Sunday Is Not the Sabbath

[The Liturgist]

A simple yes or no would've worked, but okay.
Jesus Himself, is the Logos, the Word.

You are aware that the Eucharist being instituted took place decades before John's Gospel was recorded?
So if that's your concern then all New Testament writings were even further into the future than the institution of the Eucharist.

Jesus was referring to Himself and His presence in the Eucharist.

As we all know? That's a bit presumptuous on your part since that's literally what he said. Not only is that what He said but it's also clear that's what He said based on the response of those hearing in attendance.

The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
..From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

If HE was referring to Scriptures, or His sayings, or teachings as 'The Bread' then there would have been no fallout. This took place in the synagog where the Scriptures of the day were read routinely. They were following Him to hear what He had to say.. until this. This was different.

This is off the thread topic but good grief, it takes considerable effort to deny the Eucharist in this passage.

Indeed it does, since the Eucharistic context of the passage is evident, and notice the out of context use of Mark 7, which refers to the “Oral torah” of the Pharisees which later became the Mishnah and the Talmud in response to your arguments.

 

[FenderTL5]

He is the "Word became flesh" in John 1:14
He is the "Word was with God and the Word WAS God" in John 1 --

Jesus is the Logos, The Word, period, full stop.
Yes, Holy Scriptures are referred to as the word of God, but Christ is The Word, The Logos.
I don't recall making an argument concerning traditions, that seems like meandering further off the topic of the already off topic exchange.

1 Cor 11 - the Eucharist is a memorial (in remembrance of me) - and its focus is on the death event - of Christ. Completed "once for all" Heb 10

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

There's a reason why the Eucharist is central in the worship in all of the ancient church east and west. The blood of Christ is central to Christianity. It's central to Holy Scripture. It was integral in the early Church as found in historical sources as well the Holy Scriptures.
If your Church doesn't make the Eucharist a priority, then you aren't being fed spirtitually.

 

[BobRyan]

He is the "Word became flesh" in John 1:14
He is the "Word was with God and the Word WAS God" in John 1 --

But in Mark 7:7-13 Jesus informs us that the writings of scripture "Are the WORD of God"

Mark 7:7-13
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

We see in the red highlighted text "commandment of God" = "Moses said" = "Word of God" -- quoting from Ex 20 as an example

That is contrasted to "commandments of men" = "traditions of men" = "your traditions" ... "handed down" with the comment that they do "Many such things as that"

In this case - Jesus slam hammers the supposedly infallible tradition of the one true nation-church magesterium - where that nation-church was infallibly started by God at Sinai and had God's own system of choosing "successors" for its high priests.

Jesus is the Logos, The Word, period, full stop.
Yes, Holy Scriptures are referred to as the word of God, but Christ is The Word, The Logos.

Both-AND as we saw in my post above.

I don't recall making an argument concerning traditions, that seems like meandering further off the topic of the already off topic exchange.

until you pay attention to the details in that post where we note that Jesus says "commandment of God" = "Moses said" = 'Word of God"

so .. hmm -- yeah except for that part.

 

[BobRyan]

There's a reason why the Eucharist is central in the worship in all of the ancient church east and west. The blood of Christ is central to Christianity.

If the blood of Christ - that cleanses from sin - that is central to all Christianity -- is the only thing we are talking about there would only be one view of this.

Obviously there is a bit more 'tradition' in this -- than just having everyone agree that the blood of Christ forgives sins in the Gospel.

It's central to Holy Scripture.

If your Church doesn't make the Eucharist a priority, then you aren't being fed spirtitually.

Where is "Doesn't make Eucharist a priority" in my post? I couldn't find it.

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed it does, since the Eucharistic context of the passage is evident, and notice the out of context use of Mark 7, which refers to the “Oral torah” of the Pharisees which later became the Mishnah and the Talmud in response to your arguments.

points that you find inconvenient are not by that fact alone "out of context" --- I think we discussed that idea in the past. you need an actual argument, a fact to show something is out of context. That false accusation alone is not substantive -- so then ... not convincing.

 

[BobRyan]

Those responding recently should at least comment on the title of the thread for the sake of the integrity of the thread.

some of those who do not keep the Bible Sabbath claim Sunday is not the Sabbath
Some of those who do not keep the Bible Sabbath claim that Sunday is the new day in the NT for keeping the Sabbath.

And then there are those like me who say the Bible Sabbath is still the Sabbath and has all the same authority as it did in Eden.

 

[FenderTL5]

Where is "Doesn't make Eucharist a priority" in my post? I couldn't find it.

I wasn't quoting you, that wasn't in quotation marks and I didn't indicate in any way that you mentioned it.
That doesn't change the fact that the Eucharist is the central act of worship, instituted by Christ Himself.

 

[FenderTL5]

Those responding recently should at least comment on the title of the thread for the sake of the integrity of the thread.

some of those who do not keep the Bible Sabbath claim Sunday is not the Sabbath
Some of those who do not keep the Bible Sabbath claim that Sunday is the new day in the NT for keeping the Sabbath.

And then there are those like me who say the Bible Sabbath is still the Sabbath and has all the same authority as it did in Eden.

Fair enough, I have nothing else to discuss with you.
To honor your request; Saturday is the Sabbath and i agree with the thread title Sunday Is Not the Sabbath.
The Sabbath is the day Christ rested in the Tomb, His work being finshed (as prefigured in the OT) it should be a day of rest and kept holy.
Sunday is Κυριακή, The Lord's Day, the day we celebrate the Resurrection of Christ.

Done.

 

[BobRyan]

Fair enough, I have nothing else to discuss with you.
To honor your request; Saturday is the Sabbath and i agree with the thread title Sunday Is Not the Sabbath.
The Sabbath is the day Christ rested in the Tomb, His work being finshed (as prefigured in the OT) it should be a day of rest and kept holy.
Sunday is Κυριακή, The Lord's Day, the day we celebrate the Resurrection of Christ.

Done.

Thanks.

I assume you have no scripture saying Sunday is the Lord's day -- but I am glad to have your posted opinion above.

 

[BobRyan]

If your Church doesn't make the Eucharist a priority, then you aren't being fed spirtitually.

Where is "Doesn't make Eucharist a priority" in my post? I couldn't find it.

In that case I am quoting you verbatim since you appear to be claiming that something I said makes it appear that "my church doesn't make the Eucharist a priority" - without actually quoting anything from me that points that direction.

I wasn't quoting you, that wasn't in quotation marks and I didn't indicate in any way that you mentioned it.

Were you fishing to see if that was the case or were you saying that something in my post made you conclude that is the case?

 

[The Liturgist]

points that you find inconvenient are not by that fact alone "out of context" --- I think we discussed that idea in the past. you need an actual argument, a fact to show something is out of context. That false accusation alone is not substantive -- so then ... not convincing.

It is not a false accusation if it is correct, and an exegetical reading of Mark 7 will back my opinion, since your insistence that Mark 7 condemns the tradition of the Orthodox Church is inconsistent with Matthew 16 in its entirety, with 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and with Galatians 1:8-9, and also with Galatians 5, really with the Epistle to the Galatians and the Epistle to Romans in their entirety. If our Lord condemned Church Tradition, St. Paul could not endorse it, which he plainly does, but our Lord clearly does not condemn Church Tradition, which is not a tradition of men but a Tradition from God, one which was still being revealed literally as Christ spoke in Mark 7, so you cannot use His words against us, for the context of the verse is clear, and the target of His words is Pharisaical Judaism’s belief in an “oral Torah” which were written down by the surviving Scribes into the Misnah and later the Bablyon Talmud and the jerusalem Talmud, and later into codified into works such as the Sulchan Aruch, and another earlier Rabinnical Jewish code of law by Maimonides.

 

[The Liturgist]

Where is "Doesn't make Eucharist a priority" in my post? I couldn't find it.

In that case I am quoting you verbatim since you appear to be claiming that something I said makes it appear that "my church doesn't make the Eucharist a priority" - without actually quoting anything from me that points that direction.

Well since the SDA reject a Eucharistic reading of John 6, which is extremely unusual, since everyone else sees it as being Eucharistic in context, I believe that is what our friend @FenderTL5 was referring to.

At any rate, I would observe that Adventists celebrate the Eucharist infrequently even by Protestant standards, combine it with foot-washing, which we do but only on Maundy Thursday, and reject the belief of the early church in the Real Presence. Indeed, I am not aware of the word “Eucharist” being used in Adventist contexts.

 

[PeterDona]

No doubt the faithless disciples in John 6 take the symbols too literally.
Notice that Peter does not -- when Jesus asks Peter about it - Peter does not say
"ok I will bite you just as you insist"

I had this exact consideration after my first readthrough of the Bible 28 years ago. It stood out to me, that Jesus said
"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53)
I took it literally. For many years I wondered: I needed a time machine to go back to Jesus's time, to take a bite of his arm. Until one day in 2018 I saw a teaching that laid it out so clearly, so clearly. This teaching was by a catholic, and this is why I am this day a catholic.

-------------

Regarding the topic the sabbath is not the sunday. Funny how self evident this is. In spanish, even saturday is named "sabbado". I guess the question is more if we are required to keep the sabbath ceremonially. Which I do not subscribe to. I believe the sabbath was connected to the mosaic covenant, right here:
deuteronomy 5:15
and remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day
But I am not an israelite. I was not brought out from Egypt. I am a christian, and Jesus has brought me out of the slavery of sin. I am in the covenant of Christ, not the covenant of Moses.
The sabbath keeping is tied to the old covenant. I am not under that covenant.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I had this exact consideration after my first readthrough of the Bible 28 years ago. It stood out to me, that Jesus said
"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53)
I took it literally. For many years I wondered: I needed a time machine to go back to Jesus's time, to take a bite of his arm. Until one day in 2018 I saw a teaching that laid it out so clearly, so clearly. This teaching was by a catholic, and this is why I am this day a catholic.

-------------

Regarding the topic the sabbath is not the sunday. Funny how self evident this is. In spanish, even saturday is named "sabbado". I guess the question is more if we are required to keep the sabbath ceremonially. Which I do not subscribe to. I believe the sabbath was connected to the mosaic covenant, right here:
deuteronomy 5:15
and remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day
But I am not an israelite. I was not brought out from Egypt. I am a christian, and Jesus has brought me out of the slavery of sin. I am in the covenant of Christ, not the covenant of Moses.
The sabbath keeping is tied to the old covenant. I am not under that covenant.

The Sabbath is tied to God's eternal covenant- it was from the beginning before sin Genesis 2:1-3 and continues for eternity Isaiah 66:22-23 for God's people Hebrews 4:9 NIV. If you get rid of the Sabbath, you must get rid of the other 9 commandments, because they come in a unit of Ten, that God personally placed together, and no man has authority above God to undo His righteous works. Exodus 32:16 Psalms 119:172 The Ten Commandments is what points out sin Romans 7:7 you break one commandment you break them all James 2:10-12. Sin is not just in the "old covenant" it is what Jesus came to save us from Matthew 1:21 not in.

 

[PeterDona]

The Sabbath is tied to God's eternal covenant- it was from the beginning before sin Genesis 2:1-3 and continues for eternity Isaiah 66:22-23 for God's people Hebrews 4:9 NIV. If you get rid of the Sabbath, you must get rid of the other 9 commandments, because they come in a unit of Ten, that God personally placed together, and no man has authority above God to undo His righteous works. Exodus 32:16 Psalms 119:172 The Ten Commandments is what points out sin Romans 7:7 you break one commandment you break them all James 2:10-12. Sin is not just in the "old covenant" it is what Jesus came to save us from Matthew 1:21 not in.

Now who asked you to interrupt the conversation between me and @BobRyan ?

only one covenant?
OK anyway, so now I understand a little bit more about SDA theology. They believe that there is only one eternal covenant. Whereas I believe there is more than one covenant, actually around 9 I think, of which only one is labeled "old" (see hebrews 8:13 for this). Do I get this correctly? Do the SDA believe that there is only one, eternal, covenant in heaven?

centrality
As for your choice of scriptures, I want to point out a general principle that your argument becomes better, when the scriptures you use are more central to central events and central texts. Example, the Genesis 2:1-3 reference is in creation, which is central. The Isaiah 66:22-23 reference is in some prophet, somewhere in the text, and could be seen as just a support for whatever belief you want to have promoted. Same goes with the Hebrews 4:9 reference, and the psalm 119:172 reference. The Romans 7:7 is sort of more central, since the letter to Romans is by Christianity considered a central writing.
But with all this said, you have NOT ONE reference to words of Christ. Otherwise the central person of the whole faith, I would expect you to quote him solidly. Hm ok, and then Moses. Well you quote Moses, but you reject (or at least do not deal with) the reference that I brought up: deuteronomy 5:15. Now Deuteronomy is in my view a central book of the Bible. It is the summing up of the whole situation by Moses, just before the israelites enter the promised land. I would say, that is central.

I think centrality is really important when you are wanting to make a doctrine that goes for all christians. The best reference in your post was Genesis 2:1-3. The other you need to work on.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Now who asked you to interrupt the conversation between me and @BobRyan ?

This is a public forum , people tend to address each other’s posts but I’m sure bob will also reply.

only one covenant?
OK anyway, so now I understand a little bit more about SDA theology. They believe that there is only one eternal covenant. Whereas I believe there is more than one covenant, actually around 9 I think, of which only one is labeled "old" (see hebrews 8:13 for this). Do I get this correctly? Do the SDA believe that there is only one, eternal, covenant in heaven?

I never said it is the only eternal covenant but the Ten Commandments is an eternal covenant. The Sabbath commandment being part of that as we see from the beginning to eternity. Gen 2:1-3 Isaiah 66:22-23

centrality
As for your choice of scriptures, I want to point out a general principle that your argument becomes better, when the scriptures you use are more central to central events and central texts. Example, the Genesis 2:1-3 reference is in creation, which is central.

It is a reference to Creation- the beginning. We are also told where there is no law there is no transgression Romans 4:15 meaning God’s law is in heaven because Lucifer sinned from the beginning so he broke God’s law.

The Sabbath started for man at Creation and it is something God Himself hallowed Exodus 20:11 and God made man in His image to follow Him Gen 1:26 , not to do our own thing, hence why the Sabbath is made for mankind. Mark 2:27

The Isaiah 66:22-23 reference is in some prophet, somewhere in the text, and could be seen as just a support for whatever belief you want to have promoted.

The “some prophet” is Isaiah and he is a prophet of God according to God’s Word.

Same goes with the Hebrews 4:9 reference, and the psalm 119:172 reference. The Romans 7:7 is sort of more central, since the letter to Romans is by Christianity considered a central writing.
But with all this said, you have NOT ONE reference to words of Christ. Otherwise the central person of the whole faith, I would expect you to quote him solidly. Hm ok, and then Moses. Well you quote Moses, but you reject (or at least do not deal with) the reference that I brought up: deuteronomy 5:15. Now Deuteronomy is in my view a central book of the Bible. It is the summing up of the whole situation by Moses, just before the israelites enter the promised land. I would say, that is central.

I think centrality is really important when you are wanting to make a doctrine that goes for all christians. The best reference in your post was Genesis 2:1-3. The other you need to work on.

I believe we should trust Gods Word and believe it means what it says. Pro 3:5-6 I believe the scriptures are the path we are to follow Psalms 119:105 and it is the only path that keeps us safe Isaiah 8:20

 

[BobRyan]

The Sabbath is tied to God's eternal covenant- it was from the beginning before sin Genesis 2:1-3 and continues for eternity Isaiah 66:22-23 for God's people Hebrews 4:9 NIV. If you get rid of the Sabbath, you must get rid of the other 9 commandments, because they come in a unit of Ten, that God personally placed together, and no man has authority above God to undo His righteous works. Exodus 32:16 Psalms 119:172 The Ten Commandments is what points out sin Romans 7:7 you break one commandment you break them all James 2:10-12. Sin is not just in the "old covenant" it is what Jesus came to save us from Matthew 1:21 not in.

Amen- good point.

 

[BobRyan]

only one covenant?
OK anyway, so now I understand a little bit more about SDA theology. They believe that there is only one eternal covenant. Whereas I believe there is more than one covenant, actually around 9 I think, of which only one is labeled "old" (see hebrews 8:13 for this). Do I get this correctly? Do the SDA believe that there is only one, eternal, covenant in heaven?

Gal 1:6-9 "only ONE" Gospel and that ONE and only Gospel "was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8.

Only one Gospel covenant - Jer 31:31-34, Heb 8:6-12 and that Covenant is in the OLD Testament.

As we see in Jer 31:31-34 - that one and only Gospel covenant provides for
1. New Heart, New Birth - Law written on the heart -
2. Adoption into the family of God
3. Taught by God
4. forgiveness of sins.

 

[PeterDona]

Gal 1:6-9 "only ONE" Gospel and that ONE and only Gospel "was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8.

Only one Gospel covenant - Jer 31:31-34, Heb 8:6-12 and that Covenant is in the OLD Testament.

As we see in Jer 31:31-34 - that one and only Gospel covenant provides for
1. New Heart, New Birth - Law written on the heart -
2. Adoption into the family of God
3. Taught by God
4. forgiveness of sins.

Yes I understand now that this is the SDA position

have a nice day <3

 

[FireDragon76]

Do you consider the writings of EGW to be Scripture? Because at a minimum, even a completely impartial observer would be forced to conclude they exert a strong influence on SDA interpretation of Scripture. Indeed within the Adventist church, the interpretation of Scripture seems to be much more homogenous than within any other Christian denomination.

Indeed. In most other Christian denominations, there are a range of acceptable ways to interpret their confessional statements, with no single person being a final authority (except perhaps for Catholicism, but it's not the case in Protestantism or Orthodoxy)