

IF it were true that "we had no sin" and that someone was "not a sinner" then that person would not need a savior. Would not need to "be saved".

The man standing in the burning building needs to be saved - the one standing out on the lawn playing with the dog does not.

However I don't think Alcott has gotten anywhere near asking about a "sinless being". I could be wrong.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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. ( I tend to agree with those who argue that it was very early Sunday morning.)

So that means that IF the NT writers "wanted to make the case" based on a week-day-one resurrection that "The Lord's Day is now week-day-one" they had a good context in which to go ahead and state that idea.. Of course they would also need to tell us why this would not be an annual "passover-replacement" celebration (kinda the way we do easter) but instead would be a creation-week 7-day-cycle celebration. However None of the discussion for that is found in scripture.

TCGreek
Thank you. My Lord and Savior was raised on Sunday. Hallelujah!

As far as I know that has not been unders dispute by anyone here except GE.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Thank you. My Lord and Savior was raised on Sunday. Hallelujah!

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.

you have that in your post as though it were you by mistake -- that is my argument above --- I think you meant to skip it since you did not respond to it at all.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[TCGreek]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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. ( I tend to agree with those who argue that it was very early Sunday morning.)

So that means that IF the NT writers "wanted to make the case" based on a week-day-one resurrection that "The Lord's Day is now week-day-one" they had a good context in which to go ahead and state that idea.. Of course they would also need to tell us why this would not be an annual "passover-replacement" celebration (kinda the way we do easter) but instead would be a creation-week 7-day-cycle celebration. However None of the discussion for that is found in scripture.[/]



As far as I know that has not been unders dispute by anyone here except GE.

In Christ,

Bob

You said that Jesus was raised on Sunday when I asked you.

 

[TCGreek]

you have that in your post as though it were you by mistake -- that is my argument above --- I think you meant to skip it since you did not respond to it at all.

in Christ,

Bob

Sorry about that, but I did respond to it. Look carefully and you'll see.

 

[Alcott]

However I don't think Alcott has gotten anywhere near asking about a "sinless being".

No-- I was asking about you.

I could be wrong.

{Comments welcome here}

 

[LeBuick]

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.

Sorry Bob but you are still ignoring scripture. Scripture says, "as it began to dawn". Dawn is the first light of a new day so this was not Saturday evening (dusk), it was Sunday morning (dawn) when the stone was rolled away.

Mt 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

 

[Bethelassoc]

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

Not arguing that at all, but I think what I said was missed. Paul being a Jew and a Pharisee, is not what I'm debating.

Speaking of the temple, why would all of a sudden, the people stop visiting the temple? It was still there, standing. After the death of Christ, after the conversion of Paul, people were still going to the temple, until the temple was no more. That was the point that I was making, regardless of the debate of sabbath or Sunday worship.

David

 

[BobRyan]

The synagogues were places of worship for the Jews. It was not for pagans or any other religion. So when we see Christians, Gentiles, Jews all worshipping the same God using the Same Bible in the Same Synagogue on the Same day - we are seeing the degree to which Jews and Christians viewed themselves as simply a faction or sect within Judaism rather than "different religions".

Remember that "Christian" is not a "name they gave themselves" rather as Paul said they were followers of the "Way". However the term Christian is really Messiah - only using the helenized form. Jews would be very comfortable with a sect that was claiming to have found the Messiah - it was quite common -- happened all the time. They did not view those groups as "entirely diffferent religions".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry Bob but you are still ignoring scripture. Scripture says, "as it began to dawn". Dawn is the first light of a new day so this was not Saturday evening (dusk), it was Sunday morning (dawn) when the stone was rolled away.

Mt 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
.

The first day of the week starts at evening according to the Bible if the "dawn" is the start of the day -- then it is evening. If it is simply dawn on a day that is half over then it is Sunday morning.

I think it might be Sunday morning but I am open to those who argue for a late Saturday night version.

In either case - I am not really pushing for one or the other solution there.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You said that Jesus was raised on Sunday when I asked you.

I said "week-day-one" -- I pointed out that according to God's way of numbering the days of the week this could be Saturday evening or Sunday morning.

I myself tend to think it was Sunday morning -- but I am open to arguments either way.

In either case I agree it is "week day one" so a sunday meeting in honor of a "week-day-one" resurrection still works as long as it is not Sunday evening using our reconning.

In Christ,

Bob