Saturday and Sunday

[bugkiller]

BABerean2,

re: "The early Church did assemble at times on the first day of the week."

But only 2 times according to scripture.



re: "It became known as "the Lord's Day'..."

But not because of scripture calling it that.



re: "Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day..."

But it doesn't say that it was the first day of the week.

But there is no such record about them assembling n the Sabbath.

bugkiller

 

[BABerean2]

I think the comments from the book, "From Sabbath to Sunday", best describe what the "Lord's day" is referring to: "...the words are the equivalent of 'the day of the Lord' of the old Testament,

If you are referring to the book written by Samuele Bacchiocchi, you might want to notice the symbol of the Jesuits on the front of the book.

He graduated from the Jesuit school in Rome.

He taught at Andrews university, which is an SDA institution.

Some of those within SDA believed that he was a Jesuit.

Using Bacchiocchi as a source of unbiased truth would be a mistake.

The truth is that we do have examples of the early church meeting on the first day of the week and the Apostle Paul clearly states that we are not to judge others in the keeping of the Sabbath and that the Sabbath day is a shadow of Christ.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.


If you are claiming that worshipping on Sunday is wicked, you have gone against Paul in the first verse above.

If you are claiming we must keep the Old Covenant Sabbath, you have ignored the fact that Christ is now our Sabbath rest, under the New Covenant.

Cast out the bondwoman, which is the Sinai covenant of bondage.

Gal 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.


Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

Gal 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


.

 

[BobRyan]

BABerean2,

re: "The early Church did assemble at times on the first day of the week."

But only 2 times according to scripture.



re: "It became known as "the Lord's Day'..."

But not because of scripture calling it that.



re: "Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day..."

But it doesn't say that it was the first day of the week.

All true. Thanks for posting that.

 

[BobRyan]

But there is no such record about them assembling n the Sabbath.

bugkiller

a lot of "EVERY SABBATH" Acts 18:4 and "Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath" Acts 17:4 for Gospel preaching but not ONE such sequence of "week-day-1's" in the entire Bible.

Is that what you mean???

 

[BobRyan]

Using Bacchiocchi as a source of unbiased truth would be a mistake.

.

Not in real life.

In REAL life it would be a mistake to accuse the Apostle Paul of being an accomplished liar and then telling Christians to pay no attention to the teaching of Christ found in the Gospels.

I think we can all see that point clearly no matter your dislike of Seventh-day Adventists as an appeal to proof-by-emotionalism.

 

[BABerean2]

I think we can all see that point clearly no matter your dislike of Seventh-day Adventists as an appeal to proof-by-emotionalism.

I have meet several times with a local SDA pastor who is a direct descendant of Ellen G. White.
Our conversations were very friendly.
After our first meeting he asked that we meet again.

I have also learned some things about eschatology from Steve Wohlberg on YouTube.

My problem with Adventism is that it does not agree with what is written in the New Testament.

It has failed to "cast out" the Sinai covenant of bondage from Galatians chapter 4 and fails to acknowledge the words of Paul in Galatians chapter 3 which clearly state that the laws was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed (Christ) could come to whom the promise was made.

In many respects I have the same disagreement with Reformed Baptists.


Shut Door Documents from the Estate of Ellen G. White
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/shutdoor.html

.

 

[Bob S]

Hi BaBerean, You just do not understand. Paul is not looked on favorably by SDAs. He had it diametrically wrong. We cannot hang our hats on his writings. SDAs are the remnant and further more they have the "Spirit of Prophesy" in Ellen White. She plainly states that we will go to Hell if we do not hold true to the Sabbath.

This is the same prophet that early in her game was untrue. Before accepting carte blanche everything SDAs tell us do yourselves a favor and go to: http://www.truthorfables.com/EGW_Contradicts.htm#cAddendum and take the time to read this well documented research.

Is there one reason why we should take the word of a false Prophet and her flock of believers over the inspired words of Paul?

One of the many lies that Ellen wrote was the one that said the plan of salvation was instituted after the fall of man.


Chapter 5—The Plan of Salvation
Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost and that world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with His Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came out from the Father, His person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and doubt, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. {SR 42.1}
He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself, that through Him man might find pardon; that through the merits of His blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God and be brought into the beautiful garden and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. {SR 42.2}
At first the angels could not rejoice, for their Commander concealed nothing from them, but opened before them the plan of salvation. Jesus told them that He would stand between the wrath of His Father and guilty man, that He would bear iniquity and scorn, and but few would receive Him as the Son of God. Nearly all would hate and reject Him. He would leave all His glory in heaven, appear upon earth as a man, humble Himself as a man, become acquainted by His own experience with the various temptations with which man would be beset, that He might know how to succor those who should be tempted; and that finally, after His mission as a teacher would be accomplished, He would be delivered into the hands of men and endure almost every cruelty and suffering that Satan and his angels could inspire wicked men to inflict; that He would die the cruelest of deaths, hung up between the heavens and the earth as a guilty sinner; that He would suffer dreadful hours of agony, which even angels could not look upon, but would veil their faces from the sight. Not merely agony of body would He suffer, but mental agony, that with which bodily suffering could in no wise be compared. The weight of the sins of the whole world would be upon Him. He told them He would die and rise again the third day, and would ascend to His Father to intercede for wayward, guilty man. {SR 43.1}

Ellen was a farce and yet the SDA church holds her in the highest esteem. We have to ask ourselves the question. Was Ellen inspired when she wrote that unless we "keep" the Israelite only Sabbath we will go to Hell?

 

[bugkiller]

Hi BaBerean, You just do not understand. Paul is not looked on favorably by SDAs. He had it diametrically wrong. We cannot hang our hats on his writings. SDAs are the remnant and further more they have the "Spirit of Prophesy" in Ellen White. She plainly states that we will go to Hell if we do not hold true to the Sabbath.

This is the same prophet that early in her game was untrue. Before accepting carte blanche everything SDAs tell us do yourselves a favor and go to: http://www.truthorfables.com/EGW_Contradicts.htm#cAddendum and take the time to read this well documented research.

Is there one reason why we should take the word of a false Prophet and her flock of believers over the inspired words of Paul?

One of the many lies that Ellen wrote was the one that said the plan of salvation was instituted after the fall of man.


Chapter 5—The Plan of Salvation
Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost and that world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with His Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came out from the Father, His person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and doubt, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. {SR 42.1}
He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself, that through Him man might find pardon; that through the merits of His blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God and be brought into the beautiful garden and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. {SR 42.2}
At first the angels could not rejoice, for their Commander concealed nothing from them, but opened before them the plan of salvation. Jesus told them that He would stand between the wrath of His Father and guilty man, that He would bear iniquity and scorn, and but few would receive Him as the Son of God. Nearly all would hate and reject Him. He would leave all His glory in heaven, appear upon earth as a man, humble Himself as a man, become acquainted by His own experience with the various temptations with which man would be beset, that He might know how to succor those who should be tempted; and that finally, after His mission as a teacher would be accomplished, He would be delivered into the hands of men and endure almost every cruelty and suffering that Satan and his angels could inspire wicked men to inflict; that He would die the cruelest of deaths, hung up between the heavens and the earth as a guilty sinner; that He would suffer dreadful hours of agony, which even angels could not look upon, but would veil their faces from the sight. Not merely agony of body would He suffer, but mental agony, that with which bodily suffering could in no wise be compared. The weight of the sins of the whole world would be upon Him. He told them He would die and rise again the third day, and would ascend to His Father to intercede for wayward, guilty man. {SR 43.1}

Ellen was a farce and yet the SDA church holds her in the highest esteem. We have to ask ourselves the question. Was Ellen inspired when she wrote that unless we "keep" the Israelite only Sabbath we will go to Hell?

Is not the words "my accompanying angel" a tell tale sign for those who understand? Need I say more?

bugkiller

 

[BABerean2]

Hi BaBerean, You just do not understand. Paul is not looked on favorably by SDAs. He had it diametrically wrong. We cannot hang our hats on his writings. SDAs are the remnant and further more they have the "Spirit of Prophesy" in Ellen White. She plainly states that we will go to Hell if we do not hold true to the Sabbath.

This is the same prophet that early in her game was untrue. Before accepting carte blanche everything SDAs tell us do yourselves a favor and go to: http://www.truthorfables.com/EGW_Contradicts.htm#cAddendum and take the time to read this well documented research.

Is there one reason why we should take the word of a false Prophet and her flock of believers over the inspired words of Paul?

One of the many lies that Ellen wrote was the one that said the plan of salvation was instituted after the fall of man.


Chapter 5—The Plan of Salvation
Sorrow filled heaven, as it was realized that man was lost and that world which God had created was to be filled with mortals doomed to misery, sickness, and death, and there was no way of escape for the offender. The whole family of Adam must die. I saw the lovely Jesus and beheld an expression of sympathy and sorrow upon His countenance. Soon I saw Him approach the exceeding bright light which enshrouded the Father. Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with His Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense while Jesus was communing with His Father. Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father, and the third time He came out from the Father, His person could be seen. His countenance was calm, free from all perplexity and doubt, and shone with benevolence and loveliness, such as words cannot express. {SR 42.1}
He then made known to the angelic host that a way of escape had been made for lost man. He told them that He had been pleading with His Father, and had offered to give His life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon Himself, that through Him man might find pardon; that through the merits of His blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God and be brought into the beautiful garden and eat of the fruit of the tree of life. {SR 42.2}
At first the angels could not rejoice, for their Commander concealed nothing from them, but opened before them the plan of salvation. Jesus told them that He would stand between the wrath of His Father and guilty man, that He would bear iniquity and scorn, and but few would receive Him as the Son of God. Nearly all would hate and reject Him. He would leave all His glory in heaven, appear upon earth as a man, humble Himself as a man, become acquainted by His own experience with the various temptations with which man would be beset, that He might know how to succor those who should be tempted; and that finally, after His mission as a teacher would be accomplished, He would be delivered into the hands of men and endure almost every cruelty and suffering that Satan and his angels could inspire wicked men to inflict; that He would die the cruelest of deaths, hung up between the heavens and the earth as a guilty sinner; that He would suffer dreadful hours of agony, which even angels could not look upon, but would veil their faces from the sight. Not merely agony of body would He suffer, but mental agony, that with which bodily suffering could in no wise be compared. The weight of the sins of the whole world would be upon Him. He told them He would die and rise again the third day, and would ascend to His Father to intercede for wayward, guilty man. {SR 43.1}

Ellen was a farce and yet the SDA church holds her in the highest esteem. We have to ask ourselves the question. Was Ellen inspired when she wrote that unless we "keep" the Israelite only Sabbath we will go to Hell?

I agree with everything you said.
Never being a member of the SDA, there are some things I will never understand.

However, I know the organization started wrong and when you start out wrong you will usually end up wrong.

To this day the organization continues to be a corporation run by those who started wrong.

Ellen was no more a prophet than I am.

Former Adventists like Dale Ratzlaff have done a great deal to reveal the truth about the doctrine in recent years.

I appreciate your efforts to speak the truth on this important issue.

I love you, Brother.

.

 

[bugkiller]

a lot of "EVERY SABBATH" Acts 18:4 and "Sabbath after Sabbath after Sabbath" Acts 17:4 for Gospel preaching but not ONE such sequence of "week-day-1's" in the entire Bible.

Is that what you mean???

Not a single one of your verses are about Christian worship activity.

bugkiller

 

[rstrats]

bugkiller,
re: "Not a single one of your verses are about Christian worship activity."

And neither do the only 2 scriptures that mention a getting together on the first of the week say anything about "Christian worship activity".

 

[BABerean2]

bugkiller,
re: "Not a single one of your verses are about Christian worship activity."

And neither do the only 2 scriptures that mention a getting together on the first of the week say anything about "Christian worship activity".

(Act 20:7)　 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

We have preaching when I worship with my church body.

How about you?

.

 

[bugkiller]

bugkiller,
re: "Not a single one of your verses are about Christian worship activity."

And neither do the only 2 scriptures that mention a getting together on the first of the week say anything about "Christian worship activity".

Breaking bread is a religious activity.

bugkiller

 

[rstrats]

Deleted. Double post.

 

[rstrats]

bugkiller,
re: "...Paul preached unto them..."
re: "We have preaching when I worship with my church body."



Strong's gives the definition for the Greek word "dialegomai" in Acts 20:7 as: reason, dispute, speak, preach, discuss. But nowhere does it give "worship" as a meaning. Also, over 30 versions/translations do not use the word "preach" in Acts 20:7, but rather use words like, talking, conversing, speaking, reasoning, discussing, addressed, disputed, discoursed, etc.

 

[rstrats]

bugkiller,
re: "Breaking bread is a religious activity."


You are merely assuming that the "breaking bread" in Acts 20:7 is referring to the Lord's Supper.

Acts 20:7 could simply be saying that the disciples got together to eat a meal on this particular first day of the week . The phrase, "to break bread", does not have to refer to a worship service - unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.

But even if "breaking bread" did always refer to the Lord's Supper, Acts 2:46 says that the believers broke bread every day. In this case the need for any specialness being placed on the first day because of breaking bread would be eliminated.

When Paul was shipwrecked on the voyage to Rome, the sailors had been fasting out of fright. But "Paul urged them all to take some food, saying, 'Today is the fourteenth day that you have continued in suspense and without food, having taken nothing. Therefore I urge you to take some food; it will give you strength...' And when he had said this, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat" (Acts 27:33-35, RSV). Here Paul broke bread to give to unconverted sailors who were hungry. It was hardly the Lord's Supper. .

 

[bugkiller]

bugkiller,
re: "...Paul preached unto them..."
re: "We have preaching when I worship with my church body."



Strong's gives the definition for the Greek word "dialegomai" in Acts 20:7 as: reason, dispute, speak, preach, discuss. But nowhere does it give "worship" as a meaning. Also, over 30 versions/translations do not use the word "preach" in Acts 20:7, but rather use words like, talking, conversing, speaking, reasoning, discussing, addressed, disputed, discoursed, etc.

Preaching is part of a religious worship activity.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

bugkiller,
re: "Breaking bread is a religious activity."


You are merely assuming that the "breaking bread" in Acts 20:7 is referring to the Lord's Supper.

Acts 20:7 could simply be saying that the disciples got together to eat a meal on this particular first day of the week . The phrase, "to break bread", does not have to refer to a worship service - unless it is specifically stated - but to dividing loaves of bread for a meal. "It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal...... The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds" (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.

But even if "breaking bread" did always refer to the Lord's Supper, Acts 2:46 says that the believers broke bread every day. In this case the need for any specialness being placed on the first day because of breaking bread would be eliminated.

When Paul was shipwrecked on the voyage to Rome, the sailors had been fasting out of fright. But "Paul urged them all to take some food, saying, 'Today is the fourteenth day that you have continued in suspense and without food, having taken nothing. Therefore I urge you to take some food; it will give you strength...' And when he had said this, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat" (Acts 27:33-35, RSV). Here Paul broke bread to give to unconverted sailors who were hungry. It was hardly the Lord's Supper. .

The argument of a disbeliever. There is no place in Scripture indicating the breaking of bread is merely a general meal.

bugkiller

 

[rstrats]

bugkiller,
re: "The argument of a disbeliever."

And exactly how does that automatically make the argument fallacious?



re: "There is no place in Scripture indicating the breaking of bread is merely a general meal."

When Paul was shipwrecked on the voyage to Rome, the sailors had been fasting out of fright. But "Paul urged them all to take some food, saying, 'Today is the fourteenth day that you have continued in suspense and without food, having taken nothing. Therefore I urge you to take some food; it will give you strength...' And when he had said this, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat" (Acts 27:33-35, RSV). Here Paul broke bread to give to unconverted sailors who were hungry. It was hardly the Lord's Supper. Are you saying that this was the "Lord's Supper"?



re: "Preaching is part of a religious worship activity."

But does talking, conversing, speaking, reasoning, discussing, addressing, disputing, and discoursing in a meeting automatically mean that worship activity is going on?



the IVF Bible Dictionary, 750: "‘To break bread’ was a common Jewish expression for the sharing of a meal."



"All of this confusion just illustrates the problem! When exactly do we know for sure that the concept of 'breaking bread' has reference to the Lord's Supper? It might surprise some disciples to discover that nowhere in the New Covenant writings is the specific phrase 'breaking bread' ever directly linked to the Lord's Supper commemoration. Brother John W. Wood wrote, 'There is no place in the Scripture that identifies 'breaking bread' as specifically being the Lord's Supper. It has become a tradition originating out of the minds of men as far back as the third century, and has since been accepted by all men as truth.' (The Examiner, vol. 4, no. 5, September, 1989) The reality is that, at best, we are simply making an educated guess; each passage is a judgment call, and disciples have differed over those judgments for centuries. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible declares the phrase 'could designate a common meal or the Eucharist" (p. 199), and this 'has been vigorously debated' for well over fifteen hundred years. (Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 9, p. 289)" (Name of author has been misplaced)

 

[BABerean2]

re: "Preaching is part of a religious worship activity."

But does talking, conversing, speaking, reasoning, discussing, addressing, disputing, and discoursing in a meeting automatically mean that worship activity is going on?

Are you trying to tell us that this record written by Luke about Paul and these earlier believers getting together and breaking bread and hearing preaching and it had nothing to do with their faith in Christ?

.