Why dont SDA's and Sabbath keepers also keep the Feast Days of Leviticus 23 too???

[from scratch]

"The council of Jerusalem nixed the Sabbath command entirely!!???
And that, of course, wipes out the fact the the Sabbath is God's Sabbath made for man--His gift to us. The Lord's day. How does a human "nix" a commandment from God that He calls His day, and that His Son has said was made specifically for man? It's truly ridiculous to imagine that God made a day holy & sanctified for Himself alone, but then Christ says the day was made for man--He never once said the day was made for God!! As though He needs a day of rest!! Really now! His rest is the Sabbath, we enter into that rest day with Him, we spend it with Him, it's for us to spend with Him. To lay aside all things secular, except for the care of man and animals, to set aside all our worries, and woes, and heartaches and rest mind body and soul with Him. It became a burden only when the Rabbi's attached rule after rule after rule to it and took the whole thing out of the hand of God and put it into mans.
People who do not want to honor that day then make absurd statements like we do not keep it anyway, that we constantly break it--how would you know??--God said not to light a fire and that to you means that we do not turn on an electric--or, for that matter, a gas burner, and the min ute we do we break it! Pharasees see it that way. If you think turning on a burner is work, my condolences!--You must lead a pretty sedentary life. He meant to not cook. It was a big deal then--have to go out and pick up wood just for starters! I'm not going to the back 40 to pick up wood. Throwing allready made food in a nuker or oven is not a big deal--except to you who are looking to nitpic everyone to death just like the Rabbis did!!
To get rid of the Commandments meant Christ would have had to abolish all of them before His death. He did no such thing, in fact He said make sure that their flight not be on the Sabbath--an event that would happen long after His death and resurrection. The heirs can not change the will---That is done before the death of the one making the will. It is a covenant!--No changes after death! No one had the right to change anything after the death of Christ that He himself had not changed and what he did away with was the blood of animals and any ceremony that pointed to His death on the cross was no longer needed as He was that Lamb.--When people do not want to do something they come up with some really absurd things that do not make sense to anyone but themselves!--We have never said that keeping the sabbath saves anyone, but if you say you're keeping it and then don't, then to that person it does mean their salvation, for then it means they are living a lie. We are saved by grace--period. Not by works, but "faith without works is dead"--what is done is simply done out of love for God because He has written His law into our hearts. And that last sentence is read by many here to mean that there is no law when it plainly says He has written His LAW into our hearts!

When you flip that electric switch are you buying electricity? Even if the person running the generating plant only sits inform of a monitor and flips a switch they are working for pay which is against the 4th commandment. According to the 4th you may not employ (cause to work) another on the Sabbath.

So keep your conveniences and violate the 4th.

 

[from scratch]

As you note - some have applied "wishful thinking" to Acts 15 to suppose that even though Lev 19:18 (Love your neighbor) and Deut 6:5 (Love God) are not listed there - still those commands applied to NT saints - and yet the 4th Commandment was killed - even though James specifically appeals to the fact that "Moses is preached in the synagogues every Sabbath" as the solution to the problem.

How odd they go to that wild speculation.

But the good news is that not all will do that. For example the pro-Sunday sources listed below do not take such a wild leap of fiction with Acts 15.

Progmonk knows this to be true as well.

in Christ,

Bob

We Christians don't promote hate and sin as you insinuate.

 

[from scratch]

Actually they are details that even the pro-Sunday sources listed "notice" and that you claim you do not notice. (As we all know by now) -- your attempt to spin all of those pro-sunday sources as "Adventist" simply because they refute your speculation on this point - is not as compelling as you may have at first imagined.

Who on your list actually keeps the 7th day Sabbath?

 

[from scratch]

I guess you didn't get the memo---we can only sow the seeds--only God does the rest. Man does not convert man--God converts man.
And maybe you'd better stop asking such silly questions aimed directly towards SDAs!! If you don't want an answer--don't ask the question!!

I read all of God's memo. It appears to me you haven't.

Silly questions? I bet you can't and won't answer them. Since they're silly it should be very easy to answer them with God's Word.

 

[VictorC]

Actually they are details that even the pro-Sunday sources listed "notice" and that you claim you do not notice. (As we all know by now) -- your attempt to spin all of those pro-sunday sources as "Adventist" simply because they refute your speculation on this point - is not as compelling as you may have at first imagined.

You deleted so much content that you didn't even address the 'detail' that plagues you. After admitting that you don't keep the Sabbath Holy and you don't keep the Ten Commandments, you're expected to provide a solution to your problem, since Adventist soteriology demands compliance with the old covenant for 'salvation'. You omitted this in your reply.

 

[VictorC]

As you note - some have applied "wishful thinking" to Acts 15 to suppose that even though Lev 19:18 (Love your neighbor) and Deut 6:5 (Love God) are not listed there - still those commands applied to NT saints - and yet the 4th Commandment was killed - even though James specifically appeals to the fact that "Moses is preached in the synagogues every Sabbath" as the solution to the problem.

How odd they go to that wild speculation.

But the good news is that not all will do that. For example the pro-Sunday sources listed below do not take such a wild leap of fiction with Acts 15.

Progmonk knows this to be true as well.

in Christ,

Bob

All you had to do was provide a quote from Acts 15 that conveys the Sabbath to the Gentile Christians involved in the discourse. We aren't interested in your "interpretation" of a literal historical record.

 

[VictorC]

OH MY!!--Wonder what the Pope did about it--seeing as their catechism says it is a grave sin to not worship the sabbath on Sunday. And all those other faiths who worship on sunday, as that means they didn't know what they were doing then either and all of them must be burning in eternal hellfire. And poor Billy Graham when he said go to church this sunday--if anyone was listening to him on the radio or TV they'd be scratching their heads also. Don't forget to let the 7th Day Baptists and all the Jews everywhere know also. If anyone's interested, you might want to look up Maniilaq the Eskimo Prophet, Also YOUTube had a vedeo called Maniilaq the Eskimo prophet, don't know if it's still there. It'll give you a hint at what God does about such things, especially to a people who had no watches and no calenders. And it was long before any white man showed his face there.

Pope? What Pope?
Red herring. It doesn't even respond to the content of the post you quoted and responded to.

 

[VictorC]

"The council of Jerusalem nixed the Sabbath command entirely!!???

Yes - nowhere did the council convey the Sabbath to the Gentile Christians it assembled to consider. You can review all of Acts 15 to verify this for yourself.

And that, of course, wipes out the fact the the Sabbath is God's Sabbath made for man--His gift to us. The Lord's day. How does a human "nix" a commandment from God that He calls His day, and that His Son has said was made specifically for man? It's truly ridiculous to imagine that God made a day holy & sanctified for Himself alone, but then Christ says the day was made for man--He never once said the day was made for God!! As though He needs a day of rest!! Really now! His rest is the Sabbath, we enter into that rest day with Him, we spend it with Him, it's for us to spend with Him. To lay aside all things secular, except for the care of man and animals, to set aside all our worries, and woes, and heartaches and rest mind body and soul with Him. It became a burden only when the Rabbi's attached rule after rule after rule to it and took the whole thing out of the hand of God and put it into mans.
People who do not want to honor that day then make absurd statements like we do not keep it anyway, that we constantly break it--how would you know??--God said not to light a fire and that to you means that we do not turn on an electric--or, for that matter, a gas burner, and the min ute we do we break it! Pharasees see it that way. If you think turning on a burner is work, my condolences!--You must lead a pretty sedentary life. He meant to not cook. It was a big deal then--have to go out and pick up wood just for starters! I'm not going to the back 40 to pick up wood. Throwing allready made food in a nuker or oven is not a big deal--except to you who are looking to nitpic everyone to death just like the Rabbis did!!
To get rid of the Commandments meant Christ would have had to abolish all of them before His death. He did no such thing, in fact He said make sure that their flight not be on the Sabbath--an event that would happen long after His death and resurrection. The heirs can not change the will---That is done before the death of the one making the will. It is a covenant!--No changes after death! No one had the right to change anything after the death of Christ that He himself had not changed and what he did away with was the blood of animals and any ceremony that pointed to His death on the cross was no longer needed as He was that Lamb.--When people do not want to do something they come up with some really absurd things that do not make sense to anyone but themselves!--We have never said that keeping the sabbath saves anyone, but if you say you're keeping it and then don't, then to that person it does mean their salvation, for then it means they are living a lie. We are saved by grace--period. Not by works, but "faith without works is dead"--what is done is simply done out of love for God because He has written His law into our hearts. And that last sentence is read by many here to mean that there is no law when it plainly says He has written His LAW into our hearts!

Instead of providing anything factual, you filled your post with pure conjecture, and repeated claims that have long been proven to be false. The result is that your posts shows others that you know nearly nothing about the Sabbath.

What's worse is that you don't even acknowledge God's rest, and have no idea what the benefit ordained in the Sabbath even was in its fulfillment.

Overall you show consistent disdain for facts.

 

[LarryP2]

Yes - nowhere did the council convey the Sabbath to the Gentile Christians it assembled to consider. You can review all of Acts 15 to verify this for yourself.

Instead of providing anything factual, you filled your post with pure conjecture, and repeated claims that have long been proven to be false. The result is that your posts shows others that you know nearly nothing about the Sabbath.

What's worse is that you don't even acknowledge God's rest, and have no idea what the benefit ordained in the Sabbath even was in its fulfillment.

Overall you show consistent disdain for facts.

Adventists have an incredibly touching and idealistic idea of what the Dead Hand of Law can accomplish. They are extremely ignorant. They have watched far too much Law and Order and CSI for their own good. Their silly argument that Jesus was preaching against the "Man-made interpretations" of the law is comically naive. They just have no idea of how the law really works. I practiced Criminal Defense Law for 19 years, including 5 capital murder trials and over 400 Felony jury trials. I have sat thousands of times in jail interview rooms whiffing the stench of lives hopelessly ruined and degraded by a background in legalistic religion. Nobody has ever been healed or became a better person by following the Law, or trying to. Paul writ that large in all of his Epistles. It makes me clinically-depressed just to write this paragraph.

I used to go out of the courtroom during breaks and just vomit because of the way I wasted my life, for nothing accomplished, and participating in the sheer, agonizing black hole of the application of the Law. For absolutely nothing. Nobody wins. Ever.

"Dear God: There has to be something better," I used to bawl, on my knees, while dry heaving.

Paul held the coats while St. Stephen was getting stoned. He was a member of the Sanhedrin and an expert on the Jewish Law. I know deep down inside he stood there and got sick to his stomach, watching the torture and murder of that helpless Saint, all in careful, exacting compliance with the Mosaic code. He was sick to his stomach, well before he was struck blind. I know exactly what that feels like. Oh how many times I wished I too could have been struck blind and relieved from the unrelieved misery of interpreting and enforcing the Dead Hand of the Law!

Brutally-ignorant Adventists yelp "You want to get rid of the Ten Commandments so that you can commit Adultery and murder and shoplift at Walmart." That is not why you want to get rid of the Ten Commandments. For the Early Christians "getting rid of the Ten Commandments" meant the cardboard box full of their Lion tooth-nicked bloody bones would be kept by their Church as a Holy Relic. People like that do not need rules to deter them from inadvertently glancing at internet porn.

Sabbath keepers are just pikers. They can keep the Ten Commandments perfectly by snoozing in their Lazy Boy Recliner after overdosing on green bean casserole at the potluck.

All I know now is Grace. The Massive Nuclear Explosion of it on Resurrection Day has left me blinded by the Son. It has rocked the world. And mine.

 

[Cribstyl]

As you note - some have applied "wishful thinking" to Acts 15 to suppose that even though Lev 19:18 (Love your neighbor) and Deut 6:5 (Love God) are not listed there - still those commands applied to NT saints - and yet the 4th Commandment was killed - even though James specifically appeals to the fact that "Moses is preached in the synagogues every Sabbath" as the solution to the problem.

How odd they go to that wild speculation.

But the good news is that not all will do that. For example the pro-Sunday sources listed below do not take such a wild leap of fiction with Acts 15.

Progmonk knows this to be true as well.

in Christ,

Bob

The fact is BobRyan,
James appealed to the preceding generations. (you have embelish on words to support your doctrines)

“For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

 

[LarryP2]

As you note - some have applied "wishful thinking" to Acts 15 .....How odd they go to that wild speculation.
But the good news is that not all will do that. For example the pro-Sunday sources listed below do not take such a wild leap of fiction with Acts 15.

Those "Pro-Sunday sources" apparently lacked access to the Didache, which eliminates most, if not all of the dishonest smear of "wishful thinking" regarding the Apostle's intent in Acts 15.

The Didache - The Complete Text
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

Note the snarky reference in Section 8, where the earliest version of the Ebionite heresy, now Seventh Day Adventism in its modern format, is renounced


Never once is the "Sabbath" or "Seventh Day" or any other Jewish Holy Day mentioned in this summary from the Council of Jerusalem. The "Lord's Day", which in Early Christianity always equated with "Resurrection Day," i.e. Sunday, not the "Sabbath." And most of it goes FAR FAR beyond the Ten Commandments, and incorporates and emphasizes the teachings of Jesus. Nowhere in the New Testament or the Didache are Christians ordered to keep the Sabbath, or any other ritual of Judaism.

NEVER.

I already know what the facetious and silly Adventist argument against this is: "If the Roman Catholic Pope did not endorse the Didache as Canonical and include it in the Bible when the Pope ordered the canon of the Bible closed, then it is no good." This Papal-centric, Papacy-worshiping argument would work, other than the fact that the Didache was rediscovered only in 1874, although it predates most of the writings in the New Testament. Which makes it mighty inconvenient and embarrassing for a Judaizing, Gallatianism, Ebionite Cult founded in 1844, by a "Prophet" who never anticipated that such a document would eventually surface. Ellen White's "crystal ball" may have not been working full time. And she tried to pass herself off as such a history buff!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

 

[BobRyan]

Those "Pro-Sunday sources" apparently lacked access to the Didache, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

I think some people have in fact imagined that C.H Spurgeon who edited the BCF in the 1800's, the authors of the WCF, the RCC et al did not have access to the Didache -- but most people don't go to that extreme.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Didache is the sort of shadow document that might be expected to form the foundation for certain false doctrines -

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

The “Didache” or Teaching (longer title, “The Teaching of the Lord, by
([FONT=&quot]diañ[/FONT]) the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles”).—This work is quoted as
“Scripture,” without being named, by Clement of Alexandria (circa 170 AD, in
Strom., i. 20). It is mentioned in HE, III, 25 as the “Teachings so-called of the Apostles,” “recognized by most ecclesiastical writers,” although “not a genuine” composition of apostles. Athanasius (Fest. Epistle, 39) denies its canonicity, but acknowledges its utility. The latest ancient reference to the work from personal
knowledge is by Nicephoros (9th century) who includes it among apocryphal
writings. Thenceforth it disappears until its recent recovery in 1875 by
Bryennios.

2. Date:
There is no reliable external testimony to date. Resemblances too considerable to be accidental exist between the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas; but opinion is divided as to priority of composition. Lightfoot and others favor a common lost source. As to internal evidence the simplicity of the Eucharist and of baptism as here described, with no formal admission to the catechumenate (chapter vii); the use of “bishop” to denote the same office-bearer as presbyter; and the expectation of an impending Second Advent—point to an early date.


Date and Authorship:
[FONT=&quot]The date usually assigned is 120-150 AD[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (Lightfoot, Part I, volume II, 201).


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The Didache has been cited as the earliest non-scriptural "proof" of Sunday worship by those who profess Christ [3], although it does not ever use the word Sunday or the expression first day of the week.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

Also the one time [FONT=&quot]the Didache[/FONT] uses "on" with a day (which is in the translations of both Lake and Hall/Napier), it does not use Κατα, but it does include the Greek term for day (verse 8.1b) [10].
It may be of interest to note that in the KJV New Testament, Κατα is translated as "according to" approximately 110 times, and the only time (Acts 8:36) it is inaccurately translated as "on" it is not translated as "on" in the NKJV or NIV.
Hall and Napier translated Κατα as "according to" the six other times it is translated that SAME letter (see verses 1.5, 4.10, 11.3, 12.4, 13.5, and 13.7 [11]) and never translated it as "But every". The one other time Hall and Napier used the term "But every" (verse 13.1) while translating the Didache it is not translated from the term Κατα [12] . Also, it may be of interest to note that the KJV never translated Κατα as "but every".
Hence it appears that several translators intentionally exercised bias when translating verse 14.1.
The context of this portion of the Didache suggests that it may be referring to the Christian Passover (compare with I Corinthians 22:23-29) or some other gathering (compare with Acts 2:42), but only a forced and inaccurate translation would suggest Sunday (which is what many Sunday advocates suggest). The belief that this refers to Passover is centuries old a F. Coneybeare reported it was a belief of the Paulini:
But the Paulini also keep the feast of the Pascha on the same day (as the Jews), whatever be the day of the full moon, they call it Kuriaki, as the Jews call it Sabbath, even though it be not a Sabbath. [13]
Since the Protestant translating scholars of the Didache did not observe an annual Christian Passover and tended to be Sunday observers, this may explain why they did not translate it literally.

NETBible: Literature, Sub-Apostolic, 1

 

[BobRyan]

The fact is BobRyan,
James appealed to the preceding generations. (you have embelish on words to support your doctrines)

“For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

James does not argue the fictional idea that Moses is no longer preached in the Synagogues every Sabbath -- as I am sure we both know.

Rather he affirms this point - as a solution to the present debate.

 

[LarryP2]

Every argument that is used for and against the Didache are identical to the ones used to determine if every single Book of the Bible belonged in the Canon. What's the difference here?

The other difference here is that the Biblical Canon was closed before the Didache was re-discovered in the late 1800s. That's all. Had it been widely available when the Biblical Canon was being seriously debated by large groups of the Catholic theologians assigned to the taks, there is no question it would be included, with no more, and probably a lot less trouble than the Book of Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, James and some other canonical sticklers.
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-disputed-books.htm
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html

There is MASSIVE, OVERWHELMING, and IRREFUTABLE evidence it was used by the early Churches as a catechism to teach Church Doctrine, blessed by the Apostles.

It is clear that most of the Early Christian Fathers were relying on similar, or identical material when they harshly denounced the Ebionite/Gallatians/Judaizing heresies of Sabbath Keeping in the First and Second Centuries. Their denunciation of the Sabbath Keeping heresy is in fact, so murderously strong that it could have only come straight from the Apostles, in either oral or written form. And the Didache is similarly compiled from the words of the Apostles, from their sermons and other oral statements.

The Didache may not have specifically mentioned Sunday (It called it the "Lord's Day" which is the term ALL early Christians used for Sunday. Any argument contrary is simply disingenuous.)), but it sure did demonize the "Hypocrites" that followed the Judaizing Sabbath-Keeping Heresy. The Early Church Fathers, who were taught to do so by the Apostles, universally denounced Sabbath Keeping as a major heresy.

And the Didache was re-discovered among the possessions of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople late in the 1800s. Which is the self-same Eastern Orthodox Church that followers of the Sabbatarian/Judaizing heresy have NEVER been able to dispute their adamant contention they celebrated the Resurrection on Sunday and Easter beginning within the first year after it happened. And that they did so at the explicit instructions of the Apostles.

Their contention stands proud, unaddressed, and completely without refutation of any kind.

The Judaizing Sabbath Keepers know that contention is rock solid: That is why they refuse to even MENTION it in ANY of their heretical Sabbatarian arguments!

The Seventh Day Adventist Prophet never mentions the adamant claims of this 2,000 year old, 300 million member Church in her long-winded histories where she dishonestly claims the Pope changed Saturday to Sunday!!!! The SDA's preeminent "Sabbath Scholar" does mention it in his recitation of First Century Christianity, but never ever addresses that contention either. Nor can you get a member of the church to acknowledge the existence of it, or grapple with its contentions.

It is just simply amazing that an entire Church simply never, ever mentions any of this in ANY of its official reading material:

"The Eastern Orthodox churches never kept the Sabbath. For the first 3-4 centuries after the death of St. Paul the Eastern Church greatly eclipsed the Western Church. In fact the Church at Rome was a missionary outreach established by the Eastern Church."

......
"An understanding of the overshadowing supremacy of the Eastern Orthodox Churches during the first few centuries after the death of St. Paul is essential to understanding the immensity of the problem these facts pose to Sabbatarians. It is no wonder that Sabbatarian literature never mentions this subject.

http://www.bible.ca/7-lying-for-god-Kerry-Wynne.htm

 

[BobRyan]

Every argument that is used for and against the Didache are identical to the ones used to determine if every single Book of the Bible belonged in the Canon. What's the difference here?

I think it is glaringly obvious what the difference is - between the Didache and actual scripture.

Didache is the sort of shadow document that might be expected to form the foundation for certain false doctrines -

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

The “Didache” or Teaching (longer title, “The Teaching of the Lord, by
([FONT=&quot]diañ[/FONT]) the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles&#8221.—This work is quoted as
“Scripture,” without being named, by Clement of Alexandria (circa 170 AD, in
Strom., i. 20). It is mentioned in HE, III, 25 as the “Teachings so-called of the Apostles,” “recognized by most ecclesiastical writers,” although “not a genuine” composition of apostles. Athanasius (Fest. Epistle, 39) denies its canonicity, but acknowledges its utility. The latest ancient reference to the work from personal
knowledge is by Nicephoros (9th century) who includes it among apocryphal
writings. Thenceforth it disappears until its recent recovery in 1875 by
Bryennios.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Date and Authorship:
[FONT=&quot]The date usually assigned is 120-150 AD[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (Lightfoot, Part I, volume II, 201).[/FONT]



See?

 

[LarryP2]

The date usually assigned is 120-150 AD (Lightfoot, Part I, volume II, 201).
......
See?

What I see is that once again you are being deceptive:

"Most scholars place the Didache at some point during the mid to late first century, but John Robinson argues that it is first generation, dating it c. 40–60 AD. It is an anonymous work."
Didache - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only because it was an "anonymous work" is the only reason that it would have had any trouble gaining canonical status, had it actually been available when the Canon was being debated and closed. Precisely the same issue that was hotly debated over the Book of Hebrews.

"The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Didach twu dwdeka apostolwn), frequently called also by the shorter name of Didache, was not entirely unknown when the complete text was first discovered. The Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, the author of the Apostolic Constitutions, and others had quoted it or embodied fragments of it in their works. St. Athanasius had even mentioned it expressly by its title, the "Doctrine of the Apostles." The treatise was very popular in the early Church; some looked upon it even as an inspired book. But the complete original text was discovered only in 1873, by Philotheos Bryennios in the Codex Hierosolymitanus, which dates from 1056. The editio princeps appeared in 1883. It has since been followed by many others. Besides the original Greek, there exist also a Latin version of the first six chapters[3] and a few fragments from an Arabic translation. Quotations in the Adversus Aleatores and by St. Optatus prove that there must have existed, as early as the IInd century, a Latin version, dif- ferent from the one we possess now, which contained the whole work.
A Handbook of Patrology by J. Tixeront

And giving the gigantic oral traditions of the Apostles, "dating" the writing of the Didache proves little or nothing about when it actually originated. Again, this is precisely the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church - 2,000 years old and 300 million members - the existence of which has been actively and deceitfully suppressed by the Seventh Day Adventist Church for 150 years. And the Eastern Orthodox Church is adamant that they began celebrating the Resurrection on the first Sunday after it happened, and on Easter at the one-year anniversary of the Resurrection, at the command of the Apostles. A contention that has NEVER been disputed by ANY Sabbatarian church.

And here is probably the real reason for Adventist's vigorous attack on the Didache:

"William C. Varner, Professor of Bible and the Director of IBEX at Master‟s College makes the point that being overly cautious because of doctrinal concerns raised by the Patristic writers of the nascent Church is not helpful; “Should the excessive allegorizing of “Barnabas” or the strong emphasis on the authority of the “episkopos” by Ignatius scare us away from the deep spirituality of a Polycarp or from the simple advice on local church practice in the Didache? … It is helpful to know that around A.D. 100, the day on which believers were to gather for the breaking of bread was Sunday, not the Sabbath as some would have us believe (14:1)."

W.C. Varner, Review of The Didache by Sandt and Flusser. Master‟s Seminary Journal, V. 14 No.1, 2003.

Dr Varner‟s assessment of the value in studying the Didache and other Patristic writings should be heeded. The theology taught in America at the grass roots level has been reduced, in many churches, to an every Sunday,
anemic repetition of the “Four Spiritual Laws.” Christians are faced with critical decisions each day such as abortion and false doctrines such as the rise of Preterists and “Sabbath only” cults. Sound Biblical teaching is indeed our foundation, but as Dr. Varner states, it is helpful to know what the early Church taught and practiced.
http://remnantreport.com/impdf/didache-01.pdf

 

[BobRyan]

Date and Authorship:
[FONT=&quot]The date usually assigned is 120-150 AD[/FONT][FONT=&quot] (Lightfoot, Part I, volume II, 201).[/FONT]

What I see is that once again you are being deceptive:

"Most scholars place the Didache at some point during the mid to late first century, but John Robinson argues that it is first generation, dating it c. 40–60 AD. It is an anonymous work."
Didache - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://remnantreport.com/impdf/didache-01.pdf

I see you are quoting from Wikipedia when you see my reference to Lightfoot.

I used to write for wikipedia - maybe I should go over to that article and update it with the info from Lightfoot. (Would you then use another "source"??).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[VictorC]

We last left this conversation with two Adventists searching for the Sabbath conveyed to the Gentile Christians in Acts 15. Both have apparently abandoned their search. We also left them showing that they have no intention of keeping the Sabbaths -any of them- and they're deficient in terms of meeting Ellen White's formula for 'salvation'. No reason has been given with respect to the OP asking for a valid reason for rejecting the Sabbaths ordained in the old covenant after some 600 posts on this thread, and I consider vacuum left in the wake of excuses to provide the final answer.