A message for all Sabbath breakers.....Owned!!

[Scott]

Why do you and CJ feign ignorance to the fact that the majority of mainstream Christians DO believe that obedience to God (through His commandments) was nailed to the cross?

That must happen in the churches that promote murder, adultery, homosexuality etc...

Today we see professed Christians whose lifestyles are no different to those of ‘the world’.

Did you ever consider that the difference between yourself and others is that we don't necessarily identify Christians because thats what they call themselves. I'm not in the business of seperating the lost from the saved. That's not my job. I'm not here to throw others under the bus, I can only answer for myself. But you might get over your hangup on labels if you took into consideration what Jesus tells us in Matthew 7:20. Salvation is more than a label.

We really should be able to debate this issue without reference to the SDA Church at all.

Why, don't like the truth when it hits so close to home?!

While I DO believe (through Bible study) that MANY, even MOST, SDA beliefs tally with the scriptures, I am skeptical about others.

As long as EGW explained how it should be understood right?!? : ...give me a break.

Again, I have stated previously that there probably ARE suspect SDA doctrines.

I can guarantee it. There are actually more than you probably willing to accept.

But you DO have a problem with it (the 4th-commandment), Scott. And, the difference between the OC and the NC is in regard to blood sacrifice.

Who was the 4th commandment given to? Did Jesus ever command it to be kept? Did the apostles? Can you show me where it was commanded of Adam, Noah, or Abraham?

If I were to leave the SDA church, which church would offer me the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

If thats the case, did it ever occur to you that you are looking for truth in the wrong place altogether?!

For starters I would STILL question WHY mainstream Christians ‘keep’ Sunday instead of the Sabbath

Keep Sunday?!? Is there a problem with worshipping on Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Friday too?? Or any other day?!

WHY mainstream Christians (mostly) believe in eternal suffering in hell

Hell is eternal. Revelation 20:10

I would ask these questions, NOT because I’ve been brainwashed by some cult denomination

As I see it, these questions aren't the biggest issues between SDA and Christianity. The way that the Sabbath issue is manipulated by old school SDA is definitely a big one though. As far as you worshipping on Saturdays, its really not an issue.

You have 2 sects of SDA's. Reformed and old schoolers. Reformers are trying to blend in enough to be considered a denomination in Christianity and to be taken legitimately. Old schoolers hold tight on many of the cultic practices and justify the ones that they no longer practice (time-setting). Here's the thing, you reformers recognize that many of the old schoolers are out to lunch on a lot of issues but you act as though its not really an issue. So what is your agenda, ecumenicalism?! Sisters from the same mother, you share the same history and doctrinal beginnings. All you both do is create confusion. Does either side of SDA even have a clue what its doing?

 

[dcookcan]

Scott

I have no problem defending my position based on scripture and only scripture. The difference is I use ALL scripture, I am not limited to the NT only.

My problem is this. Jesus commanded us "Do not cast pearls before swine". Based on your arguements and your continued accusations that I am promoting SDA doctrine, I question whether I am simply casting scriptures (pearls) before an unregenerated heart (you get the point).

I am beginning to understand what a waste of my time this was.

btw my name is not dan.

 

[Scott]

My problem is this.

Your problem is not answering questions others ask after they've answered your own. So how 'bout it.

I question whether I am simply casting scriptures (pearls) before an unregenerated heart (you get the point).

You don't have to worry about my heart. You might consider that what you think are pearls are really just counterfeit. I've answered your questions and have yet again had mine answered instead with a change of the subject. How convenient. If you plan on giving up in debates this easily, what's the point of getting involved?!?

Based on your arguements and your continued accusations that I am promoting SDA doctrine

Whether you like it or not, this thread has a lot to do with SDA doctrine. Why do you think Sputnik got involved?! But you did argue that something wasn't SDA propaganda, which only tells me that you were making a subliminal attempt to argue despite the fact that you say you know nothing about SDA.

btw my name is not dan.

Sorry, I forgot your username is dcookcan.

 

[dcookcan]

Scott wrote:

Your problem is not answering questions others ask after they've answered your own. So how 'bout it.

Here is the pot calling the kettle black. I asked for reference to validate your claim that the sun worship was issue SDA propaganda. You have conveniently changed the subject and entered into a pointless debate about when Jesus was actively teaching/healing/mistering. I have stated repeatedly that honouring Sabbath does not have anything to do whith what day(s) you choose to worship. You have no concept of what honouring is.

Scott wrote:

I've answered your questions and have yet again had mine answered instead with a change of the subject. How convenient. If you plan on giving up in debates this easily, what's the point of getting involved?!?

You have not answered my questions nor have you taken the time to consider the points I gave. I realized the futility of taking part in a discussion with you since your mind is made up on the issue. Only the Holy Spirit can change your heart, any effort on my part could be considered "filthy rags".

Scott wrote:

Whether you like it or not, this thread has a lot to do with SDA doctrine. Why do you think Sputnik got involved?! But you did argue that something wasn't SDA propaganda, which only tells me that you were making a subliminal attempt to argue despite the fact that you say you know nothing about SDA.

The thread was labelled Sabbath Breakers... not SDA doctrine breakers...
I don't know Sputnik and I wonder why you ask me why I would understand his motivation for taking part on a discussion board. You still have not provided any support for your SDA propaganda statement. I am only using scriptures in my arguement, coupled with an understanding of the time and context from when they were written.

Take care.

 

[Scott]

I asked for reference to validate your claim that the sun worship was issue SDA propaganda.

Oh, thats what you wanted a reference for. Well let me use JtB and JayT as examples and you'll find a lot more of the sun worship theory taught by SDA churches. Google it and 9 times out of 10 it will be coming from an SDA affiliate.

You have conveniently changed the subject and entered into a pointless debate about when Jesus was actively teaching/healing/mistering.

You questioned me on the point that Jesus taught and healed everyday at the temple. That is why I gave you the evidence I did.

I have stated repeatedly that honouring Sabbath does not have anything to do whith what day(s) you choose to worship. You have no concept of what honouring is.

Then you must be lost when reading this thread's title. Its stated on the premis that those who worship on other days are not Christian. This coincides with a doctrine almost exclusively taught by the SDA church that who takes the mark of the beast is determined by which day one chooses to worship on.

You have no concept of what honouring is.

You don't even know anything about me.

You have not answered my questions nor have you taken the time to consider the points I gave.

I read your posts and responded to your summaries of the verses which with out a doubt ignores the point that I had effectively made.

I realized the futility of taking part in a discussion with you since your mind is made up on the issue.

Show me proof. Answer those questions I asked. That would be a start if you feel so strongely about what you think is true. Otherwise I'm getting the impression that you want to argue for arguments sake.

The thread was labelled Sabbath Breakers... not SDA doctrine breakers...

The thread was started by a SDA and the overwhelming majority of Sabbath keepers who posted are SDA and they've used obvious SDA doctrine in their posts.

You still have not provided any support for your SDA propaganda statement. I am only using scriptures in my arguement, coupled with an understanding of the time and context from when they were written.

You want me to show you SDA websites that teach that Sunday worship originates in sun worship ideology? Is that what you need?

Most of your argument has been your own words. I recall one post where you posted some scripture. You're not answering any of my questions in your own words or with scripture. If you have the evidence, it shouldn't so hard to post it, should it!??

 

[Radlad72]

To those people who do not believe that there were commandments (written or otherwise) before Exodus 16, let's look at a few things here:

1. Adam and Eve knew they had done the wrong thing by 'having other gods before God' (themselves) when eating the fruit and thinking they would become like God. That is breaking the 1st and they knew they had done wrong.

2. Cain knew he had done the wrong thing when he murdered his brother. The commandments had still not been given.

3. Joseph knew it was wrong to have an affair with Potiphar's wife (adultery) - still no commandments.

4. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sexual immorality - still no commandments.

Enoch and Noah doing good in the eyes of the Lord. They obviously followed the way God would have wanted it to be classed this way.

There are many other examples I could give, but I do not have the time. I will do it another time.

THese examples do go to show that right and wrong were already written on the hearts of people (as they are now) and this was long before any commandments were given as such.

Jesus rested on the seventh day and blessed it. He did this to no other day. All His people throughout the generations beforehand would also have had this in their minds and hearts. No, there were no 'written commandments', but this was not necessary until Israel had been in Egypt for four hundred-odd years and had forgotten most of the ideals God gave them from the beginning. (PS Moses knew he had done wrong by killing the Egyptian too but there were still no commandments).

Rad.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Scott: Whether you like it or not, this thread has a lot to do with SDA doctrine. Why do you think Sputnik got involved?! But you did argue that something wasn't SDA propaganda, which only tells me that you were making a subliminal attempt to argue despite the fact that you say you know nothing about SDA.

Sputnik: I resent the allegation you make here, Scott. Anyone having read my previous posts would know that I have argued over and over again that we drop denominational labels and debate this issue with scripture only.

Also ...anyone who knows me personally, such as Radlad, will vouch that any inferences pertaining to my 'reliance on SDA doctrines (as you put it)' are way off the mark ...in fact, they're ludicrous. If anything, I'm possibly seen by some as being something of a 'renegade' within Adventist circles. This isn't meant to imply that others within the church should be regarded as 'suspect' ...just in case you should use my remark as ammunition against the SDA Church. It's just that my approach to 'issues' might be considered to be a little different from the norm.

I do, however, support ANY doctrine of ANY denomination as long as it aligns itself with scripture. If I support an 'Adventist doctrine' it's also because it correlates quite nicely with the scriptures. That's the only reason I would support it in the first place. So, your above remark is not only unfounded by virtue of the contents of my previous posts on this thread, but it is also nonsense in regard to the facts!

 

[Servant_2000]

To those people who do not believe that there were commandments (written or otherwise) before Exodus 16, let's look at a few things here:

1. Adam and Eve knew they had done the wrong thing by 'having other gods before God' (themselves) when eating the fruit and thinking they would become like God. That is breaking the 1st and they knew they had done wrong.

2. Cain knew he had done the wrong thing when he murdered his brother. The commandments had still not been given.

3. Joseph knew it was wrong to have an affair with Potiphar's wife (adultery) - still no commandments.

4. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their sexual immorality - still no commandments.

Enoch and Noah doing good in the eyes of the Lord. They obviously followed the way God would have wanted it to be classed this way.

There are many other examples I could give, but I do not have the time. I will do it another time.

THese examples do go to show that right and wrong were already written on the hearts of people (as they are now) and this was long before any commandments were given as such.

Jesus rested on the seventh day and blessed it. He did this to no other day. All His people throughout the generations beforehand would also have had this in their minds and hearts. No, there were no 'written commandments', but this was not necessary until Israel had been in Egypt for four hundred-odd years and had forgotten most of the ideals God gave them from the beginning. (PS Moses knew he had done wrong by killing the Egyptian too but there were still no commandments).

Rad.

I would say that since the Apostle positively states that sin was in the world from Adam to Moses. Also that sin is not taken into account when there is no law, so it naturally follows that the sins committed were not transgression of the law given at Sinai. The people could not transgress a law that wasn’t in existence. But since they did sin it also follows that they were under some other law. Adam and Eve, for example, sinned against the commandments God gave them in Eden regarding the Tree of Knowledge. It is obvious also that some commandments must have been known to Cain and Abel for Cain’s offering of the firstfruits of the ground was not acceptable (Genesis 4:7), while that of Abel, the firstfruits of the flock, was the correct offering.

It is therefore obvious that God gave personal commands to various people, for example, commanding Moses from the burning bush to go to Egypt etc. Therefore it is untrue to use the commands given to individuals before Sinai as evidence that the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments were given since Adam and Eve.

 

[SputnikBoy]

servant: Therefore it is untrue to use the commands given to individuals before Sinai as evidence that the Sabbath and the Ten Commandments were given since Adam and Eve.

Sputnik: God DID bless and sanctify the 7th-day at Creation, however. Did He wait 500 years or so before he put the day into effect?

The Ten Commandments encompass all facets of the moral law, love for God, love for neighbor. We can therefore logically conclude that the pre-Jews were either under the Ten Commandments or something identical. God would not have destroyed the world, people and their cities unless they had been sinning against SOME particular moral criteria that had been laid before them.

 

[Scott]

Sputnik: I resent the allegation you make here, Scott. Anyone having read my previous posts would know that I have argued over and over again that we drop denominational labels and debate this issue with scripture only.

I know you resent it, and I know you'd like me to stop bringing that fact to the forefront. But the truth is your presence in this thread is to defend SDA doctrine whether you want to call what you believe that or not. Why not call a spade... a spade!!?

I'm possibly seen by some as being something of a 'renegade' within Adventist circles.

: ... renegade?! Nothing like reveling in the pride of being the outsider who went against it all and won. It epitomizes the rebel's fantasy. Exclusivity is what you seek, nothing more.

The SDA reformers are trying to cut the themselves free from their own roots. Surely that means your agenda is that being cast off from them will help SDA be a legitimate denomination. SDA believers are funny, I believe a large number of them like the fact that they are considered a radical minority. There is a power feeling in that. We're unique you say. Now thats not enough any more, we'll split ourselves off from the unique and make ourselves even more special. It more of a matter of getting attention. Hey look at me, I'm much different than you..... :roll:

 

[Scott]

1. Adam and Eve knew they had done the wrong thing by 'having other gods before God' (themselves) when eating the fruit and thinking they would become like God. That is breaking the 1st and they knew they had done wrong.

They had no knowledge of right or wrong before they ate the fruit. How do you break laws as you say that they had no knowledge of? They disobeyed, nothing more. Disobedience resulted in punishment. The knowledge of good and evil was the birth of conscienceness of sin. The conscience began here. Check out Romans 5:12-14

 

[SputnikBoy]

Sputnik: I resent the allegation you make here, Scott. Anyone having read my previous posts would know that I have argued over and over again that we drop denominational labels and debate this issue with scripture only.

I know you resent it, and I know you'd like me to stop bringing that fact to the forefront. But the truth is your presence in this thread is to defend SDA doctrine whether you want to call what you believe that or not. Why not call a spade... a spade!!?

Sputnik: I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, Scott, other than trying to make yourself look clever. The only time I even MENTION an SDA doctrine in any of my posts is when I make the claim that they are scriptural. They either are or they are not ...it's pretty simple. So therefore, as I have also said many times, the scriptures ALONE can do any arguing with such as yourself.

[quote:3db5d]I'm possibly seen by some as being something of a 'renegade' within Adventist circles.

: ... renegade?! Nothing like reveling in the pride of being the outsider who went against it all and won. It epitomizes the rebel's fantasy. Exclusivity is what you seek, nothing more.

Sputnik: An attempt at being clever again, Scott? I do realize that my above foolish remark merely played into your hands and I'm sorry for having made it. Having said that, I'd like to think that others who may be reading the posts on this thread are smart enough to reason out your motives for making the snide remarks against me that you do. Also, as a moderator, you're perhaps coming awful close to breaching one of your own TOS regulations.

The SDA reformers are trying to cut the themselves free from their own roots. Surely that means your agenda is that being cast off from them will help SDA be a legitimate denomination. SDA believers are funny, I believe a large number of them like the fact that they are considered a radical minority. There is a power feeling in that. We're unique you say. Now thats not enough any more, we'll split ourselves off from the unique and make ourselves even more special. It more of a matter of getting attention. Hey look at me, I'm much different than you..... :roll:[/quote:3db5d]

Sputnik: The above is mere poppycock and a totally unjustified misrepresentation as to who I really am. You talk as though you know me and my 'devious motives' but you don't at all. Common sense dictates that I need to ignore such remarks, even though I didn't.

Why don't you drop the personal jibes against me and debate the thread topic ...and by using the scriptures alone, I ONCE AGAIN add. How many more times can I say that before it sinks in? And, tell me ...wouldn't I or the SDA Church be rather stupid to continue to promote a doctrine that was glaringly false? Over to you, Scott. I'm sure that I've yet again given you the opportunity to give a sarcastic or clever (in your mind anyway) comeback!

 

[guibox]

Again, I have stated previously that there probably ARE suspect SDA doctrines

I can guarantee it. There are actually more than you probably willing to accept..

Perhaps you should look at your own faith, Scott. Is it perfect? Are there absolutely no errors that you'd care to admit? Again, your elitist thinking makes you believe that every other church other than your own is 'cultic' and 'false' if you don't agree with their doctrines.

You have 2 sects of SDA's. Reformed and old schoolers. Reformers are trying to blend in enough to be considered a denomination in Christianity and to be taken legitimately. Old schoolers hold tight on many of the cultic practices and justify the ones that they no longer practice (time-setting). Here's the thing, you reformers recognize that many of the old schoolers are out to lunch on a lot of issues but you act as though its not really an issue. So what is your agenda, ecumenicalism?! Sisters from the same mother, you share the same history and doctrinal beginnings. All you both do is create confusion. Does either side of SDA even have a clue what its doing?

Apparently there is no such thing as 'cionservatives' and 'liberals' in ANY other church. Nope. Only the Adventists. And because of this it is PROOF that Adventists are just confused. :roll:

Scott, at least som in our church are willing to take a closer look at the things we've grown up learning. You obviously haven't, nor many other rest on this forum that spout off the same clap-trap they are fed by their misinformed Pastors.

Many, like yourself, have shown that it is much safer and easier to ignore biblical context and passage and believe the same old contradictions they want to all the while pointing their fingers at other faiths (in your case your favorite dead-horse-beating group, the SDAs) calling them 'cultic'.

You are unbelievable and a product of the very thing you are railing against here: cultic thinking.

Spend some time in deeper, contextual, exegetical bible study Scott and less time so intent on disparaging the views of others (especially when you don't have the facts straight most of the time.

As for most of your 'anti-SDA/anti-EGW', many of your comments are addressed here. Perhaps if you think yourself an open-minded person who feels that they should get their facts straight before they slam another denomination, you might want to check this website:

http://www.sdadefend.com/JeremiahAttack.htm

It critiques the video "SDA - The Spirit Behind the Church' which obviously didn't get its facts straight before it slandered the SDAs.

You could check it out and read it, or you could ignore it and write it off as 'SDA apologetism' thinking that you don't need to read what you feel is 'false' and 'cultic' anyway, and continue to rail against what you don't understand.

Your choice.

 

[John the Baptist]

Sputnik: ...

: ... renegade?! Nothing like reveling in the pride of being the outsider who went against it all and won. It epitomizes the rebel's fantasy. Exclusivity is what you seek, nothing more.

The SDA reformers are trying to cut the themselves free from their own roots. Surely that means your agenda is that being cast off from them will help SDA be a legitimate denomination. SDA believers are funny, I believe a large number of them like the fact that they are considered a radical minority. There is a power feeling in that. We're unique you say. Now thats not enough any more, we'll split ourselves off from the unique and make ourselves even more special. It more of a matter of getting attention. Hey look at me, I'm much different than you..... :roll:

---
Wow! And folks here talk about JUDGING & MIND READING, knowing one's mind & hearts! Or are they P-E-R-S-O-N-A-L ATTACKS??

 

[John the Baptist]

Scott wrote:
Quote:
Again, I have stated previously that there probably ARE suspect SDA doctrines


I can guarantee it. There are actually more than you probably willing to accept..

*********
John here: Just a passing comment for the site here. I am wondering how a person that is not a moderator could say.. "I can guarantee it." ?? Or do not pasted up post replies carry ones original names for moderators viewing?

REGARDLESS: To stay on subject. :wink:
Christ stated that if ones loves Him, to keep His Covenant. That for me, means Sabbath and all.

And as for the Adventist church name, and membership??? There is no way that I would belong to any Trade Marked Adventist denomination! (I doubt that all here understand that) See Isaiah 65:15's CURSE!

 

[Scott]

Wow! And folks here talk about JUDGING & MIND READING, knowing one's mind & hearts! Or are they P-E-R-S-O-N-A-L ATTACKS??

Oh wow, I've gotten the attention of JtB. I must have said something important... : . You might want to drop the judging part of your reply John, because we see condescention and judgment from you in about every post. But I guess you'll blame EGW for that, since she influenced you to seperate sheep and goats based on a day of the week.

I must have touched a nerve with the "seeking exclusivity" comment. Now all I need are replies from JayT and Soma.

If I were to make personal attacks I'd single you all out individually. What I am doing is exposing SDA doctrine which is in essence why you've all decided to respond at some point or another. Some take more offense to it at times than others, but its definitely not a personal issue. Otherwise I wouldn't take the time to respond to all of you.

And as for the Adventist church name, and membership???

You carry its name by the false doctrine you endorse. BTW, I know you are old school SDA, and a little bit closer to those cult origins than others I've corresponded with. Maybe you could explain to these youthful SDA reformers where they come from.

John here: Just a passing comment for the site here. I am wondering how a person that is not a moderator could say.. "I can guarantee it." ?? Or do not pasted up post replies carry ones original names for moderators viewing?

Scott here, yes thats my real name :fadein: . Anyone with the desire to find answers to their questions about SDA can research them if they are willing to invest the time. I've read from numerous resources both pro and con regarding SDA and its doctrine. My guarantee isn't for you, its for me. We all must do our own seeking in life, and this matter is one that I believe God has given me closure with. So in the interest of promoting sound doctrine, I will continue to oppose errors that are prevelant in SDA doctrine (or whatever you pretend to call). It is what it is.

 

[Scott]

They either are or they are not ...it's pretty simple.

If thats the case, you shouldn't be taking offense to everything being said. Or do you not like attention drawn to those that are not?

Having said that, I'd like to think that others who may be reading the posts on this thread are smart enough to reason out your motives for making the snide remarks against me that you do.

Wasn't it you that referred to yourself as 'the renegade'?! Surely you had a point in doing so, didn't you?!?

The above is mere poppycock and a totally unjustified misrepresentation as to who I really am. Common sense dictates that I need to ignore such remarks, even though I didn't.

Its a general statement Sputnik, don't take everything so personally. Its like the 'mainstream Christian' comments you make to me. I not at all wounded or hurt. Common sense should tell you that anything I say shouldn't be taken personally because after all, all I see of you is what you type (and vice versa).

However if general statements strike a nerve (see JtB's post), its not necessarily intended or by design.

And, tell me ...wouldn't I or the SDA Church be rather stupid to continue to promote a doctrine that was glaringly false?

Too bad you couldn't say that to followers who continued after the 'Big Disappointment'. At least the ones that didn't committ suicide or end up in mental asylums that is. I'm sure the rest could give a response.

 

[Scott]

Hi guibox, long time since we've chatted huh.

Again, your elitist thinking makes you believe that every other church other than your own is 'cultic' and 'false' if you don't agree with their doctrines.

I'm not a ecumenist.

You obviously haven't, nor many other rest on this forum that spout off the same clap-trap they are fed by their misinformed Pastors.

: ... I'm not ordained either.

Scott, at least som in our church are willing to take a closer look at the things we've grown up learning.

How about the apple taking a closer look at the tree instead of worrying about how far it falls from it.

You are unbelievable and a product of the very thing you are railing against here: cultic thinking.

Not happy with our mother so we rebelled, yet we wanted to keep her name and just hide her in the closet for the time being. But she can't stay there forever... ;-)

contextual

Contextual doesn't mean to extract. Just wanted to make sure you knew that.

You could check it out and read it

My favorite was this one... :

"She claimed an angel stood by her bed." So? Angels came to visit Bible writers too.

I'm more interested in reading rebuttals for points I've presented rather than someone else's work that doesn't necessarily address my question. Its just not the same as if it were your own, you know!!?

 

[guibox]

Matthew 26:55, Mark 14:49, Luke 13:32-33, Luke 19:47, Luke 21:37-38, Luke 22:53, John 5:17-18, John 6, Acts 5:42

I notice how readily you dismiss the point of these verses and what they say. But the recurrent theme runs through them whether you turn a blind eye to them or not. Everyday, not just Sabbath day and a couple other days. He was teaching on various days as its noted throughout the Gospels.

Your reasoning is neither sound nor logical. If the Jews attended the synagogue every day then they too didn't see the need for a specific day. Obviously this is false. The fact that the synagogue was attended to every day doesn't negate that the Sabbath was still important to all Jews and Christians.

Your problem is reducing the Sabbath and regulating it's importance to worship ina church or synagogue. The Sabbath's meaning isn't entailed in church worship.

He did not only heal people on the Sabbath, every day is a good day to receive salvation.

Thank you, you just proved my point. Whether teaching or healing, He didn't hold back because of which day of the week it was. The lost need saving 24/7, but I'm sure you now realize this.

However, this doesn't negate the value of the Sabbath. Instead it enhanced it tremendously. This was part of Christ doing away with the nonsense and legalism surrounding the Sabbath and Christ bringing back it's importance: to free the captives both physically and spiritually is wrapped up in the Sabbath!

On the contrary.

: ... check out Matthew 12. Men and woman died for desecrating the Sabbath in the OT, Jesus however did not break the Sabbath because His motives weren't self-seeking. An example of righteousness surpassing the law. Another example would be David referred to in verse 4, no punishment or condemnation. Righteousness absolving one from the law. God knows the heart.

However, David was still a Sabbath keeper. He was still 'under the law' as you would believe. Therefore, Christ's reference to David wasn't about David breaking the law therefore it is not valid.

It is an obvious reference to the fact that the Pharisees were missing the mark on the Sabbath and were legalistic, not that Christ and David were breaking the Sabbath according to God's laws. If it were, David never would have eaten the bread.

Christ was coming to abolish legalism, not the Sabbath. Anybody who reads the scripture with an open mind and understands the context of the discussion with Pharisees would see that.

Unless you're a legalist...

Why would Jesus tell us to pray that our flight would not happen on a Sabbath?

: ... I love this one because it always delivers quite a punch. Check out Matthew 24:16. Who is Jesus talking to?! Who lives near Judea? Who still rejects the Saviour and practices the law? Who is know for following the Sabbath even today? The answer isn't such a long walk after all, huh?!! Its all in the context friend..

Again, your reasoning is based on wishful thinking and a tight situation you can't get out of, then sound logic.

Number 1, regardless of who Christ was speaking to, we see that the Sabbath was not abolished. Nowhere does Christ infer that the Sabbath was no longer binding on His followers but only for the Jews. Therefore when the words come out of Christ's mouth saying the Sabbath is still valid, we cannot place Paul's reasoning onto Christ's words here (especially when your interpretation of Paul's words are suspect).
Hence the fact that Christ even said it was valid 40 years in the future proves it was not abolished for anybody.

Which brings me to the next point which bolsters the argument...

Number 2, we see that Christ was not making any distinction between people here. It was Christ's followers asking about the future of Jerusalem and the signs of the end of the world. Christ was instructing them. His words were for them. His warnings were for them.

Your attempt to separate Christ's followers from the normal Jews in this passage is creative at best.

As I asked before, show me where He commanded Sabbath keeping. I recall Jesus talking with the rich young man in Mark 10, yet He doesn't say anything about keeping the Sabbath day. Hmmm, interesting?!!?

Why should it matter which commandments He said? According to you, NONE of them are binding. Why are you trying to reason and explain from you don't even believe? Sabbath or not, this argument right there tells you that Christ placed great value on the law. He had more than enough opportunity to tell the people that the law would no longer binding after His death. Nope. You won't find it.

Second, do you see all the commandments other than the Sabbath that NC Christians follow? Are they all there? I guess only the select few that Christ mentioned are binding.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Of course it doesn't when your premise that you are building your arguments on is faulty to begin with. No amount of logical scriptural reasoning will make you see the light.

Instead assumption and ignorance of context is more comfortable for you.

Hebrews 4 was already addressed by me as well. Rather than read it and understand its context, you and Heidi would rather be snug and comfortable in your pat reasoning and interpretation, illogical and contradictory as it may be.

Legalists and elitists usually like to do that when it comes to theological arguments.

 

[Scott]

Your reasoning is neither sound nor logical. If the Jews attended the synagogue every day then they too didn't see the need for a specific day. Obviously this is false.

It is sound when you consider it's premise was that it is meant to refute the SDA doctrine that the sheep and goats are seperated by a day of the week. You've said you don't agree with that SDA doctrine so this would not apply to you.

Your problem is reducing the Sabbath and regulating it's importance to worship ina church or synagogue. The Sabbath's meaning isn't entailed in church worship.

I'm not the one claiming Sunday worship is the mark of the beast. You really should stay up on a thread if you intend to argue effectively. Points made recently have been made more towards the old-school end of SDA doctrine.

to free the captives both physically and spiritually is wrapped up in the Sabbath!

Its actually wrapped up in day but not necessarily the Sabbath day. Today is the day.

If it were, David never would have eaten the bread.

So you are supporting the statement that righteousness supercedes the law, correct!!?

Again, your reasoning is based on wishful thinking and a tight situation you can't get out of, then sound logic.

Where is Judea?!

Number 1, regardless of who Christ was speaking to, we see that the Sabbath was not abolished.

Never said it was, however it has been fulfilled.

Therefore when the words come out of Christ's mouth saying the Sabbath is still valid

Lets be clear that He didn't validate anything. Furthermore the Sabbath was never commanded by Him. He was even asked which commandments one should keep. Why would anyone think to ask such a question if there was no doubt it was all?!! Why didn't Jesus say all? Lets be clear, He never named the Sabbath as binding for all and all time. He only said that it would still be observed by the Jewish people. A people whom He knew would reject Him as Messiah in the time He referred to there in Matthew 24. So obviously their keeping of the Sabbath in that time would mean nothing while based on rejecting Him as Saviour. Take a look at your own logic and reasoning guibox.

Hence the fact that Christ even said it was valid 40 years in the future proves it was not abolished for anybody.

I know, I know.... more problems with Biblical prophecy. EGW seemed to have that problem too.

Which brings me to the next point which bolsters the argument...

Easily refuted by the fact that the door for Gentiles was not opened until later. No doubt that He was referring to the Jewish people.

Why should it matter which commandments He said?

What purpose is God's Word if not to teach and instruct. Why create a plan and leave out some of the instructions. Better stated would be why add instructions not given to the plan?!

According to you, NONE of them are binding.

Knowledge of right and wrong has been with man since the garden. Doing what is right however doesn't need to involve the commandments.

He had more than enough opportunity to tell the people that the law would no longer binding after His death. Nope. You won't find it.

What value does a law have when it is relagated to just a summary?! Christ did just that with the law, He summarized it. Its about righteousness guibox. Why did He do that? The whole reason for dying for our sins was to offer a better way.