WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

[EclipseEventSigns]

Yes, they can keep it or (try to keep it) But they don't have to force other Christians to follow them.

Exactly. That's the entire purpose behind Paul's words in Colossians 2. And the entire issue with Paul's attacks on the Judaizers of his day.

 

[pasifika]

Exactly. That's the entire purpose behind Paul's words in Colossians 2. And the entire issue with Paul's attacks on the Judaizers of his day.

Amen..the battle is still going from Pauls time to us today.

Paul states in Romans 7:6..Now we can serve God Not in the "Old way" of the letter But the "new way" of the Spirit..

 

[BobRyan]

So your claim is the reason it’s wrong to covet is because the Holy Spirit tells us to, not because it’s a commandment of God, is that correct? Wouldn’t that make the Holy Spirit and God in conflict instead of being in harmony? Those who walk in the Spirit are not in conflict with the law of God. Romans 8:7 The Spirit is given to help us keep the commandments John 14:15-18 so I do not see the Spirit and God’s law in conflict. The Spirit convicts us of sin John 16:8 sin is the transgression of the law 1 John 3:4 Romans 7:7 they work in harmony.

Well thats a relief, you might want to update your posts to reflect this.

God said He writes His laws in the hearts and minds of His people Hebrews 8:10 which of course includes the law that is in the Most Holy of God’s Temple that resides in heaven Revelation 11:19 and what the earthy temple was modeled after personally written by God‘s own finger and part of the unit of Ten that says thou shalt not covet and points out sin. Romans 7:7. God’s law is continuous and eternal and God defines what is righteousness Psalms 119:172 and should obey His commandments because this is love to God and our fellow man. 1 John 5:2-3

Amen!
The Holy Spirit is not at war against scripture -- He Himself is the source of scripture.

The idea that the Holy Spirit wants us to ignore scripture or not to follow what His Word says - is not taught in either OT or NT.

So then - it is "still a sin to take God's name in vain" even in the NT

and even in the NT "Sin IS transgression of the law" 1 John 3:4 as over a dozen Bible translations confirm.

And even in the NT - all TEN of the TEN Commandments still remain for Christians under the New Covenant. A fact that almost all Christian denomination affirm

 

[trophy33]

Luther is claiming it was wrong for the RCC to change the Sabbath.

Wrong in the meaning that RCC teaches that we must keep Sunday like Jews kept Sabbath before.

Luther was for Christian freedom, not for keeping a specific day (be it Saturday or Sunday).

You can check it yourself and visit a Lutheran church in your city and see.

 

[trophy33]

Interesting what Luther says about God's Sabbath

To get a clear teaching of Luther regarding this issue, you can check The Large Catechism:

The Large Catechism

bookofconcord.org

Thou shalt sanctify the holy day. [Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.]
The word holy day (Feiertag) is rendered from the Hebrew word sabbath which properly signifies to rest, that is, to abstain from labor. Hence we are accustomed to say, Feierabend machen [that is, to cease working], or heiligen Abend geben [sanctify the Sabbath].

Now, in the Old Testament, God separated the seventh day, and appointed it for rest, and commanded that it should be regarded as holy above all others.
As regards this external observance, this commandment was given to the Jews alone, that they should abstain from toilsome work, and rest, so that both man and beast might recuperate, and not be weakened by unremitting labor.
Although they afterwards restricted this too closely, and grossly abused it, so that they traduced and could not endure in Christ those works which they themselves were accustomed to do on that day, as we read in the Gospel; just as though the commandment were fulfilled by doing no external, [manual] work whatever, which, however, was not the meaning, but, as we shall hear, that they sanctify the holy day or day of rest.

This commandment, therefore, according to its gross sense, does not concern us Christians; for it is altogether an external matter, like other ordinances of the Old Testament, which were attached to particular customs, persons, times, and places, and now have been made free through Christ.

 

[trophy33]

Amen..the battle is still going from Pauls time to us today.

It may seem so on internet, because the SDA church is quite active on various websites and in public forums. Three or four of their members repeatedly creating new and new threads about the topic or posting their view again and again may optically look like its some unresolved problem for Christians.

But in real life, the vast majority of Christians do not care about their teachings, so there is no real theological battle. These issues have been settled long time ago in all main christian denominations, in creeds, confessions and catechisms.

I remember times when three or so KJV-onlyists made their belief one of the most discussed topics on Christian chats and forums, just because its a fun and easy topic for the rest of us to talk about. But who in real life really takes it seriously? The most of Christians world-wide do not even know what the KJV is.

These issues are mostly virtual and artificial. We participate in them in our free time, as an exercise in theology and reasoning. But we are just a small, "hobbyist" online community of 100-ish people, from the world of billions of people who do not know we exist. We are not a representative sample.

 

[pasifika]

It may seem so on internet, because the SDA church is quite active on various websites and in public forums. Three or four of their members repeatedly creating new and new threads about the topic or posting their view again and again may optically look like its some unresolved problem for Christians.

But in real life, the vast majority of Christians do not care about their teachings, so there is no real theological battle. These issues have been settled long time ago in all main christian denominations, in creeds, confessions and catechisms.

I remember times when three or so KJV-onlyists made their belief one of the most discussed topics on Christian chats and forums, just because its a fun and easy topic for the rest of us to talk about. But who in real life really takes it seriously? The most of Christians world-wide do not even know what the KJV is.

These issues are mostly virtual and artificial. We participate in them in our free time, as an exercise in theology and reasoning. But we are just a small, "hobbyist" online community of 100-ish people, from the world of billions of people who do not know we exist. We are not a representative sample.

They seems like to stir things up among Christians believers instead of encouraging them in doing good works etc.

This is what Titus warns us of people such as these;

Titus 3:9.."But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless"..

...."warn a "divisive person" once and second time"...

..."After that, have nothing to do with them"..

...."such people are warped and sinful, they are self-condemn"..

 

[trophy33]

They seems like to stir things up among Christians believers instead of encouraging them in doing good works etc.

This is what Titus warns us of people such as these;

Titus 3:9.."But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless"..

...."warn a "divisive person" once and second time"...

..."After that, have nothing to do with them"..

...."such people are warped and sinful, they are self-condemn"..

They are not in our real lives, though.

Online discussion forums, on the other hand, are kind of built upon various quarrels, controversies and conflicts. Or else there would be nothing to talk about. It does not mean that in real life these issues are not already settled for a long time.

The more rules and bans applied, the less active an online community is... We can see it now that many people are hidden in their small corners "xyz-only" of forums, because they do not want to deal with anybody else's views.

And I remember many more people being constantly online, than 15 like right now. It needs to be a bit wild to stay attractive.

 

[HIM]

Right, coveting would be a good example of living without restraint, out of control.

But it doesn't follow that in 2 John, anomia refers to breaking any law in Moses.

But it does give us an understanding of what sin is. John as Paul would not have known sin if it were not for the law. And willful sin is lawlessness in an individual as John wrote.

 

[HIM]

Wrong in the meaning that RCC teaches that we must keep Sunday like Jews kept Sabbath before.

Luther was for Christian freedom, not for keeping a specific day (be it Saturday or Sunday).

You can check it yourself and visit a Lutheran church in your city and see.

Turn the clock back 123 years and one will see a different church. The mystery of Iniquity doth already work Paul wrote in His time. A little leaven leavens the whole until all is leavened. Further and further from the truth. Now it is about money therefore attendance rather than truth.

 

[Leaf473]

Wouldn’t that make the Holy Spirit and God in conflict instead of being in harmony?

I know you asked me not to talk to you about the law, but this is a matter of logic.

The answer is no, it wouldn't make them in conflict.

You may not be able to see it, and that's okay. But would you be willing to consider that other people are able to understand how they wouldn't be in conflict?

Peace be with you

 

[Leaf473]

Yes, they can keep it or (try to keep it) But they don't have to force other Christians to follow them.

It's the potential for division that I think isn't good. The feeling that while there may be Christians in other groups, we are the best, the top, the true remnant.

And I know that feeling, I had it when I was growing up Pentecostal

 

[HIM]

Cool! Since the software is downloaded on your computer already, can you find an occurrence of nomia in the New Testament?

No It does not exist in and of itself as a word in the NT.

Also, would you be able to give the references for where nomos occurs in the lxx? Can you copy and paste out of the software into here?

You do not have pc i would assume. Ok no problem.

Total LXX Occurrences: 243
νομοι (2)
Est 3:8, Jer 31:37
νομοις (2)
Est 8:11, Dan 9:10
νομον (93)
Exo 13:10, Exo 16:28, Exo 18:16, Exo 18:20, Exo 24:12, Lev 19:19, Lev 19:37, Num 5:30, Num 6:21, Num 9:3, Num 9:12, Num 9:14, Deu 1:5, Deu 4:8, Deu 17:11, Deu 24:8, Deu 27:8, Deu 31:11, Deu 33:4, Deu 33:10, Jos 8:32, Jos 22:5, Jos 24:25-26 (2), 2Kg 17:13, 2Kg 17:34, 2Kg 17:37, 2Kg 23:25, 1Ch 22:12, 2Ch 14:4, 2Ch 33:8, 2Ch 35:19, Ezr 7:10, Ezr 7:25-26 (3), Neh 8:2, Neh 8:7, Neh 9:14, Neh 9:26, Neh 9:29, Neh 9:34, Neh 10:28, Neh 13:3, Est 1:8, Est 1:13, Est 4:16, Psa 40:8, Psa 78:1, Psa 78:5, Psa 89:30, Psa 105:45, Psa 119:34, Psa 119:44, Psa 119:53, Psa 119:55, Psa 119:57, Psa 119:70, Psa 119:97, Psa 119:113, Psa 119:126, Psa 119:136, Psa 119:153, Psa 119:163, Psa 119:165, Pro 3:16, Pro 4:2, Pro 9:10, Pro 13:15, Pro 28:4 (2), Pro 28:7, Pro 29:18, Isa 1:10, Isa 5:24, Isa 8:16, Isa 8:20, Isa 19:2, Isa 24:5, Isa 24:16, Isa 30:9, Jer 6:19, Jer 9:13, Jer 16:11, Eze 22:26, Dan 7:25, Dan 9:11, Hos 4:6, Amo 2:4, Amo 4:5, Zep 3:4, Hag 2:11, Mal 2:7
νομος (55)
Exo 12:43, Exo 12:49, Exo 13:9, Lev 6:9, Lev 6:14, Lev 6:22, Lev 6:25, Lev 7:1, Lev 7:7, Lev 7:11, Lev 7:37, Lev 11:46, Lev 12:7, Lev 13:59, Lev 14:2, Lev 14:32, Lev 14:54, Lev 14:57, Lev 15:3, Lev 15:32, Lev 26:46, Num 5:29, Num 6:13, Num 6:21, Num 9:14, Num 15:15-16 (3), Num 15:29, Num 19:14, Deu 4:44, 2Sa 7:19, Ezr 10:3, Est 1:20, Psa 19:7, Psa 37:31, Psa 119:72, Psa 119:77, Psa 119:85, Psa 119:92, Psa 119:142, Psa 119:174, Pro 13:14, Isa 2:3, Isa 19:2, Isa 51:4, Isa 51:7, Jer 8:8, Jer 18:18, Jer 49:12, Lam 2:9, Eze 7:26, Mic 4:2, Hab 1:4, Mal 2:6
νομου (54)
Num 19:2, Num 31:21, Deu 27:3, Deu 27:26, Deu 28:58, Deu 28:61, Deu 29:20-21 (2), Deu 29:27, Deu 29:29, Deu 30:10, Deu 31:9, Deu 31:12, Deu 31:24, Deu 31:26, Deu 32:44, Deu 32:46, Jos 1:8, Jos 8:34, Jos 23:6, 2Kg 22:8, 2Kg 22:11, 2Kg 23:24, 2Ch 17:9, 2Ch 25:4, 2Ch 34:14-15 (2), 2Ch 34:19, 2Ch 35:19, Ezr 7:12, Ezr 7:21, Neh 8:1, Neh 8:3, Neh 8:8-9 (2), Neh 8:13, Neh 8:18, Neh 9:3, Job 34:27, Psa 94:12, Psa 119:18, Psa 119:51, Psa 119:61, Psa 119:109, Psa 119:150, Psa 130:5, Pro 6:23, Pro 28:9, Isa 42:24, Jer 2:8, Jer 23:27, Hos 8:1, Zec 7:12, Mal 4:4
νομους (5)
Neh 9:13, Est 1:15, Est 1:19, Pro 6:20, Jer 31:33
νομω (30)
Exo 16:4, Jos 8:31, Jos 8:34, 1Kg 2:3, 2Kg 10:31, 1Ch 16:40, 2Ch 6:16, 2Ch 15:3, 2Ch 23:18, 2Ch 31:3, 2Ch 31:21, 2Ch 35:26, Ezr 3:2, Ezr 7:6, Ezr 7:14, Neh 8:14, Neh 10:29, Neh 10:34, Neh 10:36, Psa 1:2 (2), Psa 78:10, Psa 119:1, Psa 119:29, Isa 33:6, Jer 44:23, Dan 9:11, Dan 9:13, Mal 2:8-9 (2)
νομων (2)
2Kg 14:6, Est 3:8

 

[expos4ever]

So your claim is the reason it’s wrong to covet is because the Holy Spirit tells us to, not because it’s a commandment of God, is that correct?

Yes.

Wouldn’t that make the Holy Spirit and God in conflict instead of being in harmony?

Where, exactly, is the conflict? While the law of Moses was in force, that law prescribed how we are to behave. Now that the Spirit is our moral compass, He/She tells us how to behave. If both the Law and the Spirit tell us it is wrong to covet, where is the conflict?

Those who walk in the Spirit are not in conflict with the law of God. Romans 8:7

First, it is not clear that the reference to the "law of God" is a reference to the Law of Moses - God has issued commandments in the Old Testament that were prior to, and therefore not part of the Law of Moses. But even if it is a reference to the Law of Moses, I have already offered an argument that Romans 8:7 describes the situation of the nonbelieving Jew who is under the Law of Moses - not the believer. That argument is in post 833.

The Spirit is given to help us keep the commandments John 14:15-18 so I do not see the Spirit and God’s law in conflict. The Spirit convicts us of sin John 16:8 sin is the transgression of the law 1 John 3:4 Romans 7:7 they work in harmony.

Readers need to be continually warned about the deception you and others perpetrate when you cherry-pick a translation that represents the minority view among translations with respect to 1 John 3:4. Most translations, including the highly respected NASB have "sin is lawlessness", or something similar, and make no specific reference to the Law of Moses.

You and others have to know this by now, but you persist in misleading readers.

As for John 14:15-18, Jesus says "If you love me, keep MY commandments" - Jesus's commandments are not the Law of Moses. And if you are going to argue that Jesus' commandments have to be consistent with the Law of Moses since Jesus = God = the author of the Law of Moses, you are repeatedly the oft-used, but clearly faulty, argument that merely assumes God can never change the way He works in the world.

Well thats a relief, you might want to update your posts to reflect this.

Excuse me? When I see "you will see this is a concession....", I clearly meant that such an interpretation on your part would be a mistake. Let me be clear: I do not believe the commandment from the Law of Moses to not covet still applies - I believe that we have a new moral compass, the Holy Spirit. And the fact that the Spirit also lets us know that it is wrong to covet does not mean the Law still applies as I already clearly explained in my last post (the stuff about Law X and Law Y).

 

[expos4ever]

Amen..the battle is still going from Pauls time to us today.

Paul states in Romans 7:6..Now we can serve God Not in the "Old way" of the letter But the "new way" of the Spirit..

Indeed, and watch what the law supporters do with Romans 7:6:

They redefine concepts to suit their agenda - they take the phrase "But now we have been released from the Law" and take their editor's pen and make it read "But now we have been released from the consequence of not obeying the Law".

Golly, I wish I could do that - arbitrarily rewrite Holy Writ to suit my purposes.

Here is how Strong's concordance defines the word translated as "released":

to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literally or figuratively:--abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

Note the complete absence of anything like "to be relieved from the consequences of something"

Or take the concept of no longer serving according to the letter of the Law from the last half of Romans 7:6. This poses a severe challenge to those who are vigorously arguing that we do indeed still need to "serve" according to the Law. So what do they do? Once more, they take out their editorial pens and take "we no longer serve according to the Law" and morph it into "we are no longer to be judged by the Law".

Yeah, right.

 

[Leaf473]

This commandment, therefore, according to its gross sense, does not concern us Christians;

Informative quote from Luther. And that thinking pretty much permeates the Protestant world today. We use different words now, but it's the same idea.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

They seems like to stir things up among Christians believers instead of encouraging them in doing good works etc.

This is what Titus warns us of people such as these;

Titus 3:9.."But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless"..

...."warn a "divisive person" once and second time"...

..."After that, have nothing to do with them"..

...."such people are warped and sinful, they are self-condemn"..

This is exactly how I've chosen to handle people in this forum as well. I love discussions and debate. However, when people obviously lie and and mock and distort and deny even the plain words of Scripture, that has gone too far. I give a couple of chances for them to see the error. But then, I will simply ignore everything they do going forward.
What I am surprised though is the number of banned subjects even on a Christian forum. A place where the Truth should be free to be proclaimed.

 

[Leaf473]

It may seem so on internet, because the SDA church is quite active on various websites and in public forums. Three or four of their members repeatedly creating new and new threads about the topic or posting their view again and again may optically look like its some unresolved problem for Christians.

But in real life, the vast majority of Christians do not care about their teachings, so there is no real theological battle. These issues have been settled long time ago in all main christian denominations, in creeds, confessions and catechisms.

I remember times when three or so KJV-onlyists made their belief one of the most discussed topics on Christian chats and forums, just because its a fun and easy topic for the rest of us to talk about. But who in real life really takes it seriously? The most of Christians world-wide do not even know what the KJV is.

These issues are mostly virtual and artificial. We participate in them in our free time, as an exercise in theology and reasoning. But we are just a small, "hobbyist" online community of 100-ish people, from the world of billions of people who do not know we exist. We are not a representative sample.

They seems like to stir things up among Christians believers instead of encouraging them in doing good works etc.

This is what Titus warns us of people such as these;

Titus 3:9.."But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless"..

...."warn a "divisive person" once and second time"...

..."After that, have nothing to do with them"..

...."such people are warped and sinful, they are self-condemn"..

They are not in our real lives, though.

Online discussion forums, on the other hand, are kind of built upon various quarrels, controversies and conflicts. Or else there would be nothing to talk about. It does not mean that in real life these issues are not already settled for a long time.

The more rules and bans applied, the less active an online community is... We can see it now that many people are hidden in their small corners "xyz-only" of forums, because they do not want to deal with anybody else's views.

And I remember many more people being constantly online, than 15 like right now. It needs to be a bit wild to stay attractive.

I definitely agree with the thrust of all three posts.

And I definitely don't want to be a divisive, contentious, or warped person I believe / hope that I am here because I am honestly concerned about the well-being of people who,
from my perspective,
have been taken in by cleverly designed books and teachings.

May the peace of the Lord Jesus be with everyone here.

 

[Leaf473]

But it does give us an understanding of what sin is. John as Paul would not have known sin if it were not for the law. And willful sin is lawlessness in an individual as John wrote.

If you're saying that a person can understand that living out of control is sin, and that such a lifestyle gives them knowledge of sin, then we agree
At least I think we agree on that.

 

[Leaf473]

But it does give us an understanding of what sin is. John as Paul would not have known sin if it were not for the law. And willful sin is lawlessness in an individual as John wrote.

If, on the other hand, you're saying that a person must have the law of Moses in order to know what sin is, then we disagree.

There's also the law of God written on people's hearts who do not have the law of Moses.

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 2:14-16 - New American Standard Bible

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else...

www.biblegateway.com