What is the seventh day as stated in the bible?

[Elder 111]

Clearly not, there is a distinction between "today" as a rest that is open to us, but was closed to the Israelites who were and still do practice the Sabbath.


It's implied, what is the rebellion in view? Did Sinai and as has been pointed out the Manna precede or come after the rebellion? The rebellion is those who left with Moses and provoked God for forty years, clearly there must be a juxtaposition between Christ's "today" and Moses' Sabbath. (3:16-19)

• We do not form doctrines nor understand God's word by implications (assumptions). Isaiah 28:
  9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
  10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
  11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
  12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. (looks like the people had rest before "today")
  
  13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
• The Sabbath is NOT OF MOSES!!!!! God wrote the ten commandments of which the Sabbath is a part and Jesus is Lord or the same Sabbath that He created Blessed hallowed and sanctified! Mark 2:28 and Genesis 2:2-3.
• What was the nature of the rebellion? Unbelief Heb. 4:6. What was the result? There did not enter Canaan for forty tears! So is the "rest" Canaan or Christ? Rest from wondering in the wilderness or eternity with God? The bible speaks of Canaan and the Greek means a place. katapausis:
  1. a putting to rest
     
     1. calming of the winds
  2. a resting place
     
     1. metaph. the heavenly blessedness in which God dwells, and of which he has promised to make persevering believers in Christ partakers after the toils and trials of life on earth are ended.
        
     • In verse 9 the tone changes. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
       sabbatismos:
       
       1. a keeping sabbath
       2. the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians
       • There are 2 "rests" in this passage. A place and a time.
  
  

I think you don't understand me, I'm not exactly saying that Christ is the Rest, but that the way back into the Rest of God is wrought by Christ, consider again these Israelites in the rebellion, where are they in the story, before or after the manna and Sinai? They have what you would consider the restored Sabbath, yet it is said of them. "They shall not enter my rest." Doesn't that mean that if the Rest of God was the Sabbath that God would have taken away the Sabbath from them for him to actually fulfil this? But He didn't and so as the writer to the Hebrews does, we must look elsewhere. (4:3-5)

• I don't have to understand you, just Scripture. They entering to rest was to enter Canaan from wondering all their days in the wilderness, not with Sabbath rest! God never took away His salvation from any man that sought Him! John 3:16.

Where's the corporate worship? There is certainly family worship, but not corporate, as I said before, only the High Sabbaths are actually a calling together to corporate worship.

A Holy convocation is not corporate worship??!! Please!

Good for you, you've found where the Sabbath is patterned on the seventh day, on the creation week. Now why did it have to be reminded to the Israelites if it's been cyclical since creation? Also far more important, what does God do that this Sabbath doesn't for it to be distinct from His Rest? (Heb 4:3-6)

• So when God writes "is" He means pattern? When did God not remind Israel of anything? Israel was enslaved in Egypt, they did as told not as willed. Good reason for Gos to say Remember!!
• It is not what the Sabbath does it is what God requires. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
  sabbatismos:a keeping sabbath.

 

[duolos]

We do not form doctrines nor understand God's word by implications (assumptions).

Nope, you're demonstrating quite clearly; EGW said it, I believe it, The Trinity, The Real Presence, The God-Man, these are all implicatory doctrines formed from a complex of texts, as is the opening up of God's Rest whenever it is called "today"

Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. (looks like the people had rest before "today")

Looks like you misunderstand not just me but even this passage which you quote, in this passage God is predicting the massive falling away of the Israelites in light of the Gospel, so those to whom the Rest of Christ is preached (wouldn't that include you?) do not hear, but rather because God has closed them off from seeing His Majesty and Glory in the complex of texts (hmmmmm....) only hear; "ki saw lasaw saw lasaw, qaw laqaw qaw laqaw, sam ze'er sam ze'er"

The Sabbath is NOT OF MOSES!!!!! God wrote the ten commandments of which the Sabbath is a part and Jesus is Lord or the same Sabbath that He created Blessed hallowed and sanctified! Mark 2:28 and Genesis 2:2-3.

The Sabbath given through Moses, but it comes out the same, the Sabbath came through Moses, God's Rest came through Christ, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath because he is the herald of a better Rest.

What was the nature of the rebellion? Unbelief Heb. 4:6. What was the result? There did not enter Canaan for forty tears! So is the "rest" Canaan or Christ? Rest from wondering in the wilderness or eternity with God? The bible speaks of Canaan and the Greek means a place. katapausis:

• 1. a putting to rest
     1. calming of the winds
  2. a resting place
     1. metaph. the heavenly blessedness in which God dwells, and of which he has promised to make persevering believers in Christ partakers after the toils and trials of life on earth are ended.
     • In verse 9 the tone changes. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
       sabbatismos:
       1. a keeping sabbath
       2. the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians
       • There are 2 "rests" in this passage. A place and a time.

We've been over this already, go back, read my exegesis, it still amazes me that you haven't dealt with this properly, there is a distinction made in 4:3-5 between God's rest in Gen 2:1-3 and the Sabbath given in the Wilderness and the rest of the land of Canaan is dealt with in 4:8 where because God spoke through David after Joshua brought them into the land, and after David had rest (2 Sam 7:1) that there was a promise of entering into God's rest which was still open through the shadow that would eventually be revealed to be Christ the land cannot be the Rest of God. So there are actually three rests, there is the Sabbath(3:16 they already had this), Canaan(4:8 God swore that they would not enter here), and God's Rest/"Today"(4:3-5 By implication (the Writer's not mine) God swore that they would not enter here either)

I don't have to understand you, just Scripture. They entering to rest was to enter Canaan from wondering all their days in the wilderness, not with Sabbath rest! God never took away His salvation from any man that sought Him! John 3:16.

But you're not understanding me, or Scripture, you're surface reading at best, you have your idea of what this passage says, you are using a translation that obfuscates what's going on both with incorrect paragraphing and a mistranslation in 4:8. Never mind the fact that no one seeks God of their own volition (Rom 3:11)

A Holy convocation is not corporate worship??!! Please!

Well when you're not supposed to leave your house it must be a family worship not a corporate worship.

So when God writes "is" He means pattern? When did God not remind Israel of anything? Israel was enslaved in Egypt, they did as told not as willed. Good reason for Gos to say Remember!!

Well if you're going to play it as if Ex 20 precedes Gen 2:1-3 then sure who cares! But you need to understand that Ex 20 is talking in a cyclical manner, Gen 1:1-2:3 is not creation happens once, so the cycle is based off the once-for-all.
And this is besides the fact that there is a Scriptural argument for Resurrection Day for being both Lord's Day and the Christian Sabbath. But again it relies on critical thinking and a complex of texts so I'm not sure you have the time or want to deal with that either, you just want to sit in your judaizer sand pit and be left alone only hearing; "ki saw lasaw saw lasaw, qaw laqaw qaw laqaw, sam ze'er sam ze'er"

It is not what the Sabbath does it is what God requires. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

• sabbatismos:a keeping sabbath.

You do have an unbelieving heart, look at that, you say to yourself, I'm going to enter into God's rest! He can't make me or refuse me, I'm going to do it!

 

[Elder 111]

Nope, you're demonstrating quite clearly; EGW said it, I believe it, The Trinity, The Real Presence, The God-Man, these are all implicatory doctrines formed from a complex of texts, as is the opening up of God's Rest whenever it is called "today"

Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. (looks like the people had rest before "today")

Looks like you misunderstand not just me but even this passage which you quote, in this passage God is predicting the massive falling away of the Israelites in light of the Gospel, so those to whom the Rest of Christ is preached (wouldn't that include you?) do not hear, but rather because God has closed them off from seeing His Majesty and Glory in the complex of texts (hmmmmm....) only hear; "ki saw lasaw saw lasaw, qaw laqaw qaw laqaw, sam ze'er sam ze'er"


The Sabbath given through Moses, but it comes out the same, the Sabbath came through Moses, God's Rest came through Christ, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath because he is the herald of a better Rest.

We've been over this already, go back, read my exegesis, it still amazes me that you haven't dealt with this properly, there is a distinction made in 4:3-5 between God's rest in Gen 2:1-3 and the Sabbath given in the Wilderness and the rest of the land of Canaan is dealt with in 4:8 where because God spoke through David after Joshua brought them into the land, and after David had rest (2 Sam 7:1) that there was a promise of entering into God's rest which was still open through the shadow that would eventually be revealed to be Christ the land cannot be the Rest of God. So there are actually three rests, there is the Sabbath(3:16 they already had this), Canaan(4:8 God swore that they would not enter here), and God's Rest/"Today"(4:3-5 By implication (the Writer's not mine) God swore that they would not enter here either)


But you're not understanding me, or Scripture, you're surface reading at best, you have your idea of what this passage says, you are using a translation that obfuscates what's going on both with incorrect paragraphing and a mistranslation in 4:8. Never mind the fact that no one seeks God of their own volition (Rom 3:11)


Well when you're not supposed to leave your house it must be a family worship not a corporate worship.


Well if you're going to play it as if Ex 20 precedes Gen 2:1-3 then sure who cares! But you need to understand that Ex 20 is talking in a cyclical manner, Gen 1:1-2:3 is not creation happens once, so the cycle is based off the once-for-all.
And this is besides the fact that there is a Scriptural argument for Resurrection Day for being both Lord's Day and the Christian Sabbath. But again it relies on critical thinking and a complex of texts so I'm not sure you have the time or want to deal with that either, you just want to sit in your judaizer sand pit and be left alone only hearing; "ki saw lasaw saw lasaw, qaw laqaw qaw laqaw, sam ze'er sam ze'er"


You do have an unbelieving heart, look at that, you say to yourself, I'm going to enter into God's rest! He can't make me or refuse me, I'm going to do it![/quote]
You have a doctrine that have not been taught in scripture. All of that Just to deny God's Holy blessed, hallowed and Sanctified Sabbath. God said: "the seventh day is the Sabbath" Ex20:10 and you go all over the world to prove God wrong. None of the points you have put forward are found in scripture. That is good reason just to ignore it all.
Have a great Sabbath day.

 

[duolos]

You have a doctrine that have not been taught in scripture. All of that Just to deny God's Holy blessed, hallowed and Sanctified Sabbath. God said: "the seventh day is the Sabbath" Ex20:10 and you go all over the world to prove God wrong. None of the points you have put forward are found in scripture. That is good reason just to ignore it all.
Have a great Sabbath day.

Here we see that it is indeed true, to those who God says "This is rest; give rest to the weary; and this is repose" the word of the Lord is to them precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little, they have fallen back and been broken and ensnared by one going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, who has an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion, but is of no value in curbing the indulgences and affluence of the flesh.

 

[BobRyan]

The OT is not as optional as some have imagined - in every case in the NT where the term scripture is used for NT saints - it is a reference to the OT text. And the OT text is never called "visions puffed up without reasons" but rather it is called "scripture" 2Tim 3:16, and "The Holy Spirit Says" as in Heb 4 and in Heb 10 - and it is called "The Word of God" by Christ in Mark 7:6-13.

I will have to go with the actual Bible on that point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[duolos]

The OT is not as optional as some have imagined - in every case in the NT where the term scripture is used for NT saints - it is a reference to the OT text. And the OT text is never called "visions puffed up without reasons" but rather it is called "scripture" 2Tim 3:16, and "The Holy Spirit Says" as in Heb 4 and in Heb 10 - and it is called "The Word of God" by Christ in Mark 7:6-13.

I will have to go with the actual Bible on that point.

in Christ,

Bob

I'll take this as a reply to my previous post as I'm the one that quoted Col 2:16-19 which I find to be a passage which quite fascinatingly preempts and refutes Seventh Day Adventism, what with their prophet who passes judgment concerning food, drink and the Sabbath (16) insists on asceticism (18) worship of angels (18)and goes on in detail about her visions (18)

It's also interesting that our Biblicist friend didn't also pick up on the quotation of Isa 28:13, not understanding that this passage cuts out any hope for the legalist to get anywhere with God at all, they cling to the word but do not have relationship with the one from whom the word is come.

 

[bugkiller]

Looks like you misunderstand not just me but even this passage which you quote, in this passage God is predicting the massive falling away of the Israelites in light of the Gospel, so those to whom the Rest of Christ is preached (wouldn't that include you?) do not hear, but rather because God has closed them off from seeing His Majesty and Glory in the complex of texts (hmmmmm....) only hear; "ki saw lasaw saw lasaw, qaw laqaw qaw laqaw, sam ze'er sam ze'er"


The Sabbath given through Moses, but it comes out the same, the Sabbath came through Moses, God's Rest came through Christ, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath because he is the herald of a better Rest.

We've been over this already, go back, read my exegesis, it still amazes me that you haven't dealt with this properly, there is a distinction made in 4:3-5 between God's rest in Gen 2:1-3 and the Sabbath given in the Wilderness and the rest of the land of Canaan is dealt with in 4:8 where because God spoke through David after Joshua brought them into the land, and after David had rest (2 Sam 7:1) that there was a promise of entering into God's rest which was still open through the shadow that would eventually be revealed to be Christ the land cannot be the Rest of God. So there are actually three rests, there is the Sabbath(3:16 they already had this), Canaan(4:8 God swore that they would not enter here), and God's Rest/"Today"(4:3-5 By implication (the Writer's not mine) God swore that they would not enter here either)


But you're not understanding me, or Scripture, you're surface reading at best, you have your idea of what this passage says, you are using a translation that obfuscates what's going on both with incorrect paragraphing and a mistranslation in 4:8. Never mind the fact that no one seeks God of their own volition (Rom 3:11)


Well when you're not supposed to leave your house it must be a family worship not a corporate worship.


Well if you're going to play it as if Ex 20 precedes Gen 2:1-3 then sure who cares! But you need to understand that Ex 20 is talking in a cyclical manner, Gen 1:1-2:3 is not creation happens once, so the cycle is based off the once-for-all.
And this is besides the fact that there is a Scriptural argument for Resurrection Day for being both Lord's Day and the Christian Sabbath. But again it relies on critical thinking and a complex of texts so I'm not sure you have the time or want to deal with that either, you just want to sit in your judaizer sand pit and be left alone only hearing; "ki saw lasaw saw lasaw, qaw laqaw qaw laqaw, sam ze'er sam ze'er"


You do have an unbelieving heart, look at that, you say to yourself, I'm going to enter into God's rest! He can't make me or refuse me, I'm going to do it!

You have a doctrine that have not been taught in scripture. All of that Just to deny God's Holy blessed, hallowed and Sanctified Sabbath. God said: "the seventh day is the Sabbath" Ex20:10 and you go all over the world to prove God wrong. None of the points you have put forward are found in scripture. That is good reason just to ignore it all.
Have a great Sabbath day.[/QUOTE]Where are you quoting from? The above doesn't read like Elder 111.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

The OT is not as optional as some have imagined - in every case in the NT where the term scripture is used for NT saints - it is a reference to the OT text. And the OT text is never called "visions puffed up without reasons" but rather it is called "scripture" 2Tim 3:16, and "The Holy Spirit Says" as in Heb 4 and in Heb 10 - and it is called "The Word of God" by Christ in Mark 7:6-13.

I will have to go with the actual Bible on that point.

in Christ,

Bob

And so what? You intend for us to believe the NT is merely an extension of the OT with nothing new. You're trying to obligate us to the law. Essentially this is a rejection of grace. Your full intention is to discredit the NT.

So when Jesus said - A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. He or John is lying.

I think you're merely playing games with our minds and quoting only part of a text and showing it somewhere else. This is called sophistry. I even got the word added in my vocabulary from EGW, herself.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

I'll take this as a reply to my previous post as I'm the one that quoted Col 2:16-19 which I find to be a passage which quite fascinatingly preempts and refutes Seventh Day Adventism, what with their prophet who passes judgment concerning food, drink and the Sabbath (16) insists on asceticism (18) worship of angels (18)and goes on in detail about her visions (18)

It's also interesting that our Biblicist friend didn't also pick up on the quotation of Isa 28:13, not understanding that this passage cuts out any hope for the legalist to get anywhere with God at all, they cling to the word but do not have relationship with the one from whom the word is come.

I'd say you got it pegged.

bugkiller

 

[duolos]

Where are you quoting from? The above doesn't read like Elder 111.

bugkiller

I broke the quote tags

 

[BobRyan]

The OT is not as optional as some have imagined - in every case in the NT where the term scripture is used for NT saints - it is a reference to the OT text. And the OT text is never called "visions puffed up without reasons" but rather it is called "scripture" 2Tim 3:16, and "The Holy Spirit Says" as in Heb 4 and in Heb 10 - and it is called "The Word of God" by Christ in Mark 7:6-13.

I will have to go with the actual Bible on that point.

Because... Bible details matter.

I'll take this as a reply to my previous post as I'm the one that quoted Col 2:16-19 which I find to be a passage which quite fascinatingly preempts and refutes Seventh Day Adventism

ok then... by all means.

, what with their prophet who passes judgment concerning food, drink and the Sabbath (16) insists on asceticism (18) worship of angels (18)and goes on in detail about her visions (18)

Every prophet mentioned in the Bible spoke from dreams or visions.


in the case of Col 2 Paul refutes the practice of making stuff up - he does not refute scripture.


the point remains. context. context. context.

I thought your intent was to refute something - or did you propose that prophecy itself is not of God no matter the Bible texts of 1Cor 12 and 1Cor 14:1, and 1Thess 5..??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As noted in my post above - "Bible details matter" even in Colossians 2

[FONT=&quot]Paul is not deleting scripture in Col 2. He is condemning the practice of simply "making stuff up'
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command. But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Col 2[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]19 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21 [/FONT][FONT=&quot](Touch not; taste not; handle not;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]22 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Col 2[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]20 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)[/FONT]

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

In Mark 7:6-13 the Jews were simply "making stuff up" to get around one of the TEN Commandments - and of course Christ condemned them for that.

In Mark 2:19-22 they did it as well and Christ refuted their arguments.

Is it any wonder that in Col 2 the saints were contending with the same problem of man-made-doctrine and traditions -- "making stuff up"??

Not at all surprising.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[duolos]

ok then... by all means.

Who were you addressing it to if not me? Who else quoted Col 2, aside from yourself?

Every prophet mentioned in the Bible spoke from dreams or visions.

None of them half as much as your "prophet" who by the way did delete scripture, made things up, pushed asceticism to the nth degree, all the stuff that you say that Paul is warning about in Col 2.

in the case of Col 2 Paul refutes the practice of making stuff up - he does not refute scripture.

I'm not saying that he refutes Scripture, I'm saying he preemptively refutes your "prophet" or are the two synonymous?

the point remains. context. context. context.

Of which both you and your "prophet" are severely lacking.

I thought your intent was to refute something - or did you propose that prophecy itself is not of God no matter the Bible texts of 1Cor 12 and 1Cor 14:1, and 1Thess 5..??

I'm saying that Ellen Gould White cannot be a prophet because she spoke against Scripture numerous times, called others to herself and not to Christ by making herself the conduit of salvation, and most heinously called into question the finished work of Christ.

 

[listed]

Because... Bible details matter.

ok then... by all means.

Every prophet mentioned in the Bible spoke from dreams or visions.


in the case of Col 2 Paul refutes the practice of making stuff up - he does not refute scripture.


the point remains. context. context. context.

I thought your intent was to refute something - or did you propose that prophecy itself is not of God no matter the Bible texts of 1Cor 12 and 1Cor 14:1, and 1Thess 5..??

in Christ,

Bob

We know by now the only Bible details that matter are the ones you point us to ignoring the rest.

 

[listed]

As noted in my post above - "Bible details matter" even in Colossians 2

[FONT=&quot]Paul is not deleting scripture in Col 2. He is condemning the practice of simply "making stuff up'
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command. But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Col 2[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]18 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]19 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21 [/FONT][FONT=&quot](Touch not; taste not; handle not;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]22 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Col 2[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]20 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]21 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]23 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)[/FONT]

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

In Mark 7:6-13 the Jews were simply "making stuff up" to get around one of the TEN Commandments - and of course Christ condemned them for that.

In Mark 2:19-22 they did it as well and Christ refuted their arguments.

Is it any wonder that in Col 2 the saints were contending with the same problem of man-made-doctrine and traditions -- "making stuff up"??

Not at all surprising.

in Christ,

Bob

I like your version's rendition of Col 2:23. Seeing there are no requirements stated in the New Testament about the Sabbath being kept I would charge that you have a man (er woman's) made religious practice.

[FONT=&quot]23 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)

This is exactly what you are doing in your religious practice. And to quote you and your quote are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

 

[BobRyan]

I like your version's rendition of Col 2:23. ....

Glad to hear it - I have an entire thread started for discussing Col 2.

Full of "Bible details".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The OT is not as optional as some have imagined - in every case in the NT where the term scripture is used for NT saints - it is a reference to the OT text. And the OT text is never called "visions puffed up without reasons" but rather it is called "scripture" 2Tim 3:16, and "The Holy Spirit Says" as in Heb 4 and in Heb 10 - and it is called "The Word of God" by Christ in Mark 7:6-13.

I will have to go with the actual Bible on that point.

Because... Bible details matter.

I'll take this as a reply to my previous post as I'm the one that quoted Col 2:16-19 which I find to be a passage which quite fascinatingly preempts and refutes Seventh Day Adventism

ok then... by all means.

, what with their prophet who passes judgment concerning food, drink and the Sabbath (16) insists on asceticism (18) worship of angels (18)and goes on in detail about her visions (18)

Every prophet mentioned in the Bible spoke from dreams or visions.


in the case of Col 2 Paul refutes the practice of making stuff up - he does not refute scripture.


the point remains. context. context. context.

I thought your intent was to refute something - or did you propose that prophecy itself is not of God no matter the Bible texts of 1Cor 12 and 1Cor 14:1, and 1Thess 5..??

Who were you addressing it to if not me? Who else quoted Col 2, aside from yourself?

You brought up Col 2 and as I said it looked like you wanted to make a claim from the Bible details in Col 2 for your argument. I simply said that you were welcomed to do so.

I then started an entire thread just on Col 2 - perfect place to highlight 'all those Bible details' in that chapter.

all the stuff that you say that Paul is warning about in Col 2.

Paul is not arguing against the spiritual gifts list that HE gave in 1Cor 12 "First Apostles then prophets" nor against his 1Cor 14:1 statement "desire earnestly spiritual gifts but especially that you may prophesy".

Paul and John and others would be writing more inspired text long after Col 2 was written.

As we all know.

I am curious about when you will make your case from Col 2.

I'm saying that Ellen Gould White cannot be a prophet

According to Col 2????

I find your logic "illusive" just then.

because she spoke against Scripture numerous times,

well... not in real life.

Sounds like you would like to start a thread on prophets ... or ... just about Ellen White.

This thread is about "what is the seventh day in the Bible".

And Col 2 as you brought it up - does have something to say about doctrine that is supported by the Bible vs worshipping angels and making up rules such as the ones we find in Mark 7:6-13 where Christ hammers the Jewish church magisterium of his day - sola scriptura.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Hismessenger]

No one is saying that the seventh day sabbath is not the sabbath but there were more sabbaths called by God and most are too hung up on the day, rather than the spirit.

hismessenger

 

[Elder 111]

No one is saying that the seventh day sabbath is not the sabbath but there were more sabbaths called by God and most are too hung up on the day, rather than the spirit.

hismessenger

You might not know but there are some that are saying the seventh day is not the Sabbath, but we know that the bible plainly states that it is.

 

[VictorC]

You might not know but there are some that are saying the seventh day is not the Sabbath, but we know that the bible plainly states that it is.

This doesn't acknowledge those "some" who have pointed out your use of the present-tense "is" ignores God's rest since the seventh day. While you're focused on the weekly cycle, we've shown you a Biblical unction we have to enter into His rest instead of the Sabbath.