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

[SputnikBoy]

I trust that the readers to this thread, even if not participants, will take note of the hostile intent of your posts, Scott. Your aim in life seems to be to discredit the Adventist Church by whatever means, fair or foul ...mainly foul, it would seem. You, Scott, have introduced SDA doctrines and Ellen White into this debate. You introduce them and then you knock them down ...is this what is known as a strawman?

Regardless of one's denomination, the Sabbath issue really CAN be discussed by using the Bible alone. One need not require the 'doctrines' of any denomination to support OR to refute it. One should also be able to air their SCRIPTURALLY SUPPORTED beliefs on this forum without constantly being shot down by you, Scott, for 'promoting a false doctrine'. As said before, a doctrine is either scriptural (genuine) or it isn't (false). If it is genuine, then we accept it. If it isn't genuine, then we don't. Belief in the truth need not be rocket science.

As for Jesus having 'fulfilled' the Law, I gave my definition of this text some posts back. It's my understanding that Jesus having fulfilled the Law meant that He had lived a life of total obedience to the Law. He had, in effect, fulfilled the requirements of the law. He gave the Law its full meaning by His total commitment to it rather than external acknowledgment and 'legalistic' obedience.

Jesus didn't come to abolish the law. In fact, Jesus says He didn't in Matthew 5:17-18. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Does this sound as if the Law as such was soon to be done away with? I wouldn't think so. The legalism behind the keeping of the Law, yes. But not conscientious obedience by the individual to the Law itself. Jesus was sinless ...why? Because He had fulfilled the Law.

Jesus goes on to say (v.19), "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (20) For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus is talking here about a 'consientious choice' as opposed to 'Pharisaical externalism'. They are both examples of keeping the Law but one is the correct way, the other the incorrect way. Why would we even want to do away with the Law and the Prophets? Note should perhaps be taken here that the rich man was suffering the torments of hell in the (Luke 19-29) parable because he hadn't listened to Moses and the Prophets.

Has, perhaps, mainstream Christianity REALLY got this wrong? Have the SDAs, perhaps, REALLY got it right after all?

 

[John the Baptist]

I trust that the readers to this thread, even if not participants, will take note of the hostile intent of your posts, Scott. Your aim in life seems to be to discredit the Adventist Church by whatever means, fair or foul ...mainly foul, it would seem. You, Scott, have introduced SDA doctrines and Ellen White into this debate. You introduce them and then you knock them down ...is this what is known as a strawman? ...

*****

John here:
OK. There is no reason for anyone to not KNOW that this issue is from the Revelation 17:5 full cup of Babylon.

But: The thread is "Sabbath Breakers'. Actually the issue should be the doctrine of the Sabbath, is it important to Salvation or not. And, what makes it so?

If anyone truly LOVED the Master, when known & understood, 7th Day Sabbath keeping would be a DESIRED Privilege! See Genesis 4:7.

Now about SDA? We know that Virgin doctrines are not the issue here. Scott's stuff is just the devil's 'side issue'. The issue of Sabbath Breakers is the Everlasting Gospel of Jesus Christ! Revelation 14:6 That in a nut shell means that the Sabbath is NOTHING WITHOUT THE CHRIST OF THE ETERNAL GOSPEL! But if one HAS CHRIST, he will do what?? "[IF] ye LOVE ME KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS". (so scott just does as he thinks is his own desire? again Genesis 4:7 & *Ephesians 6:12, and of course, 2 Corinthians 4:2)

The Seventh-day Adventist ex/virgin fold. The Trade/Marked one that supposedly has Christ inside of her. The one that had Christ inside her as did the Revelation 17:5 'daughters' at one time. This is the issue!! Still Sabbath keepers professed, as are very many other folds of the world.

Are these Sabbath keepers any more saved than the rest of known Sabbath breaking folds was the bottom line thread question? Let's make the distinction that we are talking of 'folds'! For there are still blind, ignorant & sincere of Christ's own still yoked there! Revelation 18:4. So we are talking of the doctrine of true & VIRGIN ones, these are Sabbath professed keepers! In name ONLY! Matthew 23:3 Matthew 25:1 *Amos 5:2

So the FIRST line of ALL TRUTH is, IS CHRIST THERE??? And these Sabbath keepers at least believe the James 2:8-12 verse. (doctrine/wise at least) That if one knowingly brakes one of the ten commandments, he is a Sabbath breaker as well. And that, that is our STANDARD of final judgement. See Revelation 2:5 & Luke 12:47-48.

But: It is the MOTIVE that is what merits any MATURING. Recreated LOVE FOR CHRIST! Do we LOVE CHRIST??? Either Adventism or the Rev. 17:5 ones???

In Joshua 7 we see that sin in any form when know, and not delt with SEPARATED CHRIST from any fold. (EVEN CHRIST'S OWN, John 1:11!!! Matthew 23:38, Revelation 3:9. These were all even Sabbath professed keepers!!)
Christ's Words are these in Joshua 7:12's last part of the verse...
"... NEITHER WILL I BE WITH YOU ANYMORE, EXCEPT YE DESTROY THE ACCURSED FROM AMONG YOU." And in todays setting, we know that, that means that the True Fold is to be kept clean from blatant open sinners. And yes, Adventism is full of OPEN SINNERS!! So they are yoked in membership as Revelation 18:4 PARTAKERS, even in Gods TITHE & OFFERINGS support!

And even though they have Virgin doctrines & are not the ones of Revelation 18:4, they are being judged at the present time (1 Peter 4:17) as far worse than that of Sodom & Gomorrha Matthew 10:15.

LOVE CHRIST??? As I have said over & over again, who would want to be in membership with a Trad/Marked *Professed 7th day Adventist APOSTATE FOLD??? See Isaiah 5:3 "JUDGE. *I PRAY you, BETWIXT *ME and MY Vineyard."

Yea, then here comes the devils Babylon one (S) telling that it does not take both! I-G-N-O-R-A-N-C-E!! What is NEW? Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15 :roll:

 

[Scott]

JtB, Sputnik's quotes really aren't going to help your posts in this discussion. BTW Sputnik, I was rather shocked to read your defense of homosexuality in a thread today.

If anyone truly LOVED the Master, when known & understood, 7th Day Sabbath keeping would be a DESIRED Privilege! See Genesis 4:7.

And as we take note Genesis 4:7, we understand that the was a right and wrong even when there was no law. Proof you need right!??, check it out....Romans 5:12-14.

But if one HAS CHRIST, he will do what?? "[IF] ye LOVE ME KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS". (so scott just does as he thinks is his own desire?

Wouldn't it behoove you to read John 15 in reference to His commands?! Also remember as was just pointed out, right and wrong have been around even before the law.

2 Corinthians 4:2

Amen!! But I must note that righteousness isn't dependant on law keeping.

In all of this I find it very odd that the gentiles are left hanging, both then and now. There is no instruction or command given to them by Christ or any of the Apostles about the Sabbath. How strange that God extends His mercy to them and yet this group is never instructed about a Sabbath they've never kept and the 10 commandments they've never lived by. So easily could these things have been instructed in absolution, but they weren't.

 

[John the Baptist]

Just a quick comment! :wink: About homosexuals. They are under the law, huh? You are free, but not them?? OK, I see. :o

And it seems that your message is some what hypocritical when we 'see' in 2 Peter 2:19 that of promising LIBERTY for some & not others that are living as 2 Peter 2:19-22 describes?? You know, no law! You do make exceptions with the law of gravity too, perhaps, right???

Then about your Gentils ones, and no law? Re/read Romans 2:14-15 for where the eternal covenant is at. Notice the Word 'written in their heart'. Again notice 2 Corinthians 3:3 with Hebrews 10:15-16.

And Abram (..ham came later!) in Genesis 12:5's 'souls' gotten in Haran, Gentils no less! (or was that a Jewish country) And what did Abram do spiritually?? See Genesis 26:5! Notice the Word's Eternal Word, of VOICE!! '
... and kept My charge, My COMMANDMENTS, My statues, and MY LAWS'. You do recall God Speaking one on one in Genesis 4:7 with Cain, do you not? But Abram would not have these 'souls' taught Matthew 28:20 for sure, huh?

And these other verses? Surely you can do better than that if you really believe what you claim???

---John[/b]

 

[SputnikBoy]

JtB, Sputnik's quotes really aren't going to help your posts in this discussion. BTW Sputnik, I was rather shocked to read your defense of homosexuality in a thread today.

Sputnik: Since our beloved moderator, Scott, brought up that particular issue on this thread, I should surely be given the priviledge to respond without THIS post being deleted as was the other.

[Deleted.... This is not a rant forum. Address my comment if you want, but not your other problems. The problem end of that situation you got into was not brought up by me, thus it is not appropriate in this forum. ]

 

[Radlad72]

I feel obliged to write a little response here to there being no Laws around before Exodus 20. There were no written in stone laws, but the laws were quite obviously written on people's hearts back then. Examples are:

1. Adam and Eve - "You shall have no other gods before me." They were guilty of breaking this one because they were eating the fruit to 'become like God'.

2. Cain - "You shall not murder" and "You shall not bear false witness". He murdered his brother and lied about it. God punished him because it was evil.

3. Joseph - "You shall not commit adultery" didn't have the affair with Potifar's wife because he knew it was wrong.

These are just a few. I don't have too much time, but when I do I will put some more on. The Laws were already written on their hearts. Guess what? So was the Sabbath commandment (if the others were there, so would that one have been). Since God blessed and hallowed it (something He didn't do for any other day), it was obviously a special day.

And the argument that now the Laws are written on our hearts does not negate ANY of the Laws at all since before they were written people were keeping them.

Rad.

 

[Radlad72]

I feel obliged to write a little response here to there being no Laws around before Exodus 20. There were no written in stone laws, but the laws were quite obviously written on people's hearts back then. Examples are:

1. Adam and Eve - "You shall have no other gods before me." They were guilty of breaking this one because they were eating the fruit to 'become like God'.

2. Cain - "You shall not murder" and "You shall not bear false witness". He murdered his brother and lied about it. God punished him because it was evil.

3. Joseph - "You shall not commit adultery" didn't have the affair with Potifar's wife because he knew it was wrong.

These are just a few. I don't have too much time, but when I do I will put some more on. The Laws were already written on their hearts. Guess what? So was the Sabbath commandment (if the others were there, so would that one have been). Since God blessed and hallowed it (something He didn't do for any other day), it was obviously a special day.

And the argument that now the Laws are written on our hearts does not negate ANY of the Laws at all since before they were written people were keeping them.

Rad.

 

[Servant_2000]

I feel obliged to write a little response here to there being no Laws around before Exodus 20. There were no written in stone laws, but the laws were quite obviously written on people's hearts back then. Examples are:

1. Adam and Eve - "You shall have no other gods before me." They were guilty of breaking this one because they were eating the fruit to 'become like God'.

2. Cain - "You shall not murder" and "You shall not bear false witness". He murdered his brother and lied about it. God punished him because it was evil.

3. Joseph - "You shall not commit adultery" didn't have the affair with Potifar's wife because he knew it was wrong.

These are just a few. I don't have too much time, but when I do I will put some more on. The Laws were already written on their hearts. Guess what? So was the Sabbath commandment (if the others were there, so would that one have been). Since God blessed and hallowed it (something He didn't do for any other day), it was obviously a special day.

And the argument that now the Laws are written on our hearts does not negate ANY of the Laws at all since before they were written people were keeping them.

Rad.

Rad please consider this...

In Romans 5:13-14 Paul clearly states that death reigned among mankind between the time of Adam and Moses "even over those who DID NOT SIN BY BREAKING A COMMAND, AS DID ADAM."

This passage also says sin is not taken into account where there is no law--nevertheless, all those people for all those centuries were guilty of sin and death even though they broke no law! But without the law, they could not be held accountable for specific sins. Even so, they were guilty because they were human, and they were doomed to death.

"The law WAS ADDED so that the trespass might increase." (Rom. 3:20) In other words, God gave the law at Sinai so people would begin to be conscious of sin, unlike all those who sinned without consicous awareness. The law was not added to STOP sin--quite the opposite. It was added to "increase" sin. As people were faced with the rules, they became aware that they were already habitually breaking them. Seeing the rules didn't stop them. They just became increasingly, frustratingly aware that they couldn't stop breaking those rules.

The purpose of the law was to cause people to know they were sinning and to actually sin consciously so they would realize they needed something outside themselves.

That "something" was and is Jesus. No Christ-follower believes he/she can be saved and then go on sinning. and it's not the law that convinces him or her. It's the presence of Jesus. I don't want to dishonor Him. I want to know Him, to love Him more deeply. I want Him to glorify Himself through me. I want Him to soften and heal and change me.

The law was just for the sake of emphasizing sin. The law doesn't "create" sin--sin existed in people before there was a law to break, as Paul says. The law's purpose was to condemn people in a really vivid, in-your-face confrontational way so they could no longer deceive themsleves that they were just OK. They were not OK--the law was sent to point out that fact.

"Sin is the transgression of the law" is a declaration stating that now no one can be unaccountable for their individual sins, as they were before Moses. Everyone now KNOWS what sin is. It's clear. If I steal, I'm breaking the law. But the law does not define our original, inherent sin--the sin that keeps us from God. Our original, inherent sin is what causes us to commit sins--to transgress the law. Because of our sinful, dead spirits, we have no power to resist the sins of law-breaking. Only with the new birth is the power of sin broken--and that new life has nothing at all to do with keeping the law. It has everything to do with becoming united with God through the redemption of Christ's blood. (see Eephsians 2:1-10)

The law does not equal God's eternal morality. The law was just a written, temporary document. God's eternal morality governs and guards us all and holds us accountable. When we are in Christ, the inherited power of sin is broken. Our dead spirits come to life, and we are connected via the Holy Spirit with God's eternal morality.

Oh, no--we are not to go on sinning! We are to surrender to the Spirit and allow Him to transform us, not merely to make us obedient!

We now have a much higher standard and a much higher calling.

 

[Servant_2000]

I trust that the readers to this thread, even if not participants, will take note of the hostile intent of your posts, Scott. Your aim in life seems to be to discredit the Adventist Church by whatever means, fair or foul ...mainly foul, it would seem. You, Scott, have introduced SDA doctrines and Ellen White into this debate. You introduce them and then you knock them down ...is this what is known as a strawman?

Regardless of one's denomination, the Sabbath issue really CAN be discussed by using the Bible alone. One need not require the 'doctrines' of any denomination to support OR to refute it. One should also be able to air their SCRIPTURALLY SUPPORTED beliefs on this forum without constantly being shot down by you, Scott, for 'promoting a false doctrine'. As said before, a doctrine is either scriptural (genuine) or it isn't (false). If it is genuine, then we accept it. If it isn't genuine, then we don't. Belief in the truth need not be rocket science.

As for Jesus having 'fulfilled' the Law, I gave my definition of this text some posts back. It's my understanding that Jesus having fulfilled the Law meant that He had lived a life of total obedience to the Law. He had, in effect, fulfilled the requirements of the law. He gave the Law its full meaning by His total commitment to it rather than external acknowledgment and 'legalistic' obedience.

Jesus didn't come to abolish the law. In fact, Jesus says He didn't in Matthew 5:17-18. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Does this sound as if the Law as such was soon to be done away with? I wouldn't think so. The legalism behind the keeping of the Law, yes. But not conscientious obedience by the individual to the Law itself. Jesus was sinless ...why? Because He had fulfilled the Law.

Jesus goes on to say (v.19), "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (20) For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus is talking here about a 'consientious choice' as opposed to 'Pharisaical externalism'. They are both examples of keeping the Law but one is the correct way, the other the incorrect way. Why would we even want to do away with the Law and the Prophets? Note should perhaps be taken here that the rich man was suffering the torments of hell in the (Luke 19-29) parable because he hadn't listened to Moses and the Prophets.

Has, perhaps, mainstream Christianity REALLY got this wrong? Have the SDAs, perhaps, REALLY got it right after all?

what you wrote Sputnik is nothing more than salvation BY LAW-KEEPING!!!

Not at all. It does NOT say the Law won't pass till heaven and earth pass! Don't you see that after it says, "Till heaven and earth pass" it says "till all be fulfilled."?? If a father told his son "you will not eat dessert till heaven and earth pass till you eat your supper" that does NOT mean that heaven and earth have to pass before the son eats dessert--it just means he has to eat supper first! Jesus HAS fulfilled the LAW!! He said so Himself!

We do NOT believe that we can just go out and sin! You are completely misrepresenting us!!! You know we don't believe that. I thought I have explained over and over that we believe that we are to obey an even higher standard than the Law of Moses--Jesus Himself through His indwelling Holy Spirit! We are under the Law of Christ--we are not under the Law of Moses (including the 10 Commandments).

We are under the Law of Christ Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9!

The principles of love are a more accurate reflection of God's character than anything written on stone. A point that SDAs have backwards through EGW's teaching of the 10C being the window into God's character.

Did Adam and Eve break the 10C's? No. Sin entered the world not through the breaking of the 10, but through disobedience to God's command.

Did the Priest and Levite break the 10C's when they passed by the man in the ditch? No. Neither did they practice love.

If Jesus was following the law, should He have sanctioned and even participated in stoning the adulterous woman? ABSOLUTELY!

 

[John the Baptist]

Hi, my judgement of this part of the [post], is that it is all wet! :fadein: 1/2 Gospel is no Gospel at best!

[Quote:] You say.. "Did the Priest and Levite break the 10C's when they passed by the man in the ditch? No. Neither did they practice love.

If Jesus was following the law, should He have sanctioned and even participated in stoning the adulterous woman? ABSOLUTELY!"

Among the main reasons that Christ came to this earth is recorded in Isaiah 42:21. Both questions that you bring up above, He magnified & made the Father's Eternal Covenant HONORABLE.
Eternal? See Hebrews 13:20.

Did His Life on Earth help you 'see' this above Truth???? Seems that it did not! For your [postings] can be readily tested by what you claim to be the Truth, by using the Word of God as seen in Isaiah 8:20! The one part that God Himself wrote & SENT His Son to MAGNIFY, that you say is voided out. God forbide! Revelation 22:18-19 (see Ecclesiastes 3:14 for verification!) Do you know what law you are mangling???

---John

 

[Scott]

And these other verses? Surely you can do better than that if you really believe what you claim???

That's fine JtB, I didn't expect you to try to take on Romans 5:12-14. Of course though, I've always considered it hazardous that ducking scripture is the only way for some to get around it. Sorta defeats the purpose of seeking the W-H-O-L-E truth huh!!?

You do recall God Speaking one on one in Genesis 4:7 with Cain, do you not?

Flashback.... Genesis 3:6-7, what happened here. Seems to me that Cain experienced a 'Divine' prodding that isn't so uncommon even today. Only now they've found a different word for it....conscience.

Just a quick comment! About homosexuals. They are under the law, huh? You are free, but not them?? OK, I see.

See 2 Peter 2:7-9. Love the sinner but hate the sin. See also 1 John 3:6

And it seems that your message is some what hypocritical when we 'see' in 2 Peter 2:19 that of promising LIBERTY for some & not others that are living as 2 Peter 2:19-22 describes??

Love the sinner, defend the sin....eh?!? John 8:11 lets us know where Jesus stands on this issue. There is no room for compromise here.

Then about your Gentils ones, and no law? Re/read Romans 2:14-15 for where the eternal covenant is at. Notice the Word 'written in their heart'.

Remember Genesis 4:7 & Genesis 3:6-7, right!?? Jumping back to what I mentioned in the opening, take the verses that you didn't want to address in Romans 5 and we really begin to see what's going on here. Still waiting for a Sabbath observance by Adam, Noah, or Abraham, got one coming or no?!

But Abram would not have these 'souls' taught Matthew 28:20 for sure, huh?

I agree he would have likely taught them to live righteously. If not verbally then he atleast did so by his actions.

My point about the Gentiles was that Sabbath-keeping wasn't required. We find no mention of it from Jesus nor Paul (or other Apostles). This is ironic because since they were taking the Gospel to people who hadn't observed specific days, it would have been touched on at some point. Don't you think that with your believe of its monumental importance, they would have addressed this at least somewhere in the NT? We find it a staple in the OT but not so in the NT. Why? All the other 9 commandments are addressed at some point.

 

[John the Baptist]

...

"My point about the Gentiles was that Sabbath-keeping wasn't required. We find no mention of it from Jesus nor Paul (or other Apostles). This is ironic because since they were taking the Gospel to people who hadn't observed specific days, it would have been touched on at some point. Don't you think that with your believe of its monumental importance, they would have addressed this at least somewhere in the NT? We find it a staple in the OT but not so in the NT. Why? All the other 9 commandments are addressed at some point."

John here: Your point?? You have studied Isaiah 42:21 right?

It seems that I have some Baptist in me perhaps. (E.GA.WY. you say? Whatever.) So let me use a well respected leader's remark about 'his point' that stuck with me all my years. (I had to go look it up) :fadein:

-Dr. AE.T. Hiscox, report of his sermon at the Baptist Minister's Convention, in the New York Examiner, November 16, 1893. (he was also author of the Baptist Manual)

"To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years discussion with His disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question, discussing it in some of its various aspects, freeing it from its false (Jewish tradition) glosses, never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during the forty days of His resurrection life, no such thing was intimated. (take note!) Nor, so far as we know, did the Spirit, which was given to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever that He had said unto them, deal with this question. Nor yet did the inspired apostles, in preaching the gospel, founding churches, counseling and instructing those founded, discuss or approach the subject.

Of course I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religous day, ... But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of Paganism, and christened with the name of the sun-god, then adopted and sanctified by the Papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism."

Then of course comes into mind Revelation 18:4 & Revelation 17:1-5 in capes, huh. :o
It seems that Dr. Hiscox did not agree with you either. :fadein: Or was he a E.G.W. follower??? :wink:


PS: And by the way, just what kind of satans scheming does one use to squash these Word od early on Inspiration??? :

And Abram (..ham came later!) in Genesis 12:5's 'souls' gotten in Haran, Gentils no less! (or was that a Jewish country) And what did Abram do spiritually?? See Genesis 26:5! Notice the Word's Eternal Word, of VOICE!! '
BECAUSE ABRAHAM OBEYED MY VOICE... and kept My charge, My COMMANDMENTS, My statues, and MY LAWS'. You do recall God Speaking one on one in Genesis 4:7 with Cain, do you not? But Abram would not have these 'souls' taught Matthew 28:20 for sure, huh?

 

[Scott]

never alluded to any transference of the day;

I agree, there has been no transference of the day.

Nor, so far as we know, did the Spirit, which was given to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever that He had said unto them, deal with this question. Nor yet did the inspired apostles, in preaching the gospel, founding churches, counseling and instructing those founded, discuss or approach the subject.

Romans 14:5-6..... & what Paul says in Galatians 4:10-12 reaffirms the former while also indicating the danger of trying to make these practices a necessity. Did they worship on the Sabbath still?! Yes!! Did they worship other days of the week too??! Yes!!

But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of Paganism, and christened with the name of the sun-god, then adopted and sanctified by the Papal apostasy

This is a prime example propaganda regarding the Pagan influence on Sunday worship and the sun-god theory. It was clear Jesus taught everyday, healed everyday and performed other miracles everyday. As Hebrews 4 reminds us, today is the day. Now I think both you and I know that the Pope being the reason the day was changed is a stretch, Sunday worship already was taking place long before. But of course I do find an interest in the fact some of those who oppose the Pope, do so on the premise that one must believe him when he said he changed the day. If everything else he says is a lie, wouldn't you wonder too about the day change. I'm not saying he didn't make the proclamation, but is it possible its been built up to mean more now than it ever did then?!

If one finds a Sunday morning worhip service objectionable, you might also take a look at Tuesday night Bible Study group, Wednesday night prayer meetings,and Friday night youth groups. Today is the day, judgement concerning has nothing to do with a day & everything to do with the state of one's heart.

You do recall God Speaking one on one in Genesis 4:7 with Cain, do you not?

Flashback.... Genesis 3:6-7, what happened here. Seems to me that Cain experienced a 'Divine' prodding that isn't so uncommon even today. Only now they've found a different word for it....conscience.

[quot]But Abram would not have these 'souls' taught Matthew 28:20 for sure, huh?[/quote]

I agree he would have likely taught them to live righteously. If not verbally then he atleast did so by his actions.

BECAUSE ABRAHAM OBEYED MY VOICE... and kept My charge, My COMMANDMENTS, My statues, and MY LAWS'.

I have no problems with that verse at all. It is support also by Hebrews 11. I also need to say I have no problems with Romans 5:12-14 either. We jump forward and begin to understand more in Romans 5:20. Now back at Genesis, one must take into account external influences on the book of Genesis. It is most important to understand that the Book is God breathed without a doubt, it does reflect perspective of the man holding the pen. To be sure God's Word does not contradict itself, Abraham certainly was obedient to all that God asked of him... yet he was NOT under the law (yep!! Romans 5:12-14 again... :fadein: ). Still no Sabbath command for Adam-Abraham makes it hard to refute those facts.

 

[John the Baptist]

Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

*****
John here:
It seems that we have a different take on this? Surely you do not think that when Moses came down from the Mount with the Covenant (Eternal even in Heb. 13:20) that it was not eternal in meaning? (See Isaiah 8:20) That is not everlasting Covenant or Everlasting Gospel! Revelation 14:6
I for one, quickly chuck that evil idea!

So the verse is saying 'for before the law was given' at Mount Sinai, see Exodus 31:17-18 for the duration of the Lord's Day! 'FOR EVER' sounds quite clear, huh? And John in Revelation 1:10! And Mark 2:27.

But regardless, the Lord's Day is His DAY! It is the birthday of creation. Like a birthday, a memorial of creation. See Psalms 135:13's 'throughout all generations'.

And the forth commandment starts with remember??? Remember what??
Regardless of what direction you desire to go with Exodus 16, BC 1491 & chapter 20? One still see's a 40 year testing of the total ten commandment Eternal Covenant by just the 7th Day Sabbath of the Lord! See Exodus 16:4-5 & Exodus 16:26-28. Verse 28 in the King James states it very plain.
".. HOW LONG REFUSE YE TO KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS AND MY LAWS?"
Tested only by this one commandment! (40 years!) And you tell me that Abram was not including the Sabbath commandment in Genesis 26:5 as VERBALLY instructed?? :

Any how, I believe what the Word states, :fadein: (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15!) which brings me to Exodus 16:35's Land of Canaan. (I guess that this is what you desire?) This is the history repeated required testing of all professed Christians to see if they really do LOVE Christ or not. 666! Kind of like Cain's love offering of fruit, you know, sun for the required 7th day.

 

[Scott]

Surely you do not think that when Moses came down from the Mount with the Covenant (Eternal even in Heb. 13:20) that it was not eternal in meaning?

Seems there is some confusion on this. See Jeremiah 31:31-32 to understand why its not. Hebrews 13:20 dispells that confusion in one word.....BLOOD!! You don't find that word in Exodus 20 either. The exclamation point is added in Jeremiah 32:40!!

So the verse is saying 'for before the law was given' at Mount Sinai, see Exodus 31:17-18 for the duration of the Lord's Day! 'FOR EVER' sounds quite clear, huh?

So Eternal God made this covenant with man before the creation of the world when man was not?!! Not the obvious choice. Think more in terms of the life of the contract. Since it was made at Sinai (Exodus 16 initially), it has been viable every day without cessation. Forever is in reference to the covenant's life, not in reference to God's eternalism.

One must also see who it is being named as its recipient in Exodus 31:17-18. Just for kicks, do a word study of Israel or Israelites. Notice when it first comes on the scene, and where that is in relation to Abraham. Interesting fact there don't you think?!! :fadein:

But regardless, the Lord's Day is His DAY! It is the birthday of creation. Like a birthday, a memorial of creation.

God rested on thee 7th day. Again, we note that man never observes this day until Exodus 16. But as we just took note of in Exodus 31, it is a covenant made with the Israelites. Getting back to the gist of my word study of Israel, we take note that Israel comes after Abraham. Conclusion, Adam - Abraham were not commanded to keep a Sabbath. That is why we never find any mention of any of them observing a Sabbath.

And the forth commandment starts with remember??? Remember what??

I completely agree that the Sabbath commandment was based on God's resting on the 7th of creation. But note that God rested on thee 7th day, it doesn't say every 7 days. But as already been discussed and carefully noted in God's Word, Israel receives the Sabbath commandment later. In the humor & tradition of the 'changed Sabbath day challenge', this maybe a great place to issue the 'Biblically prove Adam, Noah or Abraham observed the Sabbath Challenge' and win $100. ;-)

One still see's a 40 year testing of the total ten commandment Eternal Covenant by just the 7th Day Sabbath of the Lord! See Exodus 16:4-5 & Exodus 16:26-28. Verse 28 in the King James states it very plain.

Exodus 16:29-30 displays the newness of the Sabbath day. The Sabbath was surely given to them as a test. They were delivered out of Egypt miraculously, but yet it didn't take them long to despair and forget God's faithfulness. Also notice how Exodus 20 begins, "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the Land of slavery."

And you tell me that Abram was not including the Sabbath commandment in Genesis 26:5 as VERBALLY instructed??

Correct. It was commanded to the Israelites (Exodus 31), its is displayed in its newness (Exodus 16:29-30), and the unanswered $100 challenge ( my challenge that is) still remains. Seems to me that if the jury deliberates now, the evidence is pretty one-sided here. Your thoughts??!

 

[Servant_2000]

Hi, my judgement of this part of the [post], is that it is all wet! :fadein: 1/2 Gospel is no Gospel at best!

Then stop handing out 1/2 loaf truth....

Did His Life on Earth help you 'see' this above Truth???? Seems that it did not! For your [postings] can be readily tested by what you claim to be the Truth, by using the Word of God as seen in Isaiah 8:20! The one part that God Himself wrote & SENT His Son to MAGNIFY, that you say is voided out. God forbide! Revelation 22:18-19 (see Ecclesiastes 3:14 for verification!) Do you know what law you are mangling???

What covenant is this? It is the Mosaic/Sinaitic/Old Covenant between God and Israel, which has now "disappeared" according to Hebrews 8, and which we are commanded to cast out in Galatians 4:30!

It is not I who say's..it's the author of Hebrews, and Paul the Apostle who say's it is voided out.

 

[SputnikBoy]

JtB, Sputnik's quotes really aren't going to help your posts in this discussion. BTW Sputnik, I was rather shocked to read your defense of homosexuality in a thread today.

Sputnik: Since our beloved moderator, Scott, brought up that particular issue on this thread, I should surely be given the priviledge to respond without THIS post being deleted as was the other.

Scott: [Deleted.... This is not a rant forum. Address my comment if you want, but not your other problems. The problem end of that situation you got into was not brought up by me, thus it is not appropriate in this forum. ]

Sputnik: Good one, Scott. The delete button gives you the final word, doesn't it? It might have been better for all concerned had you not raised the issue to begin with ...right?

Okay, without 'ranting', as you put it, I was not defending homosexuality as such on that particular thread. I never even offered my views on homosexuality. [Deleted.... is another warning really what you are after here? I've held off from giving one but not if you keep pressing]

Regarding this issue of the Sabbath, since we are not required to be obedient to God's commands, are you suggesting that maybe we should close the doors of our church on Saturday ...just in case it LOOKS as if we're being obedient to God's commands? What EXACTLY is your problem here?

 

[SputnikBoy]

You know, it's occurred to me over the months of debating the Ten Commandments in general and the Sabbath command in particular that, had the Bible stopped at John, NO Christian today would have an issue with the commandments OR the Sabbath. No Christian would have decided 'just out of the blue' that Sunday would now become the 'Christian Sabbath'. It took the writings of Paul to confuse the issues. It took MEN to authorize for themselves that Sunday would now replace the seventh-day Creation Sabbath based on ...what?

We can safely say that men certainly received no authorization from the scriptures to initiate a 'new Sabbath'. So, when we get down to the nitty gritty ...isn't this (the who, the how, and the why behind the change of the Sabbath) the main issue underlying this thread topic? Is not 'the Paul stuff' that is brought up repeatedly on this thread by the nonSabbatarians no less than a red herring ...unintentional as it may be? Do the writings of Paul REALLY give us closure on this and other issues? Did we really need the ambiguous writings of Paul to muss up the possible unity we might have had within the Christian Church?

Note: While there are those on this forum who say again and again that the 7th-day Sabbath was NEVER changed to Sunday, this is NOT the belief of mainstream Christians! The majority DO believe that Sunday is the 7th-day Sabbath. The majority DO believe that MONDAY is the first day of the week. So, please don't imply that this is not the case.

 

[John the Baptist]

Surely you do not think that when Moses came down from the Mount with the Covenant (Eternal even in Heb. 13:20) that it was not eternal in meaning?

Seems there is some confusion on this. See Jeremiah 31:31-32 to understand why its not. Hebrews 13:20 dispells that confusion in one word.....BLOOD!! You don't find that word in Exodus 20 either. The exclamation point is added in Jeremiah 32:40!!

******
No confusion: Just in a new location! See Hebrews 8:10 But these are not all the professors, huh?)
******

[quote:de0a1]So the verse is saying 'for before the law was given' at Mount Sinai, see Exodus 31:17-18 for the duration of the Lord's Day! 'FOR EVER' sounds quite clear, huh?

So Eternal God made this covenant with man before the creation of the world when man was not?!! Not the obvious choice. Think more in terms of the life of the contract. Since it was made at Sinai (Exodus 16 initially), it has been viable every day without cessation. Forever is in reference to the covenant's life, not in reference to God's eternalism.

*****
No, you know that the Gospel is EVERLASTING! Revelation 14:6. The Godhead with their for/knowledge had the Son in the eternal plan with mankind. See Romans 4:17's last part of the verse. And surely you have understood what the plural of other worlds as twice stated in the book of Heb. means? And the unfallen & fallen angels? Come on, get real! You are sounding like 2 Corinthians 4:2 all over again! :o
*****

One must also see who it is being named as its recipient in Exodus 31:17-18. Just for kicks, do a word study of Israel or Israelites. Notice when it first comes on the scene, and where that is in relation to Abraham. Interesting fact there don't you think?!! :fadein:

****
Again: Romans 2:28-29 is more than enough TRUTH (kicks) of who is a spiritual Jew & who it is who are circumcised in the heart! Again:
BORN AGAIN's New Eternal Covenant! Man was lost & needed being BORN AGAIN! OK?????
****

But regardless, the Lord's Day is His DAY! It is the birthday of creation. Like a birthday, a memorial of creation.

God rested on the 7th day. Again, we note that man never observes this day until Exodus 16. But as we just took note of in Exodus 31, it is a covenant made with the Israelites. Getting back to the gist of my word study of Israel, we take note that Israel comes after Abraham. Conclusion, Adam - Abraham were not commanded to keep a Sabbath. That is why we never find any mention of any of them observing a Sabbath.

*****
That is NOT what God says: That is what you say! Take time to memorize the WORD OF GOD in His verses of Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15. You are directly calling God a liar! NOTHING NEW THEY SAY!! And now here you come and give your stuff! :o :
*****

And the forth commandment starts with remember??? Remember what??

I completely agree that the Sabbath commandment was based on God's resting on the 7th of creation. But note that God rested on thee 7th day, it doesn't say every 7 days. But as already been discussed and carefully noted in God's Word, Israel receives the Sabbath commandment later. In the humor & tradition of the 'changed Sabbath day challenge', this maybe a great place to issue the 'Biblically prove Adam, Noah or Abraham observed the Sabbath Challenge' and win $100. ;-)

One still see's a 40 year testing of the total ten commandment Eternal Covenant by just the 7th Day Sabbath of the Lord! See Exodus 16:4-5 & Exodus 16:26-28. Verse 28 in the King James states it very plain.

Exodus 16:29-30 displays the newness of the Sabbath day. The Sabbath was surely given to them as a test. They were delivered out of Egypt miraculously, but yet it didn't take them long to despair and forget God's faithfulness. Also notice how Exodus 20 begins, "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the Land of slavery."

And you tell me that Abram was not including the Sabbath commandment in Genesis 26:5 as VERBALLY instructed??

Correct. It was commanded to the Israelites (Exodus 31), its is displayed in its newness (Exodus 16:29-30), and the unanswered $100 challenge ( my challenge that is) still remains. Seems to me that if the jury deliberates now, the evidence is pretty one-sided here. Your thoughts??![/quote:de0a1]

 

[Scott]

******
No confusion: Just in a new location! See Hebrews 8:10 But these are not all the professors, huh?)
******

Hebrews 8:6 as well, and fitting with what we know in Romans 9:30-33 it really starts to become clear. Exploring what is happening further we check into Romans 11:7-10. But it doesn't end there with Israel, they may have 'dark clouds' overhead now but God will fulfill His promise. Jump ahead to Romans 11:25-32 (keep Romans 11:5-6 in mind as well), and we see that plans are still in the works for Israel.

Just another thing to add-on here in support of Abraham & Israel chronology, check into Romans 11:1. :fadein:

Again: Romans 2:28-29 is more than enough TRUTH (kicks) of who is a spiritual Jew & who it is who are circumcised in the heart!

In spirit yes, but that doesn't break the distinguishment dually noted in Romans 11:25. The end of Romans 9 and also Romans 10 also make this distinction. This all makes sense with what we know about Peter and Paul too (Galatians 2:8).

*****
No, you know that the Gospel is EVERLASTING! Revelation 14:6. The Godhead with their for/knowledge had the Son in the eternal plan with mankind. See Romans 4:17's last part of the verse. And surely you have understood what the plural of other worlds as twice stated in the book of Heb. means? And the unfallen & fallen angels? Come on, get real! You are sounding like 2 Corinthians 4:2 all over again! :o
*****

See Jeremiah 31:31-32 & Jeremiah 32:40 again because its plainly stated for all to see. Romans 4:17 supports the association with frame of reference. Before God called it into existence, the NC was not effective as all were still under the OC. As I stated before, the only way it makes sense is when considered in reference to life of the contract. Then it becomes everlasting and true. God's omniscience doesn't make a covenant valid until He says its valid. Otherwise you run into problems with duality, and two covenants running concurrently. See further proof in Hebrews 7:19, Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 7:28, & Hebrews 8.

*****
That is NOT what God says: That is what you say! Take time to memorize the WORD OF GOD in His verses of Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 & Ecclesiastes 3:15. You are directly calling God a liar! NOTHING NEW THEY SAY!! And now here you come and give your stuff! :o :
*****

Ecclesiastes lends no support to fill in the gap of man's time from the 7th day of creation to Exodus 16. Nowhere does it say God rested every 7th day either. It says He rested on the 7th day. After 6 days, His work of creating was finished and He rested on the 7th day (Genesis 2:2-3). In keeping with the description of the other days of the creation week, one can only conclude that each day is being talked about in exclusivity, and that is consistent with the accounts of each day found in Genesis 1 and the beginning of Genesis 2.


This said previously, are facts that have not been refuted and are supported Biblically.

God rested on the 7th day. Again, we note that man never observes this day until Exodus 16. But as we just took note of in Exodus 31, it is a covenant made with the Israelites. Getting back to the gist of my word study of Israel, we take note that Israel comes after Abraham. Conclusion, Adam - Abraham were not commanded to keep a Sabbath. That is why we never find any mention of any of them observing a Sabbath.

And the forth commandment starts with remember??? Remember what??

I completely agree that the Sabbath commandment was based on God's resting on the 7th of creation. But note that God rested on thee 7th day, it doesn't say every 7 days. But as already been discussed and carefully noted in God's Word, Israel receives the Sabbath commandment later. In the humor & tradition of the 'changed Sabbath day challenge', this maybe a great place to issue the 'Biblically prove Adam, Noah or Abraham observed the Sabbath Challenge' and win $100. ;-)

One still see's a 40 year testing of the total ten commandment Eternal Covenant by just the 7th Day Sabbath of the Lord! See Exodus 16:4-5 & Exodus 16:26-28. Verse 28 in the King James states it very plain.

Exodus 16:29-30 displays the newness of the Sabbath day. The Sabbath was surely given to them as a test. They were delivered out of Egypt miraculously, but yet it didn't take them long to despair and forget God's faithfulness. Also notice how Exodus 20 begins, "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the Land of slavery."

And you tell me that Abram was not including the Sabbath commandment in Genesis 26:5 as VERBALLY instructed??

Correct. It was commanded to the Israelites (Exodus 31), its is displayed in its newness (Exodus 16:29-30), and the unanswered $100 challenge ( my challenge that is) still remains. Seems to me that if the jury deliberates now, the evidence is pretty one-sided here. Your thoughts??!