The Sabbath is SUNDAY, ttg, TanNinety ...?

[SputnikBoy]

Thanks TanNinety and thanks, as always, to wavy.

Love for God, surely, would be manifested through obedience to Him. As I've suggested repeatedly on the board, surely the ONLY way we can specifically offer obedience (love) for God is by adhering to the first four commandments ...? That, of course, includes the fourth.

Were it not for the fact that - somewhere along the way - another man-made 'holy day' was installed to replace God's Creation Sabbath, a day to which the overwhelming majority of Christians give allegiance, the fourth commandment would not even be an issue. The Christian Church is 'locked in' to a day that it now cannot acknowledge as false without losing face.

Don't let us kid ourselves ...many Christian scholars know that the Sabbath command is still binding and that Sunday is a counterfeit. The only way out is to either, 1. silence the sabbatarians through ridicule, or 2. make the 'Sabbath command' go away. If one sifts their way through all of the posts on this oft-raised issue, one will find that the immensely loyal 'Sunday supporters' have not disappointed the 'ridicule the sabbatarians' and 'abolish the Sabbath' advocates. Whenever the Sabbath issue rears its ugly head, it gets shot down with 'the Sabbath was abolished' or 'you're nothing but an evil cult'. These are responses from those who purport to 'love God with all their heart, mind and soul', mind you ...!

Despite Solo's lengthy post - previous page - nothing other than human excuses for 'keeping' Sunday as sacred under the pretext of 'knowledge' are offered in lieu of the Word of God. One might come up with a million reasons why we should 'keep' Sunday 'as is' but nothing can alter the fact that the seventh-day Sabbath was initiated by God and that Sunday was initiated by MAN ...NOTHING!

Paul - incidentally - had no more authority than do we to abolish the Sabbath or any other command of God. He was not God and yet Christians have exalted this mere human being to the status of God. As long as Paul says something - or even APPEARS to say something, more like - then it's fine by most Christians. God ALONE can abolish the Sabbath and He had no reason to do so and in fact DID NOT do so.

What I find rather chilling is the fact that many Christians slander SDAs (specifically) and other sabbatarians (generally) for merely upholding God's fourth commandment. Should this fact alone not raise a red flag?

Sorry, but the answer is to understand exactly what the Sabbath is and Hebrews 4:1-9 tells us. If you don't believe it, then you can make up your own gospel.

Heidi, you obviously have the misinterpretation of Hebrews 4:1-9 so firmly engraven into your mind that further discussion with you in regard to this chapter and issue is futile. The seventh-day Sabbath was and is a 'physical' day that God set aside at Creation. You have made the Sabbath into something that is none other than meaningless rhetoric. How does one 'rest' in the Sabbath in a spiritual sense other than saying so with mere words?

 

[wavy]

You have made the Sabbath into something non-tangible and quite meaningless. How does one 'rest' in the Sabbath in a spiritual sense other than saying so with mere words?

Good point. It's so easy to spiritualize things away.

 

[JM]

Prove the seventh day was Saturday BEFORE the covenant made in Ex.

 

[wavy]

Prove the seventh day was Saturday BEFORE the covenant made in Ex.

By asking this question, are you saying that there was a different seventh day before Exodus? (I do not believe in a Saturday sabbath, just to let you know).

 

[SputnikBoy]

Prove the seventh day was Saturday BEFORE the covenant made in Ex.

I think your calendar (if you have one) is proof enough of the seven-day weekly cycle. It hasn't changed at all since Creation and the Jews have faithfully continued their keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath since the time of Christ. Jesus would have kept the correct day so we only need to go back to His time. Sure, the calendar HAS been readjusted over the years but the sequence of days were never affected. How much more proof is necessary?

 

[SputnikBoy]

Prove the seventh day was Saturday BEFORE the covenant made in Ex.

By asking this question, are you saying that there was a different seventh day before Exodus? (I do not believe in a Saturday sabbath, just to let you know).

But your belief requires a lot of calculation, wavy, and I honestly don't believe that God would have made it that difficult for we mere mortals.

 

[Solo]

Re: Yo...

I could answer those 80 questions, solo. :-D

Yes but you answer everything with a crazy Nazarite Messianic bias. I believe that the ole devil can answer them also.

Oh, absolutely ...the devil may well be the author of them!

To answer these 80 questions in the light of God's truth would not be able by either of you. :-D

There is no God's truth in the questions, Solo. They are merely a ploy to support this particular erroneous teaching of the Christian Church. If the Church today 'fessed up' that they have been in error this would affect Christianity like never before. They could never regain face and Christianity would collapse into a heap. If they are wrong on such a major issue, then what about other beliefs that they preach? This is why it's left to the INDIVIDUAL to sort out the facts for themselves.

Meanwhile those who must cling to their 'man-made holy day' for (often) economical reasons (to teach the truth would throw many ministers on to the unemployment line) will CERTAINLY devise 80 or more questions to discredit the Sabbath and to save their own face (and job). They need not worry too much about the issue and they know it. Saturday (the seventh-day) is not only a work day for many but also a day of recreation. Most people would not give up these things SIMPLY to devote the day to God! Now, would they?

What do you folks out there prefer to do ...play it safe like the hierarchy and not rock the boat or alienate the congregation and risk losing friends, or seek the truth on this issue as an individual? The truth can be found in your Bible ...not from me, not from wavy, not from Solo . . .

If one were to read the Bible from cover to cover - without any preconceived traditions of men to cloud the issue - ALL Christians would be keeping the seventh-day Sabbath. Sunday would not even enter into the equasion. True!

So you are not a believer? No wonder you have a problem with the Christian Church doctrines. No more need to be said Sput. Let's talk after you have been born again, and if you don't have a place that can teach you, pm and I will show you how to be born again.

The Seventh Day Adventist Church did not exist until 1840s and was started from a group paying homage to a brain damaged women claiming to be a prophetess of God although she disapproved of the title. What would those poor souls have done if the Seventh Day Adventists hadn't come along proclaiming that they were the remnent church of God's truths?
What are the similarities between Seventh Day Adventist doctrines, Scientology doctrines, Jehovah Witness doctrines, Mormon doctrines?

They are very similar and they each have a man-made prophet. Ellen G. White, Mary Baker Eddy, C.T. Russell, and Joseph Smith, and each has another authority besides the Bible; Ellen Whites The Great Controversy (and other writings), Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures and other writings of Mary Baker Eddy, The New World Translation of the Jehovah Witnesses, and the Book of Mormon.

What are the similarities between Southern Baptists, Independent Baptists, American Baptists, Lutherans, and Methodists doctrines?

They are very similar and they each proclaim the Bible as their final authority.

 

[Soma-Sight]

What are the similarities between Southern Baptists, Independent Baptists, American Baptists, Lutherans, and Methodists doctrines?

They are very similar and they each proclaim the Bible as their final authority.

They are similar in that they were founded by a man that wrote 'On the Jews and Their Lies' and was a precursor to the Nazi party.

Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



3) Luther about preachers: God ordered an â€Âoffice of the wordâ€Â

â€ÂGod is wonderful, who commands us preachers to take up the office of his word, with which we shall govern the hearts of the people …â€Â

(Tischreden [Tabletalk] Luther German, p.318)


Jesus says â€ÂFollow me,†but he does not appoint anyone to an â€Âoffice of the word.†He warns about preachers

â€Â… so practice and observe whatever they [the scribes] tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men … they love the place of honor at feasts … and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.â€Â

(Mt. 23:3-8)



http://www.theologe.de/theologian3.htm

 

[Soma-Sight]

16) Luther and his colleague Melanchthon: Unbaptized babies are threatened with eternal damnation. Opponents of the baptizing of babies should be killed

â€ÂBaptism of children, original sin … meanwhile these articles are also important, because there is not much point in throwing the children out of Christendom and putting them in an uncertain state, yes, bringing them to damnation … Meanwhile, one indeed sees and comprehends that these are coarse, false articles [by those of other faith], in the end we conclude that in this case the obstinate ones should also be killed.â€Â

(Melanchthon’s report: â€ÂOb christliche Fürsten schuldig sind, der Wiedertäufer unchristliche Sekte mit leiblicher Strafe und mit dem Schwert zu wehren†[Whether Christian princes are guilty of fighting against the Anabaptists unchristian sect with physical punishment and with the sword], 1536; Tomos 8, p. 383 ff; - Luther agreed with the report.)


Jesus did not teach the baptism of children. He says: Teach first, then baptize!

â€ÂGo therefore and make disciples of all nations; baptize them … teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.â€Â

(Mt. 28:19-20)

Note: Jesus asked first to â€Âteach†or to â€Âinform†or to â€Âmake disciples of†and later to baptize the informed, if they wanted this. Those baptized were also taught further after their baptism.

 

[Solo]

What are the similarities between Southern Baptists, Independent Baptists, American Baptists, Lutherans, and Methodists doctrines?

They are very similar and they each proclaim the Bible as their final authority.

They are similar in that they were founded by a man that wrote 'On the Jews and Their Lies' and was a precursor to the Nazi party.

Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)



3) Luther about preachers: God ordered an â€Âoffice of the wordâ€Â

â€ÂGod is wonderful, who commands us preachers to take up the office of his word, with which we shall govern the hearts of the people …â€Â

(Tischreden [Tabletalk] Luther German, p.318)


Jesus says â€ÂFollow me,†but he does not appoint anyone to an â€Âoffice of the word.†He warns about preachers

â€Â… so practice and observe whatever they [the scribes] tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men … they love the place of honor at feasts … and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.â€Â

(Mt. 23:3-8)



http://www.theologe.de/theologian3.htm

You are incorrect again Soma-Sight. You really ought to do a study on early Church history and the reformation.

The Baptist History is traced back to Ulrich Zwingli. Zwingli and Luther parted disagreed on the communion. Luther believed as do the Roman Catholics while Zwingli believed that the communion was a memorial of the passion of Jesus Christ.

Ulrich Zwingli was the leader of the fledgling reformation in Zurich. In 1519 he became the people's priest at the Great Minster Church in Zurich. Helaunched the reformation not by posting theses, as Luther did, but by preaching biblical sermons from the pulpit. While Luther allowed what the Bible did not prohibit, Zwingli prohibited what the Bible did not specifically prescribe. He stressed the ability of common people to interpret the Bible for themselves and taught the memorial view of the Lord's Supper. Called for a return to the Apostolic Church described in the New Testament.

Do a study of the Anabaptists and the Waldenese as well as Calvin, and also the reformation.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Do a study of the Anabaptists and the Waldenese as well as Calvin, and also the reformation.

I will look this up.

wikipedia time.... 8-)

 

[Soma-Sight]

Zwingli's Theology

Zwingli tends to be passed over quickly in world history textbooks for several reasons; the most glaring reason is the simplicity of his theology. In comparison to Luther and Calvin, both of whom wrote a stultifying amount of stuff on every topic under the sun, Zwingli stuck to a single theme throughout his arguments and writing. Still, this simple theology would form the background for the development of the more strict and radical forms of Protestantism and can still be heard in Christian churches around the globe. In fact, Zwingli's rather uncomplex theology could be described as the single most important shift in religious culture in the sixteenth century.

Zwingli's theology and morality were based on a single principle: if the Old or New Testament did not say something explicitly and literally, then no Christian should believe or practice it. This was the basis of his critique of indulgences. In 1522, for instance, Zwingli mounted a protest against the fast at Lent, a standard Catholic practice. His argument: the New Testament says absolutely nothing about fasting at Lent so the practice is inherently unchristian.

There are two important shifts in Western religious experience that result from this position. The first is the literal reading of the Old and New Testaments. No longer would these texts be dark and mysterious, full of difficult and allegorical meanings; instead, the texts of the Old and New Testaments became something like statute law. The words meant what they said; any difficulty, contradiction, or obscure meaning was the fault of the reader and not the text. Because these texts had simple and literal meanings, they also became standardized . While theologians and religious sages could debate the allegorical and figurative meanings of scriptural texts until the end of the world, the literal reading of Christian scriptures meant that it was possible to have one and only one meaning of the text. From this profound shift in the reading of the central writings of Christianity developed one of the most strict and severe applications of these writings to social life. Not only were practices not contained in Scriptures to be shunned, but practices, beliefs, and rules that were contained in the literal meaning of the Old and New Testaments were to be adhered to absolutely and uncritically . This became the underpinning of the social theories and organization of radical Protestant and Puritan societies and later the foundational social organization of the English colonies in America. We still live in a society dominated by this theory of social organization; you cannot walk down the street of American political discourse and not run into Zwinglian ideas of social organization based on the literal meaning of Christian scriptures.


http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/ZWINGLI.HTM

 

[Solo]

Baptist Contributions to Protestantism
William H. Brackney

To some people, saying Baptists are Protestants sounds strange, because they think Baptists are a category of Christians unto themselves. On the contrary, for many Baptists it is important to be seen as part of the Protestant family and Baptists have certainly made important contributions to the overall meaning of Protestantism.

Protestants are the Christians who emerged in Europe in the sixteenth century to emphasize the authority of Scripture, the priesthood of believers, and salvation by grace. Major categories of Protestants include Lutherans, Reformed (Zwinglian and Calvinistic), Anabaptists, and the Church of England. Major heroic figures emerged in the Protestant groups, including Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, Balthasar Hubmaier, Conrad Grebel, Menno Simons, and Thomas Cranmer.

One of the major marks of Protestantism has been confessional development. As each of the Reformers reacted against the Medieval Catholic tradition in one way or another, they sought to define their beliefs in terms of “confessions†or statements of their beliefs. At meetings like the Colloquy of Marburg (1529) and the Diet of Speyer (1529), the confessions were presented in support of basic beliefs of the new groups. These confessions later gave shape to “denominations†as we know them today.

Baptists came along in historical development in the next century after the rise of the original Protestant denominations. They identified quickly with many of the teachings and practices of the Anabaptists, such as affirming the authority of the Bible, religious liberty, believer’s baptism, and religious experience. But, Luther’s teaching on the love of God and the priesthood of believers was also important to Baptists. John Calvin’s understanding of the sovereignty of God, God’s grace, the atonement of Christ, and the sacraments/ordinances were picked up by many early English and American Baptists. Zwingli’s positions on the simplicity of worship and the authority of Scripture were also definitive for early Baptists. Thomas Cranmer’s work in the Book of Common Prayer (1549) shaped the worship practices of many, both directly and indirectly. So, the debt of Baptists to earlier Protestants was indeed great.

In their first century of development in seventeenth-century England, three basic types of Baptists cooperated with several other “Protestant†groups. General Baptists worked with Seventh Day Baptists in exchanging pulpits, and Calvinistic Baptists wrote confessions of faith that imitated those of Presbyterians and Congregationalists. Baptists and Quakers sought common cause in religious toleration in the Restoration Period. Most importantly of all, Baptists joined Congregationalists and Presbyterians in forming the Three Dissenting Denominations, a body of political advocates that sought to gain concessions from the established Church for marriages, burials, and political rights of dissenters.

Many Baptists worldwide have continued to think of themselves as Protestants and interacted with other Protestants in significant ways. In launching the world missionary movement of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for instance, Baptists joined Protestants in sending missionaries and cooperating with other groups like Presbyterians and Congregationalists overseas. In the United States, Baptists joined with
other groups in promoting spiritual awakenings like camp meetings and the Great Revivals. In England, Baptists, Congregationalists, Methodists, and Presbyterians joined to form the Bible Society cause in 1802.

Within the greater Protestant family of Christians in the past century, Baptists have played a significant role. With the establishment of the Baptist World Alliance in 1905, Baptists signaled that they wanted to follow the pattern of other Protestant communions in uniting their family on a global basis. Soon, Baptist representatives were found in discussions pertaining to world mission, faith and order, and life and work of the churches. In many countries between 1910 and 1950, including the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Germany, Australia, Japan, and China, Baptist joined councils of churches to have greater fellowship and interaction about theological and ethical concerns. Baptists were present from North America and Europe in the formation of the World Council of Churches in 1948.

Especially important in the United States has been the presence of Baptists in the formation of associations for the nurture of religious liberty and the separation of church and state, like “Americans United.†In areas of the world where religious freedom has been denied or sharply curtailed, Baptists have benefited from solidarity with other Protestants in calling for laws to recognize dissenters, and advocating the freeing of political prisoners. The record of this type of interaction with other Protestants has been especially important in the Evangelical Alliance in Europe, the Christian Unions in the former Soviet Union, the China Christian Council, and Three Self Movement in Mainland China.

The presence of Baptists in standing with other Protestants has been an important united Christian witness. At the local church level, increasing numbers of Baptists across North America are dually aligning their congregations with other Protestant denominations like black Baptist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Methodist groups, in addition to their historic Baptist relationships.

As a Christian community with clear principles, Baptists have made significant theological and ethical contributions to the Protestant tradition. Baptist commitment to the authority of Scripture has been a lodgepole in ecumenical discussions where biblical scholarship must undergird all faith and life. For Baptists all matters of faith and life must be mediated through Scripture.

One of the most important illustrations of Baptist influence upon the larger church’s theological development is in the understanding of the purpose and mode of baptism. Culminating in the issuance of the Lima Declaration (1972), Baptist thinkers in the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches succeeded in convincing their Protestant colleagues that the teaching of the New Testament and the practice of the ancient churches was believer’s baptism by immersion as the preferred practice.

Similarly, Baptist consultants to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration on Religious Liberty urged that complete religious freedom be included in these now fundamental documents in international law.

Throughout their history, Baptists have advocated the Great Commission as the heart of their understanding of the gospel and this has been accepted widely in common Protestant statements on the purpose of the Church and the mission of the Church in the world.

The biographical record of Baptists engaged in the larger life of Protestant Christian work is likewise impressive. William Carey, the parent of the modern world missionary movement, was a unifying force both in India among several Protestant groups, but also at home in raising the consciousness of Protestants in the Church of England and the Dissenter communities toward world evangelization. Baptist W. Noel of mid-nineteenth century English Baptist life, formerly an Anglican, was a main promoter of the establishment of cooperative Christianity, notably the Evangelical Alliance. John Clifford, Alexander Maclaren, J. H. Rushbrooke, Ernest Payne, and D. S. Russell from the British Baptist family were international leaders in a great century of Protestant work in Europe and abroad.

In the North American context, E. Y. Mullins, Walter Raushenbush, Harry Emerson Fosdick, J. M. Dawson, Robert Torbet, James Wood, Emmanuel Carlson, Glen Iglehart, Winthrop S. Hudson, Gerhard Claas, and Robert T. Handy all played major roles in conversations with other Protestant groups on behalf of Baptists in the last half century. Perhaps most vividly of all, Helen Barrett Montgomery, the first woman president of any Protestant denomination in world Christian history (Northern Baptist Convention in 1920), initiated conversations in 1914 that led to the establishment of ecumenical women’s work and the all-Protestant World Day of Prayer.

Each time most Baptists and other Protestants open their hymnals in a Sunday church service, they might well see evidence of Baptist contributions to Protestantism and Baptist dependency upon the larger Protestant traditions. Baptists enjoy the hymns of a Methodist, Charles Wesley like, “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing†or “And Can It Be That I Should Gain?†and Martin Luther’s great hymn, “A Mighty Fortress is Our God.†Many Baptists count their favorite hymn as “How Great Thou Art,†actually composed by the Swedish Lutheran hymnist, Carl Gustav Boberg.

There are likewise few modern Protestant or denominational hymnals that do not have such Baptist favorites as Robert Lowry’s Easter hymn, “Low in the Grave He Lay,†or P. P. Bliss’ “Wonderful Words of Life,†William H. Doe’s “To God Be The Glory,†or Harry Emerson Fosdick’s “God of Grace and God of Glory.â€Â

William H. Brackney teaches historical studies in the Department of Religion at Baylor University, Waco, TX.

 

[TanNinety]

Sputnik,

If one were to read the Bible from cover to cover - without any preconceived traditions of men to cloud the issue - ALL Christians would be keeping the seventh-day Sabbath. Sunday would not even enter into the equasion. True!

I thought it was a very interesting comment.

An apostle after the day of Pentecost goes to a very foreign land. They were praying to trees. Apostle says, “Pffft, you guys pray to trees? Let me show you who real God is and let me tell you about His Son Jesus who died for our sinâ€Â. The word of God comes to this foreign land. People believe on the name of Jesus, they become Christians from gentiles.

Now the apostle lashes out his bible and starts carving out for them the 10 commandment tablets word for word that they need to live their lives by. Or lets see he starts handing out the copies of old testament for everyone to read, ..10 gold coins usually but if you buy the commandment pamphlets right after the sermon today they are only 10 silver coins. Or lets see the holy spirit that was upon the foreign land taught them the 10 commandments and about the sabbath and how to keep it. Or lets see ..what do you think happened in this gentile foreign land? Who had no preconceived traditions of men to cloud the issue, did they learn about the 10 commandments? Or did they took on themselves the commandments of love?
Are we to assume that EVERY Christian in history had a copy of the OT and the 10 commandments at his disposal?

If keeping the sabbath is a core belief of Christians why wasn’t it preached to be kept in the gentile nations but Colossians 2:16 says judge not one another about it?

I am praying for more understanding on this subject. I will keep re-evaluating my position. Thus far these are my thoughts.

 

[wavy]

But your belief requires a lot of calculation, wavy, and I honestly don't believe that God would have made it that difficult for we mere mortals.

Not necessarily. It is easy to calculate and can be found in the Word.

The seventh day always falls on the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th days of the moon. This doctrine can be found in scripture alone.

Regardless of whether or not a saturday sabbath is true, finding it in the bible is an impossible task.

 

[wavy]

Or lets see he starts handing out the copies of old testament for everyone to read

Or he teaches them out of it, as the apostles did. The "old testament" is cited hundreds of times by the NT writers. Silly if they had no access to it...

Are we to assume that EVERY Christian in history had a copy of the OT and the 10 commandments at his disposal?

No. Yahweh upholds these sincere believers by his mercy and favor.

 

[wavy]

If we must follow the example of Jesus in all things like keeping the Sabbath, then why do Sabbatarians not follow the example of Jesus in circumcision, animal sacrifices and keeping Passover?

Animal sacrifices are irrelevant. There is no temple. But this question is directed towards those who don't keep passover and don't believe in circumcision.

If the Sabbath was for Gentiles and Adam, Noah and Abraham, then why is the Sabbath a sign to remind their exodus from Egypt? Exodus 16:23,29; 31:13-18. Were either Abraham or Seventh-day Adventists ever slaves in Egypt?

So by asking if the sabbath was for gentiles, they are saying that it is for Jews. I thought there was no difference between them...

If the Sabbath law is still in force, then why do they not stone their own members when they break the Sabbath as the law said?

Common, silly question. Exodus 21:22, Numbers 25:5, Deuteronomy 1:16, Deuteronomy 16:18, Deuteronomy 19:17-18 are sufficient to answer this.

If "honor your father and your mother" is still in force, as the scripture affirms that it is (Mark 10:19; Ephesians 6:2), then why don't anti-sabbatarians stone their own church members for not doing so and then hang them on a tree, as the law said?

Ellen G. White, who is considered inspired by Seventh-day Adventists, said that the Pope changed the Sabbath in about 321 AD. Why do all Adventists today reject their inspired prophet and say the change of the Sabbath occurred in about 140 AD? If White was wrong about this, was she wrong when she traveled to heaven and saw the 4th commandment glowing brighter than all the rest?

Irrelevant to me.

If the current position of the Seventh-day Adventist church is that the change from Saturday to Sunday took place in 140 AD, doesn’t that mean that they have come a long way from Whites 325 AD and have only 40 more years to travel to reach the truth of the Apostolic age?

Irrelevant to me...

If the change from Saturday to Sunday happened, why is there absolutely no discussion of this change of actual day for the first 600 years of church history. Merely calling Sunday the Sabbath doesn’t count!

I am of the opinion that calling Sunday the sabbath does count...

If Sabbatarians reject White’s inspiration, that Constantine change the Sabbath day to Sunday, why do they keep bringing Constantine up as proof? If Constantine changed the Sabbath to Sunday, why does here merely legislate that work must stop on Sunday with no actual mention of the day being moved?

Irrelevant to me...

If the first/old covenant was abolished according to Heb 8:13 and the Ten commandment law was that first covenant (Ex 34:27-28; 1 Kings 8:9,21; Heb 9:1-4), then why do Sabbatarians want to keep the first/old covenant?

This would only make sense if only the sabbath was the first covenant here. Does anyone honor their father and mother? Why? That was abolished in Ex 43:27-28; 1 Kings 8:9,21; Heb 9:1-4.

Why is the universal record of history (75-500AD) 100% in unanimous agreement that Christians never kept the Sabbath (7th day) and have always worshipped on Sunday?

I disagree with this, but anyway, the first followers were Nazarenes who did...

Why is the universal record of history (75-500AD) 100% in unanimous agreement that Christians ate the Lord’s Supper every Sunday in the tradition of Acts 20:7?

Acts 20:7 indicates nothing about a Lord's Supper tradition.

 

[wavy]

Why is the universal record of history (75-500AD) 100% in unanimous agreement that Christians always called Sunday the Lord’s Day because, they said, this was the day Jesus rose from the dead?

Christians is the key. In a short amount of time, faith in Christ went from being 100% Jewish to 100% Hellenized, gentile Christianity.

Why has no Sabbatarian every produced even one historical quote (75-500AD) that says Christians kept the Sabbath?

Above.

If the Sabbath is not a ceremonial law, then why is it lumped into the same identical class of "holy convocations" as the rest of the Jewish feast days? Lev 23:2; Ex 20:9; 31:17

Irrelevant to me...

If the 10 commandments remain but the book of law was abolished, then why did God put two copies of the 10 commandments in the book of the law? Ex 20; Deut 5

Irrelevant to me...

How can there possibly be an difference between "the law of God" and the "Law of Moses" when God gave the Law of Moses (Ezra 7:6; Neh 8:1) and Moses gave the Law of God (Neh 10:29; 2 Chron 34:14)?

I would love to ask many Christians this same question, because when we get to a scripture like Romans 8:7 or 1 Corinthians 9:21, the "law of God" suddenly does not mean the first five books of Moses.

If there is a distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws, why are the Jewish feast days called part of the Law of the Lord? (2 Chron 331:3)

Irrelevant to me...

If there is a distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws, why in a single chapter of Nehemiah 8are the following phrases all used interchangeably: "book of the law of Moses" v1, "the law" v2, "book of the law" v3, "the law of god" v8, "book of the law of god" v18?

Irrelevant to me...

Why are the two most important commandments contained within the "ceremonial law of Moses that was Sabbatarians say was nailed to the cross? (Matthew 22:36-40)

Another question I would love to ask most Christians, as they say the law was nailed to the cross all the time.

Why did Jesus say Moses gave the 10 commandment law: "Thou shalt not kill" in Jn 7:19?

Good question for those who distinguish between "law of Elohim" and "law of Moses".

Better yet, for those who make such distinctions, why did he say Moses said "honor your father and mother" in Mark 7:10 (John 7:19 doesn't really quote "thou shalt not kill")?

If the Sabbath cannot change, because God cannot change (Mal 3:6) then what about all the other feast days and laws that changed? Heb 7:12. And why did Jesus give a "a new commandment" in John 13:34?

Hebrews 7:12 says only one law changed. Anyway, I would love to see how these people interpret Heb 7:12 without distinguishing between moral and ceremonial themselves.

As far as a "new commandment", it says what it says. It is a new commandment. Doesn't have an effect upon the law.

 

[wavy]

If the ten commandments are going to be in heaven, what is the use of "thou shalt not commit adultery", if there is no marriage in heaven? Lk 20:34-35

Irrelevant to me.

If the Sabbath was given to all men, why were Gentiles called "strangers". Why were Gentiles outside the gates not required to keep the Sabbath? Ex 20:10.

Gentiles weren't required to keep any of the law as the whole thing was given to Israel. Those outside the commonwealth of Israel are pagans that will perish.

How could the Sabbath be a sign between God and Israel, if all nations were expected to keep it? Ex 31:17

Above.

Why did God send the Jews into Babylonian Captivity for breaking the Sabbath, but never ever criticized any Gentiles for never keeping the Sabbath?

Above.

Why did God often criticize the Gentiles via the prophets for moral violations, but never for not keeping the Sabbath?

Why would he? Above.

If the Gentiles were supposed to keep the Sabbath, why are they called "strangers of the Covenant" in Eph 2:12?

This scripture also says the have been made near to everything they were aliens/strangers from.

If the term, "the law" always means the 10 commandments, then why is Leviticus called "The Law" in Mt 22:35ff, Numbers called "The Law" in Mt 12:5, Deuteronomy called "The Law" in Mt 22:35f, Psalms called "The Law" in Jn 10:34,45, Rom 3:10-12; 3:13-14,19, the Prophets called "The Law" in 1 Cor 14:21 and the Ten commandments are called "The Law" that is abolished in Rom 7:4-7?

Good question to those who place manmade distinctions within the law, like moral vs. ceremonial. Many Christian believers, however, who criticize SDAs about this are also guilty of the same. Like earlier, one of these questions equated the sabbath with "ceremonial laws" that were to bo done away because of the phrase "throughout your generations".

They just refuted that dilemma here. Anyway, no law was abolished in Romans 7:4-7. These people are ignorant if they believe this...

If the term "commandments" always means the 10 commandments, then why are the laws that are not part of the ten commandments but called commandments in Mt 19:16-19 not also included?

Bad argument, but I do agree. What they should have said was that the ten "commandments" are never really called the "ten commandments". The word is devarim, meaning "words/statements/utterances".

If the term "commandments" always means the 10 commandments, then what did Paul call the injunction for prophet’s wives to keep silent in the assemblies, a "commandment of the Lord" in 1 Cor 14:37?

Above.

If the term "keep my commandments" always means the 10 commandments, then why is this a new commandment? Jn 15:10-12 + Jn 13:34.

Above.

 

[wavy]

If only the ten commandments are going to endure until heaven and earth pass away, why did Jesus say the law AND THE PROPHETS? Mt 5:17-18

Irrelevant to me...

When Jesus was asked, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" why did Jesus NOT QUOTE from the 10 commandments, but from the abolished ceremonial law of Moses? Matthew 22:36-40

Irrelevant to me...

If the 10 commandments are the highest and most complete expression of God’s will, then why did it lack the two most important commandments? Matthew 22:36-40 where is the prohibition against drunkeness, homosexuality and fornication?

I can answer the second question: in the law, which has not been abolished.

If the 10 commandments are the highest and most complete expression of God’s will, then why did Jesus give a new commandment to "love one another, even as I have loved you" John 13:34. Where were the Jews told to love their neighbor as Yahweh loved them?

Irrelevant to me...

If Christians worshipping on Sunday is equal to Sun Worship, then is Adventists worshipping on Saturday equal to Saturn worship?

Irrelevant to me...

If Sabbatarians will boldly quote "scholars" who are really Bible trashers and skeptics who claim "the origin of Sunday worship is entirely pagan", like Arthur Weigall in his ridiculous little book, "the paganism in our Christianity", will these same Sabbatarians turn a few pages later where these same authors say the origin of the Sabbath is also pagan? "I have, already mentioned that Sunday, too, was a pagan holy-day; and in this chapter I propose to discuss the origin of this custom of keeping one day in the week as a Sabbath, or "day of rest,' and' to show that the practice was forcefully opposed by Jesus Christ. The origin of the seven-day week which was used by the Jews and certain other peoples, but not till, later by the Greeks or Romans, is to be sought in some primitive worship of the moon (The Paganism in Our Christianity, Arthur Weigall, 1928, p209,210-211)

Irrelevant to me...

If the Sabbath is a moral law, why did Jesus say that David, the priests, a man with his donkey could all break the Sabbath without sin? Mt 12:1-14; Mk 2:23f, Lk 13:10-17; 14:1-6 Jn 5:8-18; 7:19-24; 9:14-16.

When he mentioned David, it had nothing to do with the sabbath. David ate the bread of the face, or showbread. Anyway, when one does according to the original intent of the commandment, it is not technically breaking it. Such it is in these cases.

If the Sabbath is a moral law, why did God grow tired of the Jews keeping it and told them to stop keeping the Sabbath? Isa 1:13-14 Did God ever grow weary of anyone not committing adultery or murder, and tell them to be immoral and kill?

Isaiah has been taken out of context, for one. It is moral to do it because Yahweh commanded it, as it is for his glory and holiness.

But the children of Israel were doing it in hypocrisy and falsehood. He also said he would not hear their prayers in this passage. Should we stop praying?

If the Sabbath is a moral law, how could Jesus break it without sinning? Jn 5:18

Christ didn't break it. He broke it according to what was considered to be breaking the sabbath. The Jews in this passage assumed he had "loosed" (alternate translation of the Greek word luo, for "break") the sabbath by healing and telling the man to carry his mat (the Mishna, first section of the Talmud, will tell us that carrying an object within a public domain was forbidden). These are not true violations.

If he indeed broke it and admitted to doing so as many ignorant people teach, then he's sending mixed messages. Is it lawful to do good on it (Matthew 12:12) or is it okay to break it? If we can break it, then there is nothing "lawful" or "unlawful" to do on it anyway...

If one of the distinctions between the ten commandments was proven by the fact they were written by the finger of God, why did Moses copy them out twice with his own hand? How can there be any distinction between the 10 commandments in the ark and the book of the law beside the ark, if the book contained two copies of exactly what was in the ark?

Irrelevant to me...

Why are the terms "ceremonial law" and "moral law" never found in the Bible. Why is the word ceremonial or any of its roots never found in the same verse as the word LAW and why is the word moral or any of its roots never found in the same verse as the word LAW?

Another question I would love to ask many Christians, as they make the distinction themselves while criticizing others for doing so.

If there is a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws, why do "God’s laws" and "the law of God" contain ceremonial laws. Why do "Moses law" and the "law of Moses" contain moral laws?

Above.

If there is a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws, why does the "law of God" command animal sacrifices Lk 2:23-24 and the "law of the Lord" contains burnt offerings 2 Chron 31:3; 1 Chron 16:40?

Irrelevant to me...

If there is a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws, then why is the book of the law filled with moral laws not contained in the 10 commandments?

Irrelevant to me.

If there is a distinction between the Law of the Lord and the Law of Moses, why in 2 Chron 35:26 are "the acts of Josiah and his deeds of devotion as written in the law of the Lord"?

Irrelevant to me...

If there is a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws, then why does the Law of God include new moons, solemn feast days: Ps 81:3-4?

Irrelevant to me...

If there is a distinction between the Law of the Lord and the Law of Moses, why did the law tell Israel to dwell in tents: Neh 8:14?

Irrelevant to me...

If Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets, then didn’t Mt 5:17 say that only then would they be abolished before heaven and earth pass away? If the law and the prophets are still in force, doesn’t that prove Jesus didn’t fulfill the law completely?

As to the first question, no. They have added to the text. The second question is silly, imo, and is based off of the assumption that to "fulfill" the law means to obey it so it need not be done. But they defeat themselves, as the prophets are also mentioned.

So if the prophets are still in force, I would ask them, according to their logic, "doesn't that prove that Jesus didn't fulfill the prophets completely"?

When you ask me, "if the 10 commandments are abolished, does that mean we can steal", can I ask you, "when you travel from Canada to the USA, does that mean you can steal? Is it possible that two completely different "codes of law" (law of Moses vs. law of Christ) have the same laws just like Canada and the USA?

First they create a false dilemma by saying "law of Moses vs. law of Christ". There can be no conflict if they say the same thing and have the same laws, as they admit here. Anyway, Christ taught the law of Moses and quoted it for doctrine upon several occasions. His torah doctrine was based upon the law of Moses, not "completely different" and yet the same laws. These loops of logic they display here prove their ignorance.

If the Jewish law against eating pork was abolished by Christ, why do Sabbatarians continue to enforce what they call, "the ceremonial law of Moses": Mk 7:18-19; 1 Tim 4:1-4; Rom 14:2; Acts 10:9-16

The "Jewish" law against eating pork was not abolished by Christ.