Are non-Jewish Christians commanded to keep the 7th Day Sabbath

[SabbathBlessings]

He told US this?
I don’t see you or me included in the audience of people Jesus was addressing in Matthew 24:3, do you?
At what point in the chapter does the “you” become people other than the disciples He was addressing, and how do you say the disciples would know that when Jesus looked directly at them and said “then you will”, “when you see”, “you shall be”, etc.. He in fact did NOT mean them the way you claim He didn’t?



He told them to pray that their flight would not be in winter, etc, not us.

And they did flee, as their mater instructed, and the Temple was destroyed, on time, as prophesied.

Unless Jesus is comes back for only Jews or His disciples the “you” that is written throughout Matthew 24 is written to both you and me.

 

[parousia70]

Unless Jesus is comes back for only Jews or His disciples the “you” that is written throughout Matthew 24 is written to both you and me.

What about my grandfather who died in 1978?
Or His dad?
Or his dad?…
Was it written to them?
if so how did it apply to them?

Or is your position it’s only written and applicable to us today? Untill it isnt…
Such is Untenable.
You have no biblical instruction to remove the apostles to whom Jesus was directly addressing from direct application of His discourse and it’s instructions.

Are you suggesting that Luke 21:20-22 remains unfulfilled?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Untenable.
You have no biblical instruction to remove the apostles to whom Jesus was directly addressing from direct application of His discourse and it’s instructions.

You could apply this way of thinking to everything written in the bible, so you can either choose to believe the Bible is God’s Word and everything in scripture is meant for us or choose to pick select scriptures you agree with that you feel is only addressed to you, despite the two covenants God made were with Israel. So we are either part of God’s Israel or you can believe the Bible was not written for you.

We are told there is one Gospel and one Truth. Jesus does not have a day a worship for one set of people and everyone else can pick whichever day they like. This is not biblical.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

What about my grandfather who died in 1978?
Or His dad?
Or his dad?…
Was it written to them?
if so how did it apply to them?

Or is your position it’s only written and applicable to us today? Untill it isnt…
Such is Untenable.
You have no biblical instruction to remove the apostles to whom Jesus was directly addressing from direct application of His discourse and it’s instructions.

Are you suggesting that Luke 21:20-22 remains unfulfilled?

Yup. That’s the amazing thing about God’s Word. Have you heard of dual prophecy?

 

[The Liturgist]

If your arguments are against scripture then they are against God.

Good thing my arguments are for Scripture, then!

I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, not with the Scripture itself. That being said, while I agree with the fourth century anti-Arian St. Hilary of Poitiers that Scripture is in the interpretation and not the reading, I do not believe that disagreements over the correct interpretation of Scripture are disagreements with God, because epistemologically, we cannot know for sure when it comes to close issues, for example, a dispute dating back to the early Church which continues until the present, albeit which has been largely set aside through ecumenical dialogue, although there are still hardcore Ethiopians and Copts, and various Eastern Orthodox laity and clergy, especially Old Calendarists, and one high profile canonical bishop, Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, who continue the dispute, over whether or not our Lord, God and Savior, the Only Begotten Son and Incarnate Word of God Jesus Christ, exists in a state of hypostatic union of two natures, one human and one divine, which are united in one hypostasis without change, confusion, separation or division, or whether He exists in a state of hypostatic and natural union from two natures, one human and one divine, which were united in the Incarnation in one nature and one hypostasis without change, confusion, separation or division.

The former is Chalcedonian Christology, based on the Tome of Pope Leo I, and accepted at the Council of Chalcedon, and the latter is Miaphysite Christology, adhered to by the Oriental Orthodox churches (Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac and Indian Orthodox), based on the writings of St. Cyril of Alexandria and accepted at the earlier Council of Ephesus, both of which are accepted as Ecumenical by Chalcedonians, although Chalcedon is obviously not accepted as Ecumenical by the Oriental Orthodox.

Who is right? The supporters of Chalcedon, like St. Leo I, St. Gelasius, Emperor Justinian, St. Gregory the Great, and St. John of Damascus, or St. Dioscorus, St. Severus of Antioch, St. Jacob of Sarugh, St. Theodora (the wife of Emperor Emperor Justinian, St. Jacob Baradaeus, and St. Gregorios bar Hebraeus? Scripture does not provide a clear answer. Perhaps both are wrong and Nestorius was right, or perhaps Theodore of Mopsuestia, or the Assyrian Church of the East with its semi-Chalcedonian Christology of Mar Babai the Great, Mar Narsai, and St. Isaac the Syrian? Again, it is a historical dispute where all of the interpretations are equally sound, so it comes down to Christological analysis, logic, reason, and politics.

And indeed, the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was in charge of it determined all three Christologies (Assyrian, Miaphysite, and Chalcedonian) were compatible, and the Miaphysite Syriac Orthodox Church and the Chalcedonian Antiochian Orthodox Church have become extremely closely tied through ecumenical agreements, which extend to allowing laity to communicate in either church and banning conversions from one to the other. A looser, but still intimate, relationship exists between the His Beatitude Greek Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, Theodore II, and His Holiness the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria. These close relationships, which in the case of the Syriac and Antiochian church is about as close as possible without full communion, are unprecedented among the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions, and no other churches enjoy the privilege of such close relations with them.*

Another, more recent dispute with some Patristic antecedents, but which never led to a schism in the early church, is the Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist dispute, which was prefaced by the disagreements between Calvin and Luther, but these had more to do with the Eucharist than predestination, but which exploded in full force when the Remonstrants, led by Jacob Arminius, launched the Arminian movement, and everyone picked a side, except for the Anglicans; this issue cannot be decided from Scripture, but it appears that the consensus patrum (a Calvinist term) of the Early Church would have been against Calvinism, believing innfree will with some possible exceptions, like St. Augustine of Hippo. Certainly the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental), the Assyrians and the Roman Catholics, which collectively are the only churches with roots in antiquity, the Waldensians, contrary to rumor, not having emerged until the dawn of the Renaissance in the 14th century, and incidentally, being sufficiently inclined towards Calvinism so as to adopt Calvinist theology when those not slaughtered in the dreadful Piedmont massacre took refuge in Switzerland; in an odd twist, the Waldensians are now the main Protestant church in Italy and the presumably Arminian** Methodists joined them.

Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism (Arminianism, broadly defined**) cannot be proven, despite the attempts of many, on the Bible, although some doctrines of John Calvin and some doctrines of Calvinist movements like the Puritans, such as Iconoclasm and A Capella Exclusive Psalmody, or the non-celebration of Christmas and other feasts, are difficult to reconcile with scripture, which is why the majority of Calvinist churches as well as the largest and most important Calvinist churches, such as the PCUSA, the United Reformed Church of Great Britain, the Church of Scotland, the UCC and many other Congregational churches, and Calvinist non-denominational churches, and the Reformed Church in America, and the Calvinist chapters of the SBC, reject some or all of them.

* With the exception of the Malankara Independent Syrian Church in India, a Syriac Orthodox jurisdiction which exists outside of the canonical Oriental Orthodox communion, and is not in communion with the Syriac Orthodox or Indian Orthodox churches in India, but which is in full communion with the Protestant Mar Thoma Syrian Church, which is part of the Anglican Communion.

** Non-Calvinism is commonly called Arminianism, and Calvinism is commonly called Reformed Theology. I find these labels misleading, because the Protestant Reformation was not exclusively Calvinist, and I have seen the term Reformed used in Zwinglian contexts fairly frequently, and indeed in other contexts, but they are alas thoroughly entrenched. Arminianism narrowly defined, which is to say, the actual Remonstrant Brotherhood, still exists and has 5,000 members in 40 Dutch parishes and 1 German parish, but sadly has become non-creedal, with some members being “Gronigers” who reject the doctrine of the Trinity and divine justice expiatory, and other members being Unitarians, and still others having arbitrary beliefs; it is very common for Remonstrants to write their own personal Statement of Faith, and the Remonstrants were also the first Protestant church to bless same-sex unions, in 1986. So, needless to say, we can positively disprove the doctrines of the modern day Remonstrants with ease. Perhaps its best that the term Arminianism does not apply to them, and I was mistaken in advocating for its use as such; perhaps Arminianism would best apply specifically to the early Remonstrants, who would certainly not have embraced gay marriage or Unitarianism, but were rather very close to the Reformed Church doctrinally, except in their rejection of Five Point Calvinism in favor of free will.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Good thing my arguments are for Scripture, then!

I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, not with the Scripture itself. That being said, while I agree with the fourth century anti-Arian St. Hilary of Poitiers that Scripture is in the interpretation and not the reading, I do not believe that disagreements over the correct interpretation of Scripture are disagreements with God, because epistemologically, we cannot know for sure when it comes to close issues, for example, a dispute dating back to the early Church which continues until the present, albeit which has been largely set aside through ecumenical dialogue, although there are still hardcore Ethiopians and Copts, and various Eastern Orthodox laity and clergy, especially Old Calendarists, and one high profile canonical bishop, Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, who continue the dispute, over whether or not our Lord, God and Savior, the Only Begotten Son and Incarnate Word of God Jesus Christ, exists in a state of hypostatic union of two natures, one human and one divine, which are united in one hypostasis without change, confusion, separation or division, or whether He exists in a state of hypostatic and natural union from two natures, one human and one divine, which were united in the Incarnation in one nature and one hypostasis without change, confusion, separation or division.

The former is Chalcedonian Christology, based on the Tome of Pope Leo I, and accepted at the Council of Chalcedon, and the latter is Miaphysite Christology, adhered to by the Oriental Orthodox churches (Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac and Indian Orthodox), based on the writings of St. Cyril of Alexandria and accepted at the earlier Council of Ephesus, both of which are accepted as Ecumenical by Chalcedonians, although Chalcedon is obviously not accepted as Ecumenical by the Oriental Orthodox.

Who is right? The supporters of Chalcedon, like St. Leo I, St. Gelasius, Emperor Justinian, St. Gregory the Great, and St. John of Damascus, or St. Dioscorus, St. Severus of Antioch, St. Jacob of Sarugh, St. Theodora (the wife of Emperor Emperor Justinian, St. Jacob Baradaeus, and St. Gregorios bar Hebraeus? Scripture does not provide a clear answer. Perhaps both are wrong and Nestorius was right, or perhaps Theodore of Mopsuestia, or the Assyrian Church of the East with its semi-Chalcedonian Christology of Mar Babai the Great, Mar Narsai, and St. Isaac the Syrian? Again, it is a historical dispute where all of the interpretations are equally sound, so it comes down to Christological analysis, logic, reason, and politics.

And indeed, the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith when Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was in charge of it determined all three Christologies (Assyrian, Miaphysite, and Chalcedonian) were compatible, and the Miaphysite Syriac Orthodox Church and the Chalcedonian Antiochian Orthodox Church have become extremely closely tied through ecumenical agreements, which extend to allowing laity to communicate in either church and banning conversions from one to the other. A looser, but still intimate, relationship exists between the His Beatitude Greek Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, Theodore II, and His Holiness the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria. These close relationships, which in the case of the Syriac and Antiochian church is about as close as possible without full communion, are unprecedented among the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions, and no other churches enjoy the privilege of such close relations with them.*

Another, more recent dispute with some Patristic antecedents, but which never led to a schism in the early church, is the Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist dispute, which was prefaced by the disagreements between Calvin and Luther, but these had more to do with the Eucharist than predestination, but which exploded in full force when the Remonstrants, led by Jacob Arminius, launched the Arminian movement, and everyone picked a side, except for the Anglicans; this issue cannot be decided from Scripture, but it appears that the consensus patrum (a Calvinist term) of the Early Church would have been against Calvinism, believing innfree will with some possible exceptions, like St. Augustine of Hippo. Certainly the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental), the Assyrians and the Roman Catholics, which collectively are the only churches with roots in antiquity, the Waldensians, contrary to rumor, not having emerged until the dawn of the Renaissance in the 14th century, and incidentally, being sufficiently inclined towards Calvinism so as to adopt Calvinist theology when those not slaughtered in the dreadful Piedmont massacre took refuge in Switzerland; in an odd twist, the Waldensians are now the main Protestant church in Italy and the presumably Arminian Methodists joined them.
Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism cannot be proven, despite the attempts of many, on the Bible, although some doctrines of John Calvin and some doctrines of Calvinist movements like the Puritans, such as Iconoclasm and A Capella Exclusive Psalmody, or the non-celebration of Christmas and other feasts, are difficult to reconcile with scripture, which is why the majority of Calvinist churches as well as the largest and most important Calvinist churches, such as the PCUSA, the United Reformed Church of Great Britain, the Church of Scotland, the UCC and many other Congregational churches, and Calvinist non-denominational churches, and the Reformed Church in America, and the Calvinist chapters of the SBC, reject some or all of them.

*With the exception of the Malankara Independent Syrian Church in India, a Syriac Orthodox jurisdiction which exists outside of the canonical Oriental Orthodox communion, and is not in communion with the Syriac Orthodox or Indian Orthodox churches in India, but which is in full communion with the Protestant Mar Thoma Syrian Church, which is part of the Anglican Communion.

Weird you make this statement than post outside the bible to support your argument. Not one scripture from God's written Word.

 

[parousia70]

You could apply this way of thinking to everything written in the bible, so you can either choose to believe the Bible is God’s Word and everything in scripture is meant for us

Philippians 2:19

But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, that I also may be encouraged when I know your state.

Are you expecting Timothy’s soon arrival to you? Is this not God’s word and therefore meant for You?

Your position is that you are than you that Paul is addressing here, no?

How soon do you think Old Tim will get to you?

Or is Philippians 2:19 a scripture that you pick and choose not to apply directly to you?

Perhaps it’s the exception that proves your rule?

 

[parousia70]

Yup. That’s the amazing thing about God’s Word. Have you heard of dual prophecy?

Demonstrate dual prophecy from scripture, and demonstrate why it’s not triple or quadruple or quintuple or 100 times. Where does scripture say it’s only dual? And even if we do accept The premise of dual prophecy that does not answer why Matthew 24 remained unfulfilled for my grandfather’s generation and his fathers and his fathers… That’s not dual fulfillment, that’s lack of fulfillment.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Philippians 2:19

But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, that I also may be encouraged when I know your state.

Are you expecting Timothy’s soon arrival to you? Is this not God’s word and therefore meant for You?
How soon do you think Old Tim will get to you?

Or is Philippians 2:19 a scripture that you pick and choose not to apply directly to you?

Perhaps it’s the exception that proves your rule?

This is when common sense comes to play. Obviously sending someone to us who is dead is not going to happen, but if you want to apply this scenario to the Word of Jesus why the instructions He gave to His disciples was not meant for lessons for us or when Jesus said follow Him, He meant only to those He was directly speaking to that's your free will. I personally get a lot more meaning from scriptures and if your pray and really want to obey our Lord and Savior and do His will over our own, He will give us the Holy Spirit to help guide us in the Truth of His Word. John 14:26, John 14:15-18, Acts 5:32 Unless these verses and promises are only given to whom Jesus was speaking to and not you or I. It's not what I believe though.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Demonstrate dual prophecy from scripture, and demonstrate why it’s not triple or quadruple or quintuple or 100 times. Where does scripture say it’s only dual? And even if we do accept The premise of dual prophecy that does not answer why Matthew 24 remained unfulfilled for my grandfather’s generation and his fathers and his fathers… That’s not dual fulfillment, that’s lack of fulfillment.

Are you referring to the second coming of Jesus? Or the warnings Jesus gives about end times?

 

[parousia70]

Are you referring to the second coming of Jesus? Or the warnings Jesus gives about end times?

I’m referring to your claim of dual prophecy, or dual fulfillment or what ever you wanna call it. I don’t care where it comes from, just show me an example of what you mean from scripture, And show me where Scripture teaches it only happens twice and never more than twice.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I’m referring to your claim of dual prophecy, or dual fulfillment or what ever you wanna call it. I don’t care where it comes from, just show me an example of what you mean from scripture, And show me where Scripture teaches it only happens twice and never more than twice.

I never said it could only happen twice I was using that as an example. You didn't answer my question but that's okay I need to go anyway. I hope you have a great day.

God bless

 

[parousia70]

Are you referring to the second coming of Jesus? Or the warnings Jesus gives about end times?

Go ahead and show an example of how Luke 21:20-22 Was fulfilled in the apostles generation, and fulfilled again every subsequent generation between theirs and ours, which it would have to be in order For your claim that that scripture is directly applicable to, and therefore fulfilled again and again in, all generations of Christians of all time, to be true.

 

[The Liturgist]

Are you suggesting that Luke 21:20-22 remains unfulfilled?

There is not a consensus on this issue either in Patristic times or at present, within either Roman Catholicism, the three Eastern churches, or Protestantism.
I would say that a number of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox priests believe in the Rebuilding of the Temple, and the coming of anti-Christ, and so on.

This is an example of something which cannot be proven from Scripture, like Calvinism (Predestination, specifically) vs. non-Calvinism or Chalcedonianism vs. Miaphysitism vs. Assyrian Christology (I think we can shoot down Nestorianism per se and also the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia, however).

That being said, I think the Tribulation is at least partially in the past, and could well be completely in the past, based on Matthew 24:22, unless 24:22 is interpreted as referring to the faithful still alive in the end times, which it could be.

That being said, this issue in no way validates Sabbatarianism (nor does it invalidate Sabbatarianism by itself*), but actually provides something of a proof-text against Ellen White’s prophecy and the corresponding Adventist doctrine, in Matthew 24:20, in that it indicates that either Saturday as a day of rest will not be suppressed during the Tribulation, but will be observed to such an extent that flight from Jerusalem will be essentially impossible, or if she is right in her prediction of a ban on Saturday worship and prohibitions in working on Sunday (more blue laws and Sunday trading restrictions, contrary to current trends away from them), then our Lord just referred to Sundays as Sabbaths.

So this is another example of obvious error on the part of Ellen White, which combined with other numerous errors I have found and attempted to discuss, for example, her massive historical errors in The Great Controversy, has the effect of disproving any claims of inspired prophecy on her part, since a criterion for an authentic prophet who actually speaks by our Lord, God and Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, is that their prophecies must be completely accurate.

* See post #419

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Go ahead and show an example of how Luke 21:20-22 Was fulfilled in the apostles generation, and fulfilled again every subsequent generation between theirs and ours, which it would have to be in order For your claim that that scripture is directly applicable to, and therefore fulfilled again and again in, all generations of Christians of all time, to be true.

I am referring to Matthew 24:20- Luke 21:20-22

This has a dual prophesy. It was fulfilled with the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 but the second advent of Jesus has not taken place so it has a future application of God’s people running for the hills and Jesus telling us He hopes our flight is not on the Sabbath day or Winter because it will not be a delight to be running for your life when people are trying to persecute you for still keeping the commandments of God.

Revelations 12:17
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

God’s end time people we are told still keep the commandments of God, which of course includes the 4th Sabbath commandment that God told us to Remember and is the holy day of the Lord thy God. Exodus 20:10, Isaiah 58:13, Genesis 2:1-3 Isaiah 66:23 We are told the end time people will be a remnant which is true not too many Sabbath keepers left compared to keeping Sunday tradition. We are told the devil goes to war with the commandment keepers and the remnant so Matthew 24:20-Luke 21:20-22 still has a future application.

I hope this helps

God bless

 

[The Liturgist]

He told US this?
I don’t see you or me included in the audience of people Jesus was addressing in Matthew 24:3, do you?
At what point in the chapter does the “you” become people other than the disciples He was addressing, and how do you say the disciples would know that when Jesus looked directly at them and said “then you will”, “when you see”, “you shall be”, etc.. He in fact did NOT mean them the way you claim He didn’t?



He told them to pray that their flight would not be in winter, etc, not us.

And they did flee, as their mater instructed, and the Temple was destroyed, on time, as prophesied.

Indeed, there is some compelling evidence to believe that those eschatological events were in the past. For example, Caligula putting a statue of himself as Zeus in the temple courtyard (he enjoyed horrifying people; this was very much his style, indeed, the evil that he did was so horrific I cannot describe it on a public forum, but a book, The Scandalous History of the Roman Emperors, does provide a very entertaining history of the Claudian dynasty, except for the chapters on Tiberius and Caligula, who were really genuinely vile and disgusting people, and of course Nero). Speaking of Nero, I have seen fairly compelling scholarly papers that he is the Beast St. John refers to in the Apocalypse, based on Hebrew numerals (since referring to Nero by name would have been too much of a risk).

 

[Saint Steven]

There is no scripture saying the Lords day is the first day.

The only reference to the Lord's Day in the entire Bible is found in Revelation 1:10 where it is not defined. We have to reference the writings of the early church to find a definition. And we do.

Aren't you the same guys who claim the Church changed the day to Sunday? Or do you blame it on Constantine? Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea says that the first day of the week was already the day.

Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea (ca. A.D. 360)
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

The only reference to the Lord's Day in the entire Bible is found in Revelation 1:10 where it is not defined. We have to reference the writings of the early church to find a definition. And we do.

Aren't you the same guys who claim the Church changed the day to Sunday? Or do you blame it on Constantine? Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea say that the first day of the week was already the day.

Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea (ca. A.D. 360)
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

You are going outside the Bible and we should reply on God’s written Word. We have this warning:

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
God does not give permission to change His holy laws.

God defined the day that is holy to Him. It’s the day He made holy from Creation Genesis 2:1-3. God clearly tells us the Holy day of the Lord thy God is on the seventh day Exodus 20:10 and God makes it known the Sabbath is the only holy day to God Isaiah 58:13. He also commanded us to keep holy the same day that He keeps holy Exodus 20:8. We see the Sabbath continue on in the New Heaven and New earth as God’s chosen day of worship for eternity Isaiah 66:23 and its not Sunday because Sunday according to God is a working day Exodus 20:9 and not God’s holy day.

So you are adding to God’s words which we should not do Proverbs 30:5-6 and going outside the Bible by finding text that is traditions from the Roman Catholic Church and not biblical scripture. Jesus told us to keep the commandments of God Matthew 15:3-9 which the Sabbath is a commandment of God and not follow traditions because in doing so Jesus considers it worshipping in vain. These are not my words, you can find these easy to read scriptures right in your bible!

 

[The Liturgist]

Footnote to Post 414:

*Sabbatarianism per se without the added complexity of Adventist doctrine would in theory have fewer issues, although it is still obviously erroneous both from a scriptural and Patristic perspective. In practice however, the other major Sabbatarian church, the Seventh Day Baptist church, appears to have its own very dubious beliefs. An extremely biased Wikipedia article, which I have flagged for review, suggests that an entire ancient Christian nation believes in or believed in Sabbatarianism, not saying which; I suspect they think it to be the Ethiopians or Assyrians, as I have seen allegations that they are or were Sabbatarian, which is of course entirely false.

The closest thing to such an extant group might be the Molokans, an ethnically Russian group of Sabbatarians, Messianic Jews and converts to non-Messianic non-Christian Rabinnical-Talmudic type Judaism (a now extinct group of Jewish converts lived in California, but to the regret of a prominent Californian Rabbi, were never welcomed into fellowship by the hereditary Jews), which appeared in the wake of the Nikonian schism. The Molokans, from what I understand, are largely endogamous for practical or dogmatic reasons, and so could be considered by this point to constitute an ethnic group, with multiple subgroups. They are still extant in Russia and a few other places. Owing to the aforesaid diversity of beliefs, ranging from Trinitarian Messianic Judaism to non-Trinitarian Messianic Judaism to actual Judaism, they do not constitute an eastern analogue to the Seventh Day Adventist church, although there is a church in the former Soviet Union that was SDA, but separated in a schism during the Soviet era (I am surprised they weren’t suppressed; they seem to have fared better than the Russian Orthodox or especially the Russian Catholics, the former experiencing absurd restrictions on youth catechesis, preaching, and seminaries, and confiscation and destruction of many churches and monasteries, and the latter experiencing this to an even more extreme degree, with their cathedral in Moscow seized, and the genocide against Ukrainians ordered by Stalin further reducing their numbers.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Footnote to Post 414:

*Sabbatarianism per se without the added complexity of Adventist doctrine would in theory have fewer issues, although it is still obviously erroneous both from a scriptural and Patristic perspective. In practice however, the other major Sabbatarian church, the Seventh Day Baptist church, appears to have its own very dubious beliefs. An extremely biased Wikipedia article, which I have flagged for review, suggests that an entire ancient Christian nation believes in or believed in Sabbatarianism, not saying which; I suspect they think it to be the Ethiopians or Assyrians, as I have seen allegations that they are or were Sabbatarian, which is of course entirely false.

The closest thing to such an extant group might be the Molokans, an ethnically Russian group of Sabbatarians, Messianic Jews and converts to non-Messianic non-Christian Rabinnical-Talmudic type Judaism (a now extinct group of Jewish converts lived in California, but to the regret of a prominent Californian Rabbi, were never welcomed into fellowship by the hereditary Jews), which appeared in the wake of the Nikonian schism. The Molokans, from what I understand, are largely endogamous for practical or dogmatic reasons, and so could be considered by this point to constitute an ethnic group, with multiple subgroups. They are still extant in Russia and a few other places. Owing to the aforesaid diversity of beliefs, ranging from Trinitarian Messianic Judaism to non-Trinitarian Messianic Judaism to actual Judaism, they do not constitute an eastern analogue to the Seventh Day Adventist church, although there is a church in the former Soviet Union that was SDA, but separated in a schism during the Soviet era (I am surprised they weren’t suppressed; they seem to have fared better than the Russian Orthodox or especially the Russian Catholics, the former experiencing absurd restrictions on youth catechesis, preaching, and seminaries, and confiscation and destruction of many churches and monasteries, and the latter experiencing this to an even more extreme degree, with their cathedral in Moscow seized, and the genocide against Ukrainians ordered by Stalin further reducing their numbers.

It would be great if you can quote scripture you disagree with. That is more compelling than blanket statements it's erroneous without any scriptural evidence.

You keep making these statements about Adventist but never with scripture. That would be concerning if that was I, considering how the scriptures tell us the devil deceives the whole world and God lets His people know who follow Him and His Word beforehand so we are not deceived. Telling someone they are wrong but not proving it with scripture has no merit. Just like you have not been able to support Sunday worship from scripture showing us where God deemed the first day holy to Him or to us. Scripture showing where God blessed the first day and Sanctified it. Scripture showing that Sunday worship is a commandment of God or the day of worship on the New Heaven and New Earth. These scriptures are all reserved for the seventh day Sabbath. The point of the Bible is to follow God, I am surprised this is not more concerning for people. We should worship our Savior in spirit and truth. God's truth, not traditions. Right now there is time! But I do think our Savior is coming back for us soon. Jesus so much wants to save all of us and simply asks if you Love Me, keep My commandments. John 14:15

God bless