Featured Sabbath breaking - becomes the mark of the Beast in the future

Do you agree that the 4th commandment is one of the Ten Commandments that you say is moral law applicable to all mankind then??

If so - then how is it removed so that you have ten commandments but not the 4th commandment.

I find the logic in that idea "illusive" given that the Bible itself identifies the Ten Commandments for us.

We know that there are shadow Sabbaths in Lev 23 - given at the very start in the form of animal sacrifices and that those annual Sabbaths end because their animal sacrifice ends and no other way is given to observe them.

We know that drinking has not ended.

We know that eating has not ended.

We know that food still exists.

Col 2
15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,
17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. NKJV


Those who do not judge pastors that commit adultery - please raise your hands.


In any case - Matt 7 before cross - while EVEN the ceremonial law is in full effect - Jesus said "Judge not that you be not judged".

in Christ,

Blob

 

That is like saying "have a specific tree that you do not eat from is a snare"

Or "having a specific wife that you are faithful to is a snare".

That sort of logic never worked for any of God's Commands - I don't think we would want to adopt that sort of dismissal of the Commands we find in scripture.

In Matt 5 - Christ shows how magnifying the Law does not abolish it - rather it strengthens it in every case. That includes the 4th Commandment.

The title of the post is not "having a meeting on Tuesday is the mark of the beast in the future".

The meeting on Sunday in John 20 is done AFTER they had "rested on the Sabbath according to THE Commandment" Luke 23:56


Christ before the cross -- at a time when EVEN the ceremonial law is in full effect -- never says "we dare not having a meeting on Tuesday for it would break the 4th commandment" --- and I think we all know that.

Even your own Charles Swindoll and D.L. Moody argue that the 4th commandment is still to be obeyed.


It is not just Moody that thinks Commandment breaking is wrong.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I don't think anyone would be surprised that Paul might find Godly Jews and gentiles in the Synagogues who would be good Bible-informed audiences for the Gospel

what is downright shocking is that Paul does NOT say to those who are accepting the Gospel "Meet with us tomorrow for our normal week-day-1 gospel worship, gospel preaching, Bible study time".

Nor do we see "And all the Jews were accepting the Gospel and so asked for it to be presented on the following Sabbath". Instead we find a mixed group accepting the Gospel.. nobody insists that Paul only speak next Sabbath - and Paul does not invite them to a week-day-1 service.

So then who is waiting for next Sabbath - the entire Gentile town!! And it only makes the Jews mad!

=========


42As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath. 43Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.

Paul Turns to the Gentiles

44The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord. 45But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began contradicting the things spoken by Paul, and were blaspheming.

And then more Gospel preaching Sabbath after Sabbath in the Synagogues - 'as we his custom" in Acts 17.

Then more Sabbath after Sabbath Gospel preaching in Acts 18.

Where are the week-day-1 after week-day-1 services for Gospel preaching, Bible study, sermons in the NT???

NOT even one week-day after-week-day-1 sequence in all of the NT for gospel preaching, Bible study and worship etc.

Repeatedly in the NT after the cross the 7th day is not merely "week-day-7" but always - "the Sabbath".

And not once in the NT do we have " and week-day-1 is blessed, is sanctified, is the Lord's Day". (which is somewhat of a defeat for the pro-sunday sources I quote on page 1)

 

You have scored very high in false accusation - that much can be shown as fact.

I quote moody -- you do not on this thread. you quote "you" when making false accusations.

When I claim moody is a "pro-sunday source" you come in with the somewhat nonsensical "Moody did not believe in the Sabbath.
Moody did not keep the Sabbath." where you mean "the Bible Sabbath of the 7th day" all the while we can all read Moody claiming that the Bible Sabbath it bent to point to week-day-1.

The point remains.

"Sundays not the Sabbath' is you "quoting you" Moody imagines for us that Sunday is the newly bent Bible Sabbath as he states in his own text.

Again "you quote you".


Let's contrast your method of false-accusation with Moodys' own "rigorously keeping" language in HIS text.

First the false claim;

Now we will all "READ" how it is that Moody ends his SABBATH commandment section this way

 

Those who took the time to 'read" page 1 found this

So then - that is not me claiming that Moody or any of the pro-sunday sources on page 1 keep the 7th-day Bible Sabbath - rather that is me claiming that they BEND it to point to week-day-1.


As all readers of this thread - already knew from page 1.

That leaves nothing but "false accusations" to be had about some odd case of claiming Moody was arguing that we should all keep Saturday as Sabbath.

A false accusation that can only work with those who are not actually "reading" the claims I have been making.

If you are one who makes false accusations without first reading the points under discussion when you post -- Please read.

in Christ,

Bob

 

On second thought - DHK may have just answered the question I raise in this post.

What if the answer to this

"Now suppose Andy Stanley, D.L. Moody, Chuck Swindoll , C.H. Spurgeon, Matthew Henry .... are all wrong to say that the TEN Commandments are the moral law of God, include the 4th Commandment, are still binding on all the saints ...etc.

All that much more important the question "then why has NOT whatever brilliant solution there is to this - been presented each Sunday so that none be confused"??"

And what if the answer is that each time this is posted -- (30 or more times probably on this board)

Where I claim these Pro-SUNDAY sources are bending the Commandment to Point it to week-day-1....

We get this nonsense just as many times in response

What if name-calling and empty-fluff false-accusation non-factual response were the common "answer" being handed out just as DHK has exemplified for us?

What if that explains why we have Andy Stanley, D.L. Moody, Chuck Swindoll , C.H. Spurgeon, Matthew Henry .... are all (supposedly) wrong to claim a continued TEN Commandments and a continued (though bent) 4th commandment to this very day - applicable to all the saints.

What if these men looked at the supposedly all-inclusive-impressive solution of the sort that DHK has offered above - and then dismissed it as fluff?

What if that sort of thing was being presented as the "solution" and so they logically rejected it and stuck with the Bible on the Ten Commandments still being valid - and including some down-sized, edited, bent form of 4th Commandment?

Food for thought.

 

Those 4 positions are pretty close.

1. The Sabbatarians position- Bible Sabbath day of worship is Saturday
2. The Catholic position- pope Peter changed the Bible Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday at the time of the cross
3. The Protestant view- Sunday is the Christian Sabbath as of the time of the cross and fulfills the Sabbath Commandment instead of the Bible Sabbath as given in the OT
4. The Bible sabbath was abolished by Christ on the cross (and Christians might have since Pentecost worshipped on the First day of the week - but there is no record of it in the actual Bible as a weekly week-day 1 event just in man-made tradition and ECF documents centuries later )

My added parenthesis to position 4.

But even given them as you state them

1. - someone in position 4 would have a hard time claiming "position 3 does not exist" or "SDAs made Protestants take that view' etc.

Position 3 cannot be reduced to "just SDAs" or "SDAs make that happen" or "SDAs should be falsely accused and condemned when they notice people taking position 3"

2. The solution 4 idea so recently created - needs to be better understood so that more evangelicals and protestants become informed and aware of just how compelling it is - from the Bible. sola scriptura. The "sola name-calling" and "sola-false-accusation" method of supporting group 4 does not satisfy most Bible students.

3. Bible scholars, Protestants, Evangelicals that take position 3 do not do so as a favor to SDAs -- they genuinely believe they are affirming all TEN of God's TEN Commandments and their position is in complete contradiction to position 4 in that regard.

And of course the 3rd commandment 'do not take God's name vain" also never mentioned in the NT.

And the third commandment also never stated in Is 66:23 as continued for all eternity in the NEW Heavens and New earth as we find for Sabbath.


... except for that of course.

Nothing in Romans or Colossians abrogates, eating, or drinking, or food, or Sabbath, or the restriction against taking God's name in vain.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Each time I claim that Moody is a PRO-SUNDAY source

Or I quote him

OR I summarize the pro-SUNDAY position

We will eventually get this

The nonsense in that argument is hard to excuse.

Why keep embarrassing yourself that way?

That might explain why I keep insisting that Moody is a pro-SUNDAY source.

Which means the false accusations you pile on top of each other become that much more embarrassing for you -- why keep doing it??

You ask why I don't quote more NON-MOODY sources when quoting Moody - as if this "makes sense".

again - I find your argument to be lacking in attention to detail.

in Christ,

Bob

 

If you read the posts
-- #72,
#71

And respond to some detail in them - it works better than just making false accusations.

I don't simply argue "this is what Bible Sabbath keeping Christians know to be true about the Bible statements on the Ten Commandments" -- rather I add "and on certain points here is how some pro-SUNDAY groups have commented on that same point".


It is called "objectivity".


in Christ,

Bob

 

Interesting the "Commandment" language we see here.

 

There is also "Commandment" language used in the scriptures quoted here.

 

Christ Himself uses that "Commandment language" in this example if you skip down to Mark 7

==========================================================

As for James 2

8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” (Lev 19:18) you are doing well.

9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,”
also said, “Do not commit murder.”

Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty

James argues the point based on "HE who said" -- in the text.

So then "in the text" - James is affirming "the whole law" and is giving example from THE Ten Commandments - saying that "HE who said" one of those commandments - ALSO Said - the others.


James 2 - in complete agreement with Prov 28 in a number of places.

Prov 28
Is like a driving rain which leaves no food.
4Those who forsake the law praise the wicked,
But those who keep the law strive with them.
..
9 He who turns away his ear from listening to the law,
Even his prayer is an abomination.


Just as we would all expect - before the cross. Yet this is the "scripture" being read by NT saints in all NT texts "scripture" is a reference to the OT.

As for teaching of Christ, the Words of Christ - not throwing Moses under a bus

Luke 16
17 ... it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.
31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”


[FONT=&quot]Matt 5
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


"do we then make void the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW" Rom 3:31[/FONT]



As for not throwing Moses under a bus by setting aside one of the TEN Commandments - Christ makes that point in Mark 7.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Notice that it is identified as "Moses said" and as "The Word of God"

AND as the "Commandment of God"??

============================================

Was Christ throwing Moses "under a bus" when in Mark 2:27 He said that "Sabbath was made for mankind -- and not mankind made for the Sabbath"??

Was Isaiah throwing Moses "under a bus" when he said God claims "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to bow down" for all eternity in the New Earth?

And in Is 56 where we are told that gentiles are specifically targeted as blessed for honoring and keeping God's Sabbath -- is God throwing Moses "under a bus" in that case?

No He is not - because Moses never claims "The Sabbath should not be kept by gentiles" or "is not applicable to gentiles" -- a point that even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship accepts.

The "only for Israel" argument does not work in Hebrews 8 or Jer 31:31-33 with the new Covenant even though there we see that the NEW Covenant is made "with Israel and with Judah".

The "only for Israel" argument does not work in Acts 13 even though there we see this regarding the Gospel

Acts 13
23 From this man’s seed, according to the promise, God raised up for Israel a Savior—Jesus—
24 after John had first preached, before His coming, the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.


The "only for Israel" does not work in John 4 even though there we see Christ states clearly 'salvation is of the JEWS"

John 4
22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.

The "only for Israel" argument does not work in Ex 20:1-7 even though there we see that taking God's name in vain is condemned in the commandment -- said to Israel - and yet applicable to ALL mankind.


And....

It does not work in Ex 20:8-11 where those same Commandments to Israel include the Sabbath "made for mankind" Mark 2:27 where "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to bow down" Is 66:23