Why the weekly Sabbath (Saturday) is the Lord's Day, in the Bible

[Leaf473]

Yes thats a popular choice if choosing the RCC route….

Actually, I think it's the Coptics that accept Enoch as scripture, Catholics reject it.

But it doesn't matter if we're not following in anyone else's footsteps. We can make our own decisions about scripture and how it's interpreted.

 

[Leaf473]

True we can call a raven purple, we have free will, but you will find no such scripture that says Sunday is the holy day of the Lord thy God, or Jesus is Lord of the first day, or God sanctified and blessed the first day or that the first day is a commandment of the Lord thy God or the day to honor Him, thus saith the Lord. Those scriptures God revealed as only the seventh day Sabbath so we have two roads and one path. Romans 6:16

Yes, there are many passages that refer to a seventh day Sabbath. The phrase in Revelation 1 is unique to that passage, so maybe it relates to those other passages, maybe not.

The people who established the tradition of what is scripture and what isn't worshiped mostly on the first day of the week.

Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 13:7 - New American Standard Bible

Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their way of life, imitate their faith.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Leaf473]

The wide path Jesus warns the majority take and it leads to destruction, Jesus tells us to take the narrow path and the Word of God is the light to our path, Psalms 119:105

Anyway, this is my last email on my this subject and if you wish to respond thats fine, I might sign out now, so take care and wish you well in seeking His Truth.

Right, well if the ones who set up the traditions about what is scripture were on that wide path to destruction, that would be a good reason not to follow them.

But if we don't follow those traditions, then we're back to each person deciding for themselves which things are scripture.

I think Martin Luther said that the Book of James clearly wasn't written by an apostle, since it contradicts apostolic teaching. But it was okay to use devotionally. I just bring that up as an example of someone deciding for themselves what is scripture.

Thank you for the nice discussion, and peace be with you

 

[BobRyan]

If you were a protestant in the 19 century and before you would not have argue the Ten. You would have been ousted.

At that time If we went to almost any church or School they were taught and were on display. Even Government buildings for the most part there would be a display of them.

Protestant churches then and now are much different as a whole.

Above encrypted in each line are links to sites that show your error. But just in case you are not willing to go there we will post some quotes from a few of the pioneers.

Martin Luther​

“I wonder exceedingly how it came to be imputed to me that I should reject the law of Ten Commandments…. Can anyone think that sin exists where there is no law?… Whosoever abrogates the law must of necessity, abrogate sin also.” Luther’s Works (trans., Weimer ed.), Vol. 50, pp. 470-471; originally printed in his Spiritual Antichrist, pp. 71, 72.

John Calvin​

“We must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law, for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable as the justice of God, which it embraced, is consistent and uniform.” Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels, Vol. 1, p. 277.

John Wesley​

“‘Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil’” [Matthew 5:17] …The ritual or ceremonial law, delivered by Moses to the children of Israel, containing all the injunctions and ordinances which related to the old sacrifices and service of the temple, our Lord indeed did come to destroy, to dissolve, and utterly abolish…

But the moral law, contained in the Ten Commandments, and enforced by the prophets, He did not take away. It was not the design of His coming to revoke any part of this. This is a law which never can be broken, which stands fast as the faithful witness in heaven. The moral stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial or ritual law, which was only designed for a temporary restraint upon a disobedient and stiff-necked people; whereas this was from the beginning of the world, being ‘written not on tables of stone,’ but on the hearts of all the children of men, when they came out of the hands of the Creator.

And, however the letters once wrote by the finger of God are now in a great measure defaced by sin, yet can they not wholly be blotted out, while we have any consciousness of good and evil. Every part of this law must remain in force, upon all mankind, and in all ages; as not depending either on time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but on the nature of God and the nature of man, and their unchangeable relation to each other.” On the Sermon on the Mount, Discourse 6, Sermons on Several Occasions (1810), pp. 75-76.

Dwight L. Moody​

“Now men may cavil as much as they like about other parts of the Bible, but I have never met an honest man that found fault with the Ten Commandments. Infidels may mock the Lawgiver and reject Him who has delivered us from the curse of the law, but they can’t help admitting that the commandments are right…they are for all nations, and will remain the commandments of God through the centuries…

The people must be made to understand that the Ten Commandments are still binding, and that there is a penalty attached to their violation…Jesus never condemned the law and the prophets, but He did condemn those who did not obey them [see Matthew 5:17-19].” Weighed and Wanting, pp. 11, 16, 15.

Charles Spurgeon​

“Jesus did not come to change the law, but he came to explain it [see Matthew 5:17-19], and that very fact shows that it remains, for there is no need to explain that which is abrogated…In addition to explaining it the Master went further: he pointed out its spiritual character.

This the Jews had not observed. They thought, for instance, that the command ‘Thou shalt not kill’ simply forbade murder and manslaughter: but the Saviour showed that anger without cause violates the law, and that hard words and cursing, and all other displays of enmity and malice, are forbidden by the commandment [see Matthew 5:21, 22].” Perpetuity of the Law of God, pp. 4-7.

Amen -- this shows that there are some Bible details that are sooo incredibly obvious that BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic admit to them!!

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
Is that what you see Christ doing in Mark 7:6-13??

I think Jesus observed what the scribes and Pharisees taught regarding what was scripture. That is to say, the tradition in place at the time.

So No, he didn't do the equivalent of denying the authority of the church.

read the post please. If you have a way to spin the statement in Mark 7 as Christ in full agreement with their tradition -- show us how that bit of gymnastics is done.

Here it is "again" waiting for you to show us "Jesus observed the the tradition in place at the time." in the case of Mark 7:6-13 instead of side stepping it each time it comes up.

BobRyan said:
No doubt "tradition instead of the Bible" goes back a long way.

Mark 7:7-13
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Then have you simply given up on finding anything from the Bible that fits your speculation that "Lord's day" in Rev 1:10 is a reference to weekly week-day-1 devoted-to-worship practice??


Well if you notice carefully on this thread - each person responds for themselves. And they are being asked questions like "in your POV".

THE thread is not positioned as "list all the traditions you are aware of" or "what traditions do you use to tell you what to believe".



No doubt I used my brain to decide things like buying and reading a Bible.

My point remains in this case - that "in the Bible" the Lord's Day is the weekly Sabbath

I don't think he was in full agreement with them.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing,

Fine - take an actual look at Mark 7 and shows us what Christ's argument is in vs 7-13 and how it supposedly fits your claim made earlier.

 

[BobRyan]

Same thing as "Sin is transgression of the Law"

KJ21 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law.
AMP Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness [ignoring God’s law by action or neglect or by tolerating wrongdoing—being unrestrained by His commands and His will].
AMPC Everyone who commits (practices) sin is guilty of lawlessness; for [that is what] sin is, lawlessness (the breaking, violating of God’s law by transgression or neglect—being unrestrained and unregulated by His commands and His will).
BRG Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
CJB Everyone who keeps sinning is violating Torah — indeed, sin is violation of Torah.
CEV Everyone who sins breaks God’s law, because sin is the same as breaking God’s law.
ERV Anyone who sins breaks God’s law. Yes, sinning is the same as living against God’s law.
EXB The person [L Everyone] who ·sins [commits sin] ·breaks God’s law [commits lawlessness/iniquity; C referring to the false teachers; 2:19–20]. Yes, sin is ·living against God’s law [lawlessness; iniquity].
GNV Whosoever commiteth sin, transgresseth also the Law: for sin is the transgression of the Law.
GW Those who live sinful lives are disobeying God. Sin is disobedience. (to what? -- Law)
GNT Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God's law, because sin is a breaking of the law.
HCSB Everyone who commits sin also breaks the law; sin is the breaking of law.
ICB When a person sins, he breaks God’s law. Yes, sinning is the same as living against God’s law.
ISV Everyone who keeps living in sin also practices disobedience. In fact, sin is disobedience.
PHILLIPS Everyone who commits sin breaks God’s law, for that is what sin is, by definition—a breaking of God’s law. You know, moreover, that Christ became man for the purpose of removing sin, and he himself was quite free from sin. The man who lives “in Christ” does not habitually sin. The regular sinner has never seen or known him.
KJV Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
AKJV Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
NIRV Everyone who sins breaks the law. In fact, breaking the law is sin.
NLVThe person who keeps on sinning is guilty of not obeying the Law of God. For sin is breaking the Law of God.
NLT Everyone who sins is breaking God’s law, for all sin is contrary to the law of God.
OJB Everyone practicing chet also does averah, and chet is averah al HaTorah.
TPT Anyone who indulges in sin lives in moral anarchy, for the definition of sin is breaking God’s law.
RGT Whoever commits sin, also transgresses the Law. For sin is the transgression of the Law.
WE Everyone who does wrong things is breaking God's law. Doing wrong things is breaking the law.

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

My point is not that "transgression of the Law" is not "Breaking the Law" and is not also "Lawlessness"

And in context - 1 John 5:3 reminds us that his context for the term is "God's Commandments" -- "This IS the Love of God that we keep His Commandments"

The word is lawlessness no matter how different translations translate it.

You are using an english word and then condemning english translations that don't use that english word to render the text. But are we supposed to think that there is no way in english that "transgression of the Law" is not within the term "lawlessness"? Is that your point? Or are you saying that a high-context sensitive language like Greek is surprisingly so context-insensitve in its definition for the term that it does not allow for what over a dozen translations claim regarding the "transgression of the Law" - and so the result is in your view that all of their scholarship gets it wrong? IT seems much more probable that the entire reason so many of them do argue for that rendering is that the Greek is more flexible than you suggest for that term.

The same book says "this IS the LOVE of God - that we KEEP His Commandments" context in 1 John 5:3 in the very same book by the very same Author as we see in 1 John 3:4. So in that context "lawlessness" in in 1 John 3:4 is the opposite of 1 John 5:3 "Keeping the Commandments of God".

So it is very very difficult to condemn those various translations that point to this negative act in 1 John 3:4 as not being transgression of the 1 John 5:3 Law that is in the context of the book itself. One may prefer this or that way to state it - but I don't see how we escape the violation of God's Law "The Commandments of God" in 1 John 3:4 given that John puts this contrast in the book itself.

nomos is translated law - anomos negates law. The word is anomia = lawlessness. Transgression is a translation

It is part of the translation but as we know both Hebrew and Greek are high context languages and a single word does not have a single meaning regardless of context. The other issue here is that "transgression of the Law" is (even in english) a form of lawlessness and the context in the book itself makes it clear that the "Commandments of God" are the Law in question (about which one is being lawless)

So, comparing 1John3:4 and surrounding, 1John5:3 keeping God's commandments is not being lawless. not doing lawlessness/sin.

Indeed 1 John 3:4 in contrast to 1 John 5:3 shows wrong action as contrasted to right action.

 

[BobRyan]

But you both know that Paul's use of the word law here in Timothy is not just in reference to the Ten. It is of the Book of the Law.

It is pretty clear from both Matt 19, and Matt 22 that Jesus included other parts of the Law of Moses (for example Lev 19:18) along with the TEN-- but in the context of the topic of this thread, where we are talking about the Sabbath as the Bible context for the term John uses in Rev 1:10 "Lord's day", we get into the issue of the TEN by those who claim that Sabbath can't possibly be the Lord's day in Rev 1 because the Ten were downsized or deleted or ...

 

[BobRyan]

HIM said:
The Ten were not even a question prior to the 20 century.

"As regards this external observance, this commandment [about Sabbath] was given to the Jews alone"
Luther's Large Catechism, 1529

"SUPERSTITION. In this connection we do not yield to the Jewish observance and to superstitions. For we do not believe that one day is any holier than another, or think that rest in itself is acceptable to God. Moreover, we celebrate the Lord's Day and not the Sabbath as a free observance."
The Second Helvetic Confession, 1562

Which misses the point entirely made in the post by @HIM

The post makes the point that your war against the TEN is going wayyy out of your way to go after the Sabbath to the point that you position your argument in opposition to almost all of Christianity (to BOTH sides of the debate) - and specifically in his post - to protestant scholarship.

You have free will of course and can choose anything you wish .. but why choose to oppose all sides?

Why keep doing that??

If you want to go after the Sabbath wouldn't it be better for your argument to join one side or the other of the debate rather than oppose both of the major groups arguing the Sabbath topic??

 

[BobRyan]

Let's examine this claim that "Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued "unit of TEN" for Christians today"

While such a claim is something to consider, the following should be considered:

First, is this claim factually true?

Yes it is true - and I keep giving the references for them

I have no reason to believe it is not

I am giving references showing it to be the case and others have posted references here as well.

, but it is fair to raise this question

It is fair which is why I keep pointing to the references.

Second, do these statements from these denominations actually reflect the consensus view of the "man in the pew".

I don't know how to measure the "every Joe and Sally in the pew" that may not be aware of the theology or even the position of their own denomination on this topic. What actually happens here is that people that are informed about their denomination and scholarship DO come to this section of the board and the first thing they post generally is
1. Wait! Who says we do not affirm the TEN ? where did you get that?

Then when they see that on THIS forum area all the noise against the Bible Sabbath is being made by a very small number of people that are not fully informed about Christianity's acceptance of the TEN, they then start to back away. Because our threads here end up dropping the Sabbath specifically and just going back and forth about the entire TEN. They feel they have no place here because they affirm all TEN but don't affirm the Bible Sabbath in its unedited form. So they leave and then you get the impression that all opposition to the unedited Bible Sabbath is just from the side that says the TEN are deleted or that the NT is affirming the NINE as if there is a "NINE Commandments" statement somewhere in all of scripture.

This seems doubtful to me as no Christian at all, of my personal acquaintance, believes in Sabbath observance.

The quotes/references given repeatedly show affirmation of all TEN - and in the Bible-Sabbath opposing groups it is all TEN with the caveat that they get to edit ONE of them - the Sabbath and point it to week day 1.

You can of course join them in that work - but then you would have to drop all of your LAW of God is dead, ended, ignoring the TEN in the New Covenant etc -- and just choose and argument that is very "precise" in going after the Sabbath while still affirming the TEN.

The point is that the MINIMUM here is that BOTH sides affirm ALL TEN in the moral law of God written on the heart.

One of the sides does so while editing one of the TEN and the other side does it WITHOUT editing any of the TEN.

So even if some doctrine is affirmed in some document written, in some cases, hundreds of year ago, if that doctrine is widely rejected by members of that denomination, then of what relevance is said affirmation?

You have yet to show widespread literacy in what they know about their own denomination to say that they even know to reject what their own scholars teach.

And ... there is a "reason" these documents are "Confessions of Faith" and "Catechisms" - official denomination statements and not just "professor Joe" says this or "Professor Sally" says this

Third, this kind of statement really does stray into "appeal to authority" fallacy territory.

My argument is not "This must be true because Baptists admit it" when it comes to the TEN. My point is that the two main sides of the Sabbath debate all affirm one key "Bible basic" which is the TEN included in the moral law of God written on the heart.

And I keep reminding people that they are free to strike off on their own path if they wish but then they have to give up the failed faulty argument "it is just you Sabbath affirming Christians that value the TEN" -- because they are undermining the integrity of their own argument when they do that.

 

[trophy33]

Which misses the point entirely made in the post by @HIM

The post makes the point that your war against the TEN is going wayyy out of your way to go after the Sabbath to the point that you position your argument in opposition to almost all of Christianity (to BOTH sides of the debate) - and specifically in his post - to protestant scholarship.

You have free will of course and can choose anything you wish .. but why choose to oppose all sides?

Why keep doing that??

If you want to go after the Sabbath wouldn't it be better for your argument to join one side or the other of the debate rather than oppose both of the major groups arguing the Sabbath topic??

"Him" claimed that it was not questioned before the 20th century.

I showed that its not true, with established Christian documents from the 16th century. I am not sure what side picking you are talking about, I agree with the quotes I posted from those documents.

Not that it matters so much, these are just factual corrections. What matters theologically is that the Bible clearly teaches the Law was only till Christ:

"Why then was the law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the seed [i.e. Christ] to whom the promise referred. It was administered through angels by a mediator...
...
Before this faith came, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian [i.e. the Law]."
Gal 3, BSB

And this is, BTW, also written before the 20th century - in the 1st one.

 

[HIM]

"Him" claimed that it was not questioned before the 20th century.

I showed that its not true, with established Christian documents from the 16th century. I am not sure what side picking you are talking about, I agree with the quotes I posted from those documents.

Not that it matters so much, these are just factual corrections. What matters theologically is that the Bible clearly teaches the Law was only till Christ:

"Why then was the law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the seed [i.e. Christ] to whom the promise referred. It was administered through angels by a mediator...
...
Before this faith came, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian [i.e. the Law]."
Gal 3, BSB

And this is, BTW, also written before the 20th century - in the 1st one.

It being the Ten, nothing was said in regards to the Sabbath, Everything you posted to this point was in relation to the Sabbath not the ten.
A misunderstanding of a bible text in Galatians 3 is not even the topic of our dialog.
Is there sin in the Body of Christ, the Temple of God?

 

[trophy33]

It being the Ten, nothing was said in regards to the Sabbath, Everything you posted to this point was in relation to the Sabbath not the ten.
A misunderstanding of a bible text in Galatians 3 is not even the topic of our dialog.
Is there sin in the Body of Christ, the Temple of God?

Keeping the Sabbath is not a part of "the Ten"? I do not understand what you are saying.

 

[HIM]

This begs the question and evades my point.

Why is it evasive? It is evasive because you have not engaged my assertion that it is plausible that God could choose to give us a new moral compass. You need to explain precisely why I am mistaken in making this assertion. For example, if you could demonstrate from scripture that the Law of Moses is truly eternal, then you would have succeeded in showing my assertion was implausible. That will be a challenge since we know the Hebrew word that is translated as "eternal" in all those Old Testament texts asserting the everlasting nature of the Law really means "for a long time", not forever. But make whatever case you want, but you need to make a case that it is not plausible that God would give us a new moral compass.

Sure it did. Here is a quote from the post you responded to.

"The Law on parchment and tables of stone tell us what sin is and keep us in sound doctrine as Paul through Christ show us explicitly in Timothy. The law, His Word in our hearts through His Spirit changes us so that we don't do the things that we would having crucified the flesh and the affections thereof, being of and in Christ."

Why does you reply beg the question? Because, at least in the two sentences I have reproduced above, you merely assert that the Law continues to serve in the role of telling us what sin is - you do not provide a supporting. Perhaps you have done so elsewhere - please let me know in what post(s) you make an actual case that we still need the Law to tell us what sin is.

The text Below was posted in the post you responded to. If we are disobedient, ungodly sinners and following unsound doctrine then the law is made for us,

1Tim 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.
1Tim 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;
1Tim 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Tim 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Here it is indicatively stated outright.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.


And once again here it is being stated outright. But this time one of the laws is said,

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.


And was again here it also being stated outright in the indicative mood with some of the laws mentioned.

Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

 

[HIM]

Keeping the Sabbath is not a part of "the Ten"? I do not understand what you are saying.

Of course you don't, take care.

Is there sin in the Body of Christ, the Temple of God?

 

[HIM]

By "governors" I assume you're referring to Gal4:2....
Who's "we" in Gal4:3?

The we would include Paul and his audience. Which would be all of us actually since the heirship context starts in chapter 3 where it states we are all one in Christ and heirs according to the promise.


Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Gal 4:1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
Gal 4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

Do you share the view that the Book of the Law was just for Israel?

Lol Galatians says we are all Israel in chapter 6. The law is for any who would come to God. We must know why we need Him to need Him and for it to make any sense.

How would you translate stoicheion to make it clearer?

Basic principles or components.

I assume you're correlating it to the "ministry" as you said - so, the tutor/guardian (Gal3:24-25), the "stewards/guardians/governors & stewards/administrators" (Gal4:2).

Yes the law being the schoolmaster. And Being under tutors and governors being stated in relation to being under the law in verse 5.

"ye" - Thou, you (pl), y'all. Are you using a certain translation or just translating as "ye" yourself?

Agree that's what it says.

Why the shift to the 2pl?

The 2nd person plural continues in verse 8 but starts in verse 6 and is said in context to verse 5's statement of we receiving the adoption of sons. Which is being stated in the 1st person plural. But would include the 2nd person plural in the proceeding clause. The contextual flow remains unbroken. Because as was stated the context of chapter 4 starts in the latter end of three and verse 4:5 is being said in relation to was previously stated.

I assume you mean Book of the Law and more succinctly the Law of Moses.

Which would include the ten since it is included in said book

Would you clarify what we do now that we have the BOOK and the Spirit?

"The Law on parchment and tables of stone tell us what sin is and show sound doctrine as Paul through Christ show us explicitly in Timothy. The law, His Word in our hearts through His Spirit changes us so that we don't do the things that we would having crucified the flesh and the affections thereof, being of and in Christ."

Seems a good explanation of Gen26:5. Advocates of God's Law may be pleased.

Since they were all Gentiles (incl Abram), I assume you're one of those advocates the "Advocates of God's Law" just mentioned.

When used lawfully.

Sticking with Gal4, did Paul know God without His Spirit?

No one can

​

Another question:

• You say the issue is the ministry of the Book of the Law. Does this mean the or some of the contents of the BoL are not an issue? IOW, what is the Spirit putting in minds and writing on hearts no

The big question. What has God placed in our hearts. Himself, for in Him we live, move and have our being. It is He that works in us both to will and do His good pleasure.
What laws though? God answers that in Deut. 30. The commandments and statutes contained in the Book of the Law. His very Word is in our hearts and in our mouths and in our hands (LXX) that we do it.

Take note the judgements, that which was instituted because of sin is not mentioned.

Deut 30:10 If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
Deut 30:11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
Deut 30:12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
Deut 30:14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Yes, there are many passages that refer to a seventh day Sabbath. The phrase in Revelation 1 is unique to that passage, so maybe it relates to those other passages, maybe not.

The people who established the tradition of what is scripture and what isn't worshiped mostly on the first day of the week.

Bible Gateway passage: Hebrews 13:7 - New American Standard Bible

Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their way of life, imitate their faith.

www.biblegateway.com

Yes, there is one group who chooses to believe the scripture references by thus saith the Lord on the seventh day Sabbath God’s holy day and one of God’s commandments Exodus 20:10 Isaiah 58:13 Exodus 20:8-11 and another group who chooses to believe something not written in the Bible. For me, I am in the group who believes thus saith the Lord, instead of following traditions of man. If you believe man established scripture instead of God 2 Tim 3:16 that is another choice too.

 

[trophy33]

Of course you don't, take care.

Is there sin in the Body of Christ, the Temple of God?

"Take care" and then immediately another strange question? lol

 

[trophy33]

For me, I am in the group who believes thus saith the Lord, instead of following traditions of man.

Which is kind of funny from somebody who follows Ellen White specific views about so many things.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Which is kind of funny from somebody who follows Ellen White specific views about so many things.

Please provide scripture where Ellen White wrote and spoke the Sabbath and the Ten commandment…..in my bible it says God did. Exodus 20 Exodus 32:16

 

[trophy33]

Please provide scripture where Ellen White wrote and spoke the Sabbath and the Ten commandment…..in my bible it says God did. Exodus 20 Exodus 32:16

Let us not play silly games. You are a Seventh Day Adventist and you believe that her visions and theology is from God. She said that Sabbath is the most important and for us and so you believe so.

The Bible is interpreted in the "light" of the Ellen White writings, in your church. You are "sola scriptura" only when it suits your case.