Would you fellowship with a Seventh Day Adventist Family?

[3AngelsMom]

DHK,

We're done.

God Bless!

Bye Bye

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Abiyah:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Singer:
What are you..... a Moderator, Abiyah?

8oD

NO! I couldn't handle the job. When things start
getting too weird, I walk away, and that would never
do for a moderator.

8oD </font>[/QUOTE]You certainly have seniority here. 2300+ posts!

That's allot of

 

[Singer]

This is really all futile isn't it ?
Been fun. God Bless y'all .
Singer

 

[Abiyah]

8oD It's a lot of too many days not being able to
get off the couch. Take note: My physical
therapist is doing such a great job, I don't write
nearly as much now. Between her and my
studies taking up too much time, then I recently
added another 14-week class! HELP!

Really, I am kind of excited. There is actually an
end to my physical therapy after all! I may have
only 1.5 months more to go, depending upon my
progress. She told me today! ! ! That is mid-
March! Yes! I can handle that! 8oD 8oD 8oD
That also means we can get this law suit business
garbage over with, too. I am so sick of it!

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Singer:
This is really all futile isn't it ?
Been fun. God Bless y'all .
Singer

Yeah, be at peace sister.

God Bless

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Abiyah:
8oD It's a lot of too many days not being able to
get off the couch. Take note: My physical
therapist is doing such a great job, I don't write
nearly as much now. Between her and my
studies taking up too much time, then I recently
added another 14-week class! HELP!

Really, I am kind of excited. There is actually an
end to my physical therapy after all! I may have
only 1.5 months more to go, depending upon my
progress. She told me today! ! ! That is mid-
March! Yes! I can handle that! 8oD 8oD 8oD
That also means we can get this law suit business
garbage over with, too. I am so sick of it!

That is wonderful news! Praise God!!

I am in a lawsuit right now too, I feel your pain. Car wreck almost 3 years ago, my back still hurts every day. No hope for recovery they said. Permanent damage to soft tissue surrounding disks. BAD BAD BAD

Glad to hear you are doing better!

Maybe you could pray for me now.

God Bless

 

[Singer]

To 3AM:

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh......make that BROTHER if ya don't mind !!

Cya in heaven.
H. Charless

 

[Abiyah]

I was thinking they may boot this thread because
it got off-topic, then I realized that they would not
do that! We are associating with a Seventh Day
Adventist! 8oD

Thank you. I will tell you what: when I do my
exercises, I will pray for you. 8o)

My accidents were ten days apart, rear-ended at
two different red lights because people in this
town do not know how to drive. Tonight, on the
way to class, it was a drunk driver in front of me.
Right after that, someone pulled out of a driveway
onto a busy street right in front of me. And
freeway driving? They haven't a clue--especially
with regard to merging.

 

[neal4christ]

Think about it.

I think I am with you, Bob.

Thanks for answering, 3AM. I wasn't trying to yank your chain, just getting some other input on the issue. Taking this philosophy class makes my head hurt sometimes!

Neal

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
DHK,

We're done.

God Bless!

Bye Bye

You don't like my friend Albert Barnes??

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
DHK,

We're done.

God Bless!

Bye Bye

You don't like my friend Albert Barnes?? </font>[/QUOTE]Don't start with me DHK, I am not in the mood for your little games.

We are done.

God Bless!

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Think about it.

I think I am with you, Bob.

Thanks for answering, 3AM. I wasn't trying to yank your chain, just getting some other input on the issue. Taking this philosophy class makes my head hurt sometimes!

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]No problem, I didn't think that you were!

It is a touchy subject, and one that is hard to understand sometimes.

I had to take philosophy in college too, it was my least and most favorite subject.

Depending on the topic of the day.

Hang in there!

God Bless

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Abiyah:
I was thinking they may boot this thread because
it got off-topic, then I realized that they would not
do that! We are associating with a Seventh Day
Adventist! 8oD

Thank you. I will tell you what: when I do my
exercises, I will pray for you. 8o)

My accidents were ten days apart, rear-ended at
two different red lights because people in this
town do not know how to drive. Tonight, on the
way to class, it was a drunk driver in front of me.
Right after that, someone pulled out of a driveway
onto a busy street right in front of me. And
freeway driving? They haven't a clue--especially
with regard to merging.

Isn't that the truth. I noticed that before on another forum. You can bash away all day long on Mormons, Catholics, and JW's, but you mention just ONE word against the Secret Rapture theory and they shut you up, and in my case bann you!

The people here drive ok, a little fast, but they seem to be courteous enough. I loved driving in England. There is actually a LAW there that if you are approached from behind by a car that is going faster than you, and they flash their lights at you, you MUST move.

It was great.

God Bless

 

[Singer]

3AM:

Hey I almost forgot.......don't SDA's believe in the rapture ?

Well I don't believe in RCC's "baptism by desire" either, or
Regenerative baptism, or Mormon's Visions, or JW's Whatevers
or the importance of Sabbath or exclusivism.

No great loss though wouldn't you say ?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:

"You don't like my friend Albert Barnes??"

Don't start with me DHK, I am not in the mood for your little games.

We are done.

God Bless!

3AM,
I posted a very good exposition of 1Cor.16:2 by Albert Barnes. Now anyone can expound on Scripture. I have seen some good expositions in this forum by Briguy, Lorelei, Clint, and others. If you look in the Theology forum you will find plenty of exposition of Scripture there. I chose Albert Barnes, not because he is my authority, but because he did a thorough work on this verse. He shows beyond any doubt that the practice of the early Christians was to meet on the first day of the week. That was the practice not only of the Corinthians but of all the early churches.
It appears that you don’t want to deal with that post for a couple of reasons. One, you cannot refute it. And two, it calls into question the very foundation of your religion. This is not a game. It is serious business. If what Albert Barnes says here is true (and I believe it is), then you certainly do belong to a false religion. You need to think about that carefully. Your religion links the Sabbath with the mark of the beast. That is how important the Sabbath is to the SDA’s. I would encourage you to study what Barnes has to say carefully. “Examine yourself and see whether you are in the faith.”
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

Singer
Hey I almost forgot.......don't SDA's believe in the rapture ?

Well I don't believe in RCC's "baptism by desire" either, or
Regenerative baptism, or Mormon's Visions, or JW's Whatevers
or the importance of Sabbath or exclusivism.
[/quote]

SDAs do believe in the rapture - but not the "secret rapture" and the SDAs place the rapture at the close of the tribulation.

What is really fascinating is that the pre-millenial view that SDAs hold was the "prime reason" according to Walter Martin's book "Kingdom of the Cults" why the Millerites and SDAs of the 1800's were criticised by other Christian groups. The vast majority of Christians at that time were amillenialist like the Catholics.

BTW - SDAs do not believe in Baptismal regeneration (Church of Christ) or baptism for the dead (like the Mormons) and they do not teach that only Sabbath keepers are going to heaven, or that Sabbath keepers are the only Christians.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

DHK -

Unfortunately you "do play games" in your replies in that you don't carry on a dialoge and when your point begins to fail you simply switch topics and really do not focus on the point at hand.

Here is a good example of your using a text as a "pretext" and totally out of "context".

This is a typical out of context statement made by one in a cult. Why don't you mention the rest of the verse?

Mark 2:27 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.
--In other words, man was not to be a slave to the Sabbath. He was not to be under the law of the Sabbath. Jesus was teaching the exact opposite of what you are trying to draw out of these verses. Notice in verse 28, how He clarifies His position by stating that He is the Lord of the sabbath. The Sabbath does not have dominion over man, but man has dominion over the sabbath. That means in this dispensation of grace--the church age, man is not bound to keep the Sabbath at all. It is NOT the sabbath that has dominion over the man, as your religion teaches.

In your pretend view above - either "Man created the Sabbath for the porcupine to observe" or "God created the Sabbath for man to treat as it pleases him". Nothing could be further from the truth.

In Fact it was God who created the Sabbath.

HE created it as a Blessing TO Mankind (Adam and Eve) instead of mankind "created" to BLESS the Sabbath. This does not mean "the Sabbath was created for mankind to ignore" as you suppose. Nore does it mean that the Sabbath was binding on "lower life forms but not mankind" - nor does it show that the Sabbath that God created for mankind was not binding (as you so imaginatively speculate above).

God created it. God mandated it in Gens 2:3 and reports that fact in Exodus 20:11. Its creation and authority was "ALL of God and NONE of man". Christ Himself declares that HE owns it "The Son of man is LORD of the Sabbath". It is not "DHKs to do with as he pleases" rather it is "Christ's day - the Lord's day" of God's making - not of man's.

Now - all this is obvious to the reader as they view the text "in context" - but your approach above is to simply use the text as a pretext for the "Sabbath not for mankind" abberation that you propose above.

Let me ask you a question, how could your approach ever be viewed as "compelling" to anyone that did not "already agree with you"? It has zero depth in Biblical exegesis. It is merely a wishful muse in the way that it is stated. How can you offer it to anyone that does not already have your bias - as a compelling argument? what is the point of your approach? What would you like to accomplish?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

Let me ask you a question, how could your approach ever be viewed as "compelling" to anyone that did not "already agree with you"? It has zero depth in Biblical exegesis. It is merely a wishful muse in the way that it is stated. How can you offer it to anyone that does not already have your bias - as a compelling argument? what is the point of your approach? What would you like to accomplish?

I disagree Bob. I am not playing games at all. You take the text here out of context and make it mean what you want it to mean according to the dictates of your own beliefs and religion. You have not even begun to address the issues that Barnes brings forth in his exposition on 1Cor.16:2.

But to review some of the verses that you refer to time and again. First God rested on the Sabbath day, and the Scriptures do say:

"And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." (Gen.2:3)

Why was it sanctified or set apart from the rest of the days? Because that is the day that He rested or ceased from creating. The principle set forth for us is that man needs one day out of seven for rest.

Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
--Of all the commandments, this one specifically was given to the Israelites and no other.

Exodus 31:

12 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 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.
--Very specifically does the Lord say that the Sabbath day was a sign between Jehovah and Israel, and no other people. It was their covenantal sign. If you want to keep the Sabbath why not be circumcised and keep all their dietary laws as well?

Mark 2:23 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?
25 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 showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27 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.

According to the Jews Jesus was breaking the Sabbath. He was gathering food, and eating that which he had gathered. The Jews considered this a violation of the Sabbath. Jesus demonstrates two things here. One, He is the Lord of the Sabbath. He created the Sabbath. The Creator is not subject to the creation. Second, remember the principle of one day of rest out of seven. That is all that is applicable in this New Testament dispensation. Demonstrate from the New Testament any command to keep the Sabbath. Jesus did not subject himself to the Sabbath. He pointed out that the Sabbath was made for man, that is for the enjoyment of man, for the benefit of man. It was not made for man to be a slave to the Sabbath. This is what the Jews had done. This is also what the law also had become: burdensome. No man can keep the law. The law, by pointing out our sin, leads us to Christ.
DHK

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks to DHK for posting that discussion on 1Cor 16 by another author as it is so devastating to his case.

Let's view it closely. (This will be "long" so I appologize in advance).

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

1Cor 16 is significant in that it is the only place in all of the NT where ANYTHING is commanded regarding week-day-one.

1Cor 16 is significant in that it is "the golden opportunity" for a NT author to introduce the new importance, or the transition, or the new name of week-day-one 1 to a brand new Jewish-Christian church.

For example "Day number 7" is given "a NAME" in scripture to show its significance rather than simply assigning it "a number". No other week day has that "name assigned" in either the NT or the OT - unless you consider the "preparation day" terminology that was sometimes used for Friday.

1Cor 16 is significant in its focus of the act being commanded to be "BY ones Self" - alone - not in community.

1Cor 16 is significant in that the "giving" of the offering - received by an official church member is placed at Paul's OWN reception of the gift.

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

Now let's observe how the author deals with the devastating details of the text of 1Cor 16.

Albert Barnes

Let every one of you. Let the collection be universal. Let each one esteem it his duty and his privilege to give to this object. It was not to be confined to the rich on]y, but was the common duty of all. The poor, as well as the rich, were expected to contribute according to their ability.
Lay by him in store. par eautw tiqetw qhsaurizwn. Let him lay up at home, treasuring up as he has been prospered. The Greek phrase, "by himself," means, probably, the same as at home. Let him set it apart; let him designate a certain portion; let him do this by himself, when he is at home, when he can calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity. Let him do it, not under the influence of pathetic appeals, or for the sake of display when he is with others; but let him do it as a matter of principle, and when he is by himself.

You could not ask for a more devastating point against "a command to GATHER on week-day-one". The entire focus is on the SINGULAR - and even "private" act - at HOME rather than "IN COMMUNITY".

Thanks to DHK for being willing to post that!

Albert Barnes

The phrase in Greek, "treasuring up," may mean that each one was to put the part which he had designated into the common treasury.

This is not an interpretation of a greek term AS IF the Greek was shoing "Treasuring up" to mean "IN community". Indead there are a number of places in scripture where the term "treasuring up" is purely and distinctively a PRIVATE and Individual act. The author merely speculates - in a hopeful wishful fashion at this point hoping to avoid the devasting implication of the Greek when it comes to the literal and explicit "BY ONE SELF".

Not the "or perhaps maybe" style of the author in casting about him for relief from "by ONEs Self"

Albert Barnes
This interpretation seems to be demanded by the latter part of the verse. They were to lay it by, and to put it into the common treasury, that there might be no trouble of collecting when he should come. Or it may, perhaps, mean that they were individually to treasure it up, having designated in their own mind the sum which they could give, and have it in readiness when he should come.

Now notice here - that the Author "needs" day one to be given the title "the Lord's Day" - as would be so natural IF it were true. The author STICKS IT IN for his own interpretation having failed to extract that much-needed title from this all-important singular text dealing with an actual command for week-day-one.

Albert Barnes

This was evidently to be done not on one Sabbath only, but was to be done on each Lord's-day until he should come.

It is significant that the term is so urgently "needed" by those who "need" to make that association - and yet it is conspicuously missing from the text.

Very instructive.

That there be no gatherings when I come. No collections, (logiai,) 1Co 16:1. The apostle means that there should be no trouble in collecting the small sums; that it should all be prepared; that each one might have laid by what he could give; and that all might be ready to be handed over to him, or to whomsoever they might choose to send with it to Jerusalem, 1Co 16:3.

Clearly this shows the collection is made by Paul - and NOT at a weekly - week-day-one church meeting.

Now observe the entire basis upon which the author pins his hopes for week-day-one "ASSEMBLY" - as he himself states it below.

In view of this important verse, we may remark,
(1.) that there is here clear proof that the first day of the week was observed by the church at Corinth as holy time. If it was not, there can have been no propriety in selecting that day in preference to any other in which to make the collection.

The author "pretends" that he can think of no "other reason" for selecting week-day-one as the day to "lay by ONEs SELF" small sums of money - other than "the Sabbath is abolished and week-day-one should now be called the Lord's Day and you should Gather on that day for worship".

(Indeed quite a stretch for him - but notice his basis for that..).

The "other" obvious and "ignored" reason IS that by budgetting - setting aside funds AT THE START of the work week - instead of spending and then taking the left-overs at the END of the week - the early Christians were in that way making a deliberate, planned, insured "sacrifice" ahead of the spending for the needs of the week.

There is "no mention" in the text about "week-day-one being the day for the religious duties of the week". - It is ONLY mentioned in terms of budgeting and savings as a PRIVATE act.

Turning from that devastating fact the author continues with musings "from the void" of what the text does not say.

It was the day which was set apart to the duties of religion, and therefore an appropriate, day for the exercise of charity and the bestowment of alms. There can have been no reason why this day should have been designated except that it was a day set apart to religion, and therefore deemed a proper day for the exercise of benevolence towards others.

Notice - again the "proof" is "I will not allow myself to imagine any other reason for selecting week-day-one".

Having based his argument on "what I will allow myself to imagine" the author has "allowed" himself to tranform "lay by himself" as "OBSERVE as a holy day" - "observe as a religious duty" week-day-one and then merely assumes that critical salient point in the remainder of his argument.

(2.) This order extended also to the churches in Galatia, proving also that the first day of the week was observed by them, and was regarded as a day proper for the exercise of charity towards the poor and the afflicted. And if the first day of the week was observed, by apostolic authority, in those churches, it is morally certain that it was observed by others. This consideration, therefore, demonstrates that it was the custom to observe this day, and that it was observed by the authority of the early founders of Christianity.

What the author is reluctant to recall is that it is "OBSERVED" only as a day to lay "funds by ones self" if the explicit statements in the 1Cor 16 text is the force of the "observation".

How sad - that this pretext is used to launch into a "observe week-day-one as the Lord's day - a day of worship".

Notice also that although the author WANTS the text to say that Paul customarily Observed the week-day-one as Lord's day. It does not. In fact the NT DOES admit that BOTH Paul and Christ "customarily" attended services - but in both cases - they mention this connected with God's Holy Seventh-day that is given the title "Sabbath" and not once with "week-day-one".

The perfect way to associate this giving with a NEW holy day WOULD have been to call it "The Lord's Day" instead of "week-day-one" just as our author does below.

(4.) Paul designed that the habit of doing good with their money should be constant. He, therefore, directed that it should be on the return of each Lord's-day, and that the subject should be constantly before their minds.

How "instructive" that no such clear and explicit association is made IN the text - IN the ONE text that actually commands Christians to DO something on week-day-one.

The rest of that article dealt with the teaching "giving" rather than exaulting "week-day-one" so I will leave the review of that commentary at this point.

Thanks again to DHK for posting it and providing such a welcomed - golden opportunity - to show the utter lack of substance for "week-day-one" to be called "Lord's Day" when we consider it FROM the 1Cor 16 standpoint.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

So your basic objection is that the term that Paul uses "first day of the week" doesn't have an official name like "sabbath?" That seems like a petty excuse for rejecting his arguments.

(Rev 1:10 KJV) I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
1Cor.16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

"The Lord's Day" is commonly used to refer to the first day of the week, the day that we now refer to as Sunday.