The Lord's Day is Sunday.

[Bible Highlighter]

I am in the Bible reading Business - when the translators tell the reader they "inserted" the word "alike" in Rom 14:5-6 - and that it is not actually in the manuscript as copied from Paul ... I believe them.

I don’t believe them because Jesus said beware of the scribes.
Scribes are those who TRAN-scribe the Scriptures.
It would be the scholars of our day.

Scholars do not help me to understand God’s Word. I just read the Bible, and believe it because faith comes by hearing the Word of God and not by scholars. Does Romans 10:17 says faith comes by hearing scholars or the Word of God?

I believe God preserved His words perfectly for today as Scripture says.
God does not make mistakes.
His Word is perfect, and it can be trusted.
We do not have to seek out the book of the Lord.
It can be found now and today.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Fine - lets "edit" the actual New Covenant text in actual scripture and replace it as you suggest above (since you are "still" not quoting the New Covenant).

31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant (I WILL make the NEW TESTAMENT ) with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “But this is the covenant (THIS IS the NEW TESTAMENT) which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord,
a. “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it;
b. and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
c. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord,
e. “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

That becomes a 2 sentence NEW TESTAMENT with the substitution you suggest.

The New Covenant writes the Law of God on the heart... the Law known to Jeremiah and his readers.

Look. I already quoted from the New Testament in this thread. I told you can go back and check out those verses in the New Testament for yourself.

Also, I don’t see what your point is in your quote of Jeremiah here. Your not really being clear. Do you see this event as happening today or in the time of the Millennium?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

As you can see from my post I view Jer 31:31-34 having God say "this IS the NEW Covenant" - as the correct view. And I don't think the entire New Testament can be found in Jer 31

The New Testament we should be concerned about is the one we are living in now. The New Testament (or New Covenant) in the Millennium (Jer 31) is yet future and while I am sure it may be edifying to know, it is not essential to our current Christian life because things will be a whole lot different there. Satan will be cast into the bottomless pit during that time, and Jesus will be reigning for 1,000 years and animals will be living in peace with each other, etc.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If your argument is that the problem was that some people told gentiles that taking God's name in vain is a sin (Ex 20:7) then you completely omitted Acts 15:1 even though I stated repeatedly that Acts 15:1 is the issue and frames the context for Acts 15:5

Acts 15:1 " Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

There is not one word in the NT saying it is ok for gentiles to take God's name in vain.

What is more in Rom 13 when Paul lists the commandments to be fulfilled by Christians - he quotes exclusively from the LAW of Moses.

In Acts 21 we see more full detail in how the ceremonial laws in general were included in the discussion about circumcision.

Acts 21
17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.

Notice that in context of "circumcision" and "keeping the Law" - there is nothing at all here about "do not take God's name in vain" or "remember the Sabbath day" - rather it is specifically and singularly about "the ceremonial law" alone. as Acts 21 points out.

Nothing at all about "do not take God's name in vain".

Which explains why - Sabbath observance among Christians was highlighted as the SOLUTION to the Acts 15:1 problem

Acts 15:
21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

Okay, Acts 21 does not change what happened in Acts of the Apostles 15:24 where the council ruled in saying that the Gentile Christians were not commanded to keep the Law of Moses. The situation in Acts 21 is Paul slipping up in going back to the Old Law wrongfully. It records Paul’s mistake in going back to the Old Law and God stopped him with going through the purification OT rite by having him arrested. In fact, Paul was warned not to go to Jerusalem by the Spirit and yet he went anyways because he loved his people (the Jews).

 

[HIM]

Is 66:23 says that for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship"

Interesting that given that Isaiah is the one writing and his readers are Jews - you can see how they might think that "From Sabbath to Sabbath" is speaking about the Sabbath that they know to be in the Ten Commandments.

We agree that we are not yet in the New Earth - however (Exegesis and so then "context again") - Isaiah and his readers would also know that -

1. Isaiah and his readers already ARE coming together for worship from Sabbath to Sabbath.
2. The term “Sabbath” has a very specific meaning to Isaiah and his readers not merely the more ambiguous “weekly”.
3. The entire world, all-mankind- is not joining them in that Sabbath after Sabbath observance as of that Isaiah 66 writing or as of today.
4. They are not living in the New Earth yet
5. The gentiles were just singled out for Sabbath keeping back in Isaiah 56:6

Thanks for the post Ryan. I noticed something in relation to Isaiah 56 that also should be noted. Verse seven states even the sons of the stranger that join themselves to the Lord. Those who love His Name and join themselves to Him. Everyone that keepeth the Sabbath and taketh hold of His Covenant. Even them, us will He bring to His Holy Mountain to make a joyful noise. FOR ALL NATIONS SHALL CALL HIS HOUSE A HOUSE OF PRAYER.

All Nations.

When did this happen Ryan?

Anybody?

Before or After Christ?

Isa 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
Isa 56:8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.


Isa 56:1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.
Isa 56:2 Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.
Isa 56:3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the LORD, speak, saying, The LORD hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
Isa 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;
Isa 56:5 Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
Isa 56:6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;
Isa 56:7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
Isa 56:8 The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him.

 

[HIM]

No he doesn't as already pointed out - most Bible translations inform the reader that the word "alike" is not actually in the manuscript (so they often place it in italics or note it in the margin) but is 'inserted' by the translators.

And Rom 14:5-6 make it very clear that "regard" is to "observe" the day.

5 One person regards(observes) one day above another, another regards (observes) every day. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord,

Which was already pointed out here -- 48 minutes ago #504


So no reference to the weekly Sabbath and if it is to be in harmony with Gal 4:9-11 then it can not reference observance of any of the pagan holy days mentioned and condemned there.

The discourse in Romans 14 is on arguing over opinions not the word of God. KJV says in verse one doubtful disputations. Opinions are disputed the Word of God is not.

Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

Here it is in the Greek.

Rom 14:1 AND δε THO τον WHO IS WEAK ασθενουντα IN THA τη FAITH πιστει RECEIVE YE προσλαμβανεσθε NOT μη FOR εις ARGUMENTS διακρισεις OF OPINIONS διαλογισμων

Here is Thayer's findings on the definition of the words highlighted in bold emphasis

διάκρισις, διακρισεως, ἡ (διακρίνω), a distinguishing, discerning, judging: πνευμάτων, 1Co 12:10; καλοῦ τέ καί κακοῦ, Heb 5:14; μή εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν, not for the purpose of passing judgment on opinions, as to which one is to be preferred as the more correct, Rom 14:1 (see διαλοσμος, 1). (Xenophon, Plato, others.)*

διαλογισμός, διαλογισμοῦ, ὁ (διαλογίζομαι), the Septuagint for מַחֲשָׁבָה and Chaldean רַעְיוֹן, in Greek writings from Plato down, the thinking of a man deliberating with himself; hence,
1. a thought, inward reasoning: Luk 2:35; Luk 5:22; Luk 6:8; Luk 9:46f; Rom 14:1 (yet some bring this under 2); the reasoning of those who think themselves to be wise, Rom 1:21; 1Co 3:20; an opinion: κριταί διαλογισμῶν πονηρῶν, judges with evil thoughts, i.e. who follow perverse opinions, reprehensible principles, Jas 2:4 (cf. Winer's Grammar, 187 (176)); purpose, design: Mat 15:19; Mar 7:21.

 

[HIM]

I cannot unlearn what I know.
.

Or more aptly what we think we know. The greatest thing a man can know is he doesn't know anything. Then he can learn.

 

[klutedavid]

If I look at the argument you make so far and ignore every Bible detail in my own posts and also the fact that bible scholars on both sides of the Sabbath discussion in almost all denominations freely admit to the Bible details I keep pointing out ... I can sort of see your point. But it is pretty hard to ignore the Bible fact that I am not even making very much of the Sabbatarian argument yet - I am still primarily arguing on behalf of the sunday-keeping Bible scholars that point out that your suggestions so far are not what the Bible is saying.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church agrees with your interpretation?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Or more aptly what we think we know. The greatest thing a man can know is he doesn't know anything. Then he can learn.

So there are truths in God’s Word that you do not hold to that you are not 100% sure about (Whereby you can say that you cannot unlearn such a truth)?
Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
I believe the truths I do based on what His Word says. I am confident in what they say just as Abraham was confident in what God had to say.

So what is your view of the Lord’s day according to Revelation 1:10?
That is the topic of this thread.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

So there are truths in God’s Word that you do not hold to that you are not 100% sure about?
Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
I believe the truths I do based on what His Word says. I am confident in what they say just as Abraham was confident in what God had to say.

That's good to know, so tell me why you don't seem to believe these clear scriptures especially when God personally wrote with His own finger on stone, the day (not a day) that is the holy day of the Lord i.e. Lords day.

Exodus 20: 8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Isaiah 58:13 “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on My holy day,
And call the Sabbath a delight The holy day of the Lord honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways,
Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words, (how can you possibly argue the Lord's day is the first day when this makes it so clear which is the Lords day)

Mark 2:28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”

Ezekiel 20:20 hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the Lord your God.’

Isaiah 66:23 And it shall come to pass That from one New Moon to another,
And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the Lord.

Where does God say this about the first day?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That's good to know, so tell me why you don't seem to believe these clear scriptures especially when God personally wrote with His own finger on stone, the day (not a day) that is the holy day of the Lord i.e. Lords day.

Exodus 20: 8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Isaiah 58:13 “If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on My holy day,
And call the Sabbath a delight The holy day of the Lord honorable, And shall honor Him, not doing your own ways,
Nor finding your own pleasure, Nor speaking your own words, (how can you possibly argue the Lord's day is the first day when this makes it so clear which is the Lords day)

Mark 2:28 Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”

Ezekiel 20:20 hallow My Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the Lord your God.’

Isaiah 66:23 And it shall come to pass That from one New Moon to another,
And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the Lord.

Where does God say this about the first day?

That’s Old Covenant. Again, we are New Covenant believers, and not Old Covenant believers (Hebrews 10:9) (Hebrews 7:12) (Luke 22:20) (Matthew 27:51) (Acts of the Apostles 15:5) (Acts of the Apostles 15:24) (Galatians 5:4).

So when we read things like: The Lord’s supper, the Lord’s table, the cup of the Lord (1 Corinthians 10-11), we can conclude it is…. The Lord’s day (Revelation 1:10), which is the first day of the week where Christians broke bread (Acts of the Apostles 20:7).

 

[SabbathBlessings]

That’s Old Covenant. Again, we are New Covenant believers, and not Old Covenant believers (Hebrews 10:9) (Hebrews 7:12) (Luke 22:20). The Lord’s supper, the Lord’s table, the cup of the Lord (1 Corinthians 10-11)…. The Lord’s day (Revelation 1:10).

Do you really think the holy day of the Lord that started from Creation Genesis 2:1-3 (my guess before that) and goes until eternity is going to switch in the middle so everyone is confused and Jesus is not going to say a word about this change? You're kidding yourself.

The New Covenant shows God's laws written in the heart Jeremiah 31:33 which includes the holy day of the Lord thy God. Which is why we see Jesus keeping the Sabbath as it was His custom in the New Covenant Luke 4:16 and Jesus telling us not to break the least of God's commandments Mathew 5:17-20 and why the Sabbath day will continue to be the day of worship i.e. Lords day for eternity Isaiah 66:23

Not one of those scripture you listed say the 4th commandment and God's holy day i.e. Lords day is deleted and now the first day is God's new holy day. You can believe want you want as God gives us free will but you are ignoring plain scripture to follow traditions which is exactly what Jesus warned us about. Matthew 15:3-9

 

[BobRyan]

You said:
My point is your constant reference to "sabbatarian" is out of place when you oppose the majority of Bible scholars on both sides of the topic.

The Psalmist thought, “I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.” (Psalms 119:99).

This lets us know that spiritual knowledge of God’s Word is not something that everyone has.

You are arguing for your right to be in the minority and I never challenge that. I stated above that you repeatedly misstate the case when you say "you Sabbatarians" as if all the Bible scholarship on both sides of the Sabbath discussion are what you call "sabbatarians" -- that is a false picture.

I said
You are of course free to select out any POV you wish - but casting it as if only Sabbatarian Bible scholarship notes the problems in your solution is not providing the complete picture. In fact almost all Bible scholars notice that bible detail problem in the position you are promoting. I am not the one positioning it as you vs Sabbatarians - you did. I am just pointing out that that is a mischaracterization of the gap here.

I cannot unlearn what I know.

What you know is that it is not just Sabbath keeping scholars that point to the Bible problems with your position - so it is not at all accurate to state it as "you sabbatarians" that notice those problems in the argument you are making.

There are no Sabbath commands in the New Testament.

1. There is no Bible text saying "Whatever part of God's Word that is not repeated must be deleted".
2. There is no quote of "do not take God's name in vain" in the NT text.
3. We see the Sabbath continue for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth in Is 66:23.
4. We see the Sabbath included by the Christian church as part of the "solution" to the issue with gentile converts not being circumcised.

These are just four of the many Bible problems with the solution you are trying out there - that have been shown to you repeatedly on this thread.

There are no sins mentioned as breaking the Sabbath in the New Testament.

There is no statement in the New Testament saying that "taking God's name in vain" is a sin.

But breaking the commandments is a sin 1 John 3:4 even in the NT as James 2 points out. And as I have pointed out repeatedly on this thread.

 

[BobRyan]

That’s Old Covenant. Again, we are New Covenant believers, and not Old Covenant believers

Then start by actually quoting the New Covenant - it is here Jer 31:31-34 "I will make a NEW Covenant... THIS IS the Covenant I will make...". You keep claiming to affirm the NEW Covenant and meanwhile only the Sabbath affirming posts are actually quoting it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you really think the holy day of the Lord that started from Creation Genesis 2:1-3 (my guess before that) and goes until eternity is going to switch in the middle so everyone is confused and Jesus is not going to say a word about this change? You're kidding yourself.

The New Covenant shows God's laws written in the heart Jeremiah 31:33 which includes the holy day of the Lord thy God. Which is why we see Jesus keeping the Sabbath as it was His custom in the New Covenant Luke 4:16 and Jesus telling us not to break the least of God's commandments Mathew 5:17-20 and why the Sabbath day will continue to be the day of worship i.e. Lords day for eternity Isaiah 66:23

Not one of those scripture you listed say the 4th commandment and God's holy day i.e. Lords day is deleted and now the first day is God's new holy day. You can believe want you want as God gives us free will but you are ignoring plain scripture to follow traditions which is exactly what Jesus warned us about. Matthew 15:3-9

Jeremiah 31:31-34 is in the time of the Millennium unless you think that everyone today knows the Lord (See: Jeremiah 31:34).

As for the least of these commandments mentioned by our Lord Jesus in Matthew 5:19:

Pay attention to what Jesus said closely. Jesus was teaching New Covenant and not Old Covenant at the sermon on the Mount. Jesus was making changes to the Law at the sermon on the mount. You know like instead of an eye for an eye… Jesus said turn the other cheek instead, etc.

An example of a least command by Jesus at the sermon on the Mount would be rejoicing when somebody reviles, persecuted, and or speaks falsely against us for the Lord’s sake (See: Matthew 5:11-12). For this command is not attached with any warnings of hellfire or condemnation and it does not appear to be a major violation of loving God and or others if we fail to obey it. Granted, we should obey the Lord in everything of course. So if this happens for us as believers, we should rejoice indeed.

Again, there is no Sabbath command given to us in the New Testament.
There are no sins that say one is the breaking the weekly Sabbath found in the New Testament.
In fact, Gentile Christians are told that they do not have to keep the Law of Moses in Acts of the Apostles 15:5, and Acts of the Apostles 15:24 very clearly. Don’t believe me? Just read Acts 15:24 in the King James Bible very slowly word for word. For Acts of the Apostles 13:39 says we cannot be justified by the Law of Moses. For if we seek to be justified by the Law, we have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4). This would be the Old law and not the Laws of Christ (Galatians 6:2, Romans 8:2, and 1 Corinthians 9:21).

Please take no offense, but my experience is that when SDAs see words like: “commandments,” they automatically think the Ten Commandments and think the SABBATH. I think that is a poor way to read the Bible - IMHO. One should read the Bible in context and not with a Sabbath day bias. Anyways, I already stated my reasons with Scripture why I believe the way I do on the Lord’s day in Revelation 1:10. If you don’t accept it, and you just want to see the Sabbath, that is your choice. We can simply can agree to disagree in love and respect and move on.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Then start by actually quoting the New Covenant - it is here Jer 31:31-34 "I will make a NEW Covenant... THIS IS the Covenant I will make...". You keep claiming to affirm the NEW Covenant and meanwhile only the Sabbath affirming posts are actually quoting it.

Why would I try to apply my life by living in a time of the New Covenant we are not living in? That is a completely different point in time in the future, and I don’t believe Raptured saints will enter the Millennium. Jeremiah 31:31-34 happens in the Millennium and it is not a time that happens today. Different times have different commands. For as I said before, Noah was commanded to build an Ark. Why? Because of the unique times he was in.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You said:
My point is your constant reference to "sabbatarian" is out of place when you oppose the majority of Bible scholars on both sides of the topic.



You are arguing for your right to be in the minority and I never challenge that. I stated above that you repeatedly misstate the case when you say "you Sabbatarians" as if all the Bible scholarship on both sides of the Sabbath discussion are what you call "sabbatarians" -- that is a false picture.





What you know is that it is not just Sabbath keeping scholars that point to the Bible problems with your position - so it is not at all accurate to state it as "you sabbatarians" that notice those problems in the argument you are making.



1. There is no Bible text saying "Whatever part of God's Word that is not repeated must be deleted".
2. There is no quote of "do not take God's name in vain" in the NT text.
3. We see the Sabbath continue for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth in Is 66:23.
4. We see the Sabbath included by the Christian church as part of the "solution" to the issue with gentile converts not being circumcised.

These are just four of the many Bible problems with the solution you are trying out there - that have been shown to you repeatedly on this thread.



There is no statement in the New Testament saying that "taking God's name in vain" is a sin.

But breaking the commandments is a sin 1 John 3:4 even in the NT as James 2 points out. And as I have pointed out repeatedly on this thread.

Okay. Getting off track here. Not interested in a Sabbath command promotion or commercial. What’s this have to do with your viewpoint of the Lord’s day in Revelation 1:10?

 

[BobRyan]

Okay. Getting off track here. Not interested in a Sabbath command promotion or commercial.

you make statements against the Sabbath where the only valid response is to point out the flaws in case you are making from the texts. Then you circle back to "don't want to see texts affirming the Sabbath".

What’s this have to do with your viewpoint of the Lord’s day in Revelation 1:10?

1. Regarding Rev 1:10 "The Lord's Day" -- I have pointed out repeatedly that Rev 1:10 is referring to the Bible definition for Lord's day which we find in Isaiah 58:13 and Mark 2:28.
2 As soon as those texts and affirming statements are posted you post objections to the Sabbath.
3. Then the Bible answer is presented to those objections.
4. Then you say you don't want to see Bible texts that support the Sabbath.
5. Then circle back to step 1.

We keep going through that same cycle which could be solved if you would just address arguments posted along the lines of any one point being studied - for a few posts.

As you appear to 'notice' in your statement above - the cycle you have created here results in "promotion of the Sabbath Bible texts" since you keep presenting the same issues that are directly addressed by those texts affirming God's Commandments that have been posted.

And as even you now appear to admit - your arguments not only oppose Sabbath-keeping Bible scholarship but also the Bible scholarship in almost all Christian denominations on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic. (Which is of course fine since you have free will and can pick any POV you wish - but cannot be positioned as "just opposing Sabbath keeping Bible scholars").

================ let's step back for some obvious questions to set context.

1. We should both be able to agree that if one ignores a "sufficient number of Bible details" almost any doctrine can be put forward as if it were correct.
2. The MOST object model that Christians have today is the one where BOTH sides of a given doctrinal dispute AGREE on the basics.

As an example of #2 above - many Protestants differ with Catholics on the subject of praying to the dead and bowing down before images in worship. Yet BOTH sides agree that Jesus is the Son of God, was born of a virgin, died for the sins of the world, was bodily resurrected, and bodily ascended into heaven. They both also agree that the NT is composed of 27 books. (They 'might' also agree that the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Godhead)... Not sure if Catholics agree with that last point or not.

When opposing sides on a given doctrine agree to certain Bible basics - then very often those basics are the easiest Bible teaching to discover in scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

That’s Old Covenant. Again, we are New Covenant believers, and not Old Covenant believers

Then start by actually quoting the New Covenant - it is here Jer 31:31-34 "I will make a NEW Covenant... THIS IS the Covenant I will make...". You keep claiming to affirm the NEW Covenant and meanwhile only the Sabbath affirming posts are actually quoting it.

Why would I try to apply my life by living in a time of the New Covenant we are not living in?

Affirmation of the New Covenant does not start by being careful not to read it.

it is here Jer 31:31-34 "I will make a NEW Covenant... THIS IS the Covenant I will make..."
AND it is repeated VERBATIM unchanged in Heb 8:6-12 -- there is just no excuse for not actually taking the time to read the New Covenant if one is going to claim to affirm it.

That is a completely different point in time in the future,

Is it your claim that you are not under the New Covenant then?? That seems odd. Both Heb 8 and Jer 31 put it in future terms.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 happens in the Millennium

It is the ONLY definition for New Covenant in the Bible and Christ said that He was ratifying it by His death. (It is not at all confined to the Millennium nor even a part of it) . This is the one and only Gospel for all time as Gal 1:6-9 points out and it is the only covenant that has adoption into the family of God, forgiveness of sins, and a changed heart in it. It is the one and only Gospel. "preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8. It is the covenant by which Moses and Elijah stand in glory with Christ in Matt 17 - before the cross even happens.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Then start by actually quoting the New Covenant - it is here Jer 31:31-34 "I will make a NEW Covenant... THIS IS the Covenant I will make...". You keep claiming to affirm the NEW Covenant and meanwhile only the Sabbath affirming posts are actually quoting it.



Affirmation of the New Covenant does not start by being careful not to read it.

it is here Jer 31:31-34 "I will make a NEW Covenant... THIS IS the Covenant I will make..."
AND it is repeated VERBATIM unchanged in Heb 8:6-12 -- there is just no excuse for not actually taking the time to read the New Covenant if one is going to claim to affirm it.



Is it your claim that you are not under the New Covenant then?? That seems odd. Both Heb 8 and Jer 31 put it in future terms.



It is the ONLY definition for New Covenant in the Bible and Christ said that He was ratifying it by His death. (It is not at all confined to the Millennium nor even a part of it) . This is the one and only Gospel for all time as Gal 1:6-9 points out and it is the only covenant that has adoption into the family of God, forgiveness of sins, and a changed heart in it. It is the one and only Gospel. "preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8. It is the covenant by which Moses and Elijah stand in glory with Christ in Matt 17 - before the cross even happens.

Moving on from talking to you in this thread.