Why do SDA preach

Major1 said:

Without using the "REPLY" option......no one know who yu are talking to.

I am most excited to use Scriptures for you if I knew what anf to whom y


Exodus 31:13-14...........
"Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. 14"'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it is to be put to death; those who do any work on that day must be cut off from their people."

FYI........You do not hear that the righteous Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob kept the Sabbath. There is a conspicuous silence for 2,500 years after the Fall of man. It is not until after the redemption of God's people Israel out of Egypt when they are safely on the other side of the Red Sea that you read in the Book of Exodus that the Sabbath is mentioned again. (Exodus 16:22-30). Abraham was given commandments and ordinances, but the Sabbath is never mentioned as one of them.

Can you respond as to WHY that is Biblical history????

Then the Sabbath is given to Israel and Israel alone. The Sabbath is a covenant sign between God and the nation of Israel.

Ex. 31:12-17.......
"And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you. 'Therefore you are to observe the sabbath, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death. So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day he ceased from labor, and was refreshed."

I do not mean to be insensitive here......but how hard is it to understand that????

Click to expand...

Just curious if you understand these verses:

Romans 9:6But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” 8That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Colossians 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

Galatians 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.

Major1 said:

LEVITICUS 23:5-11 - Look at verse 11:.........
"'And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord for you to be accepted; on the day after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.'"

The day after the Sabbath is Sunday.

Read on specifically looking at Leviticus 23:15 -
"'You shall also count for yourselves from the day after the sabbath, from the day when you brought in the sheaf of the wave offering; there shall be seven complete sabbaths. You shall count fifty days to the DAY AFTER THE SEVENTH SABBATH; then you shall present a new grain offering to the Lord.'"

This is the Feast of Pentecost. It was one of the compulsory feasts of Israel.

Note on the day of Pentecost, a Sunday God's people were commanded to worship. God says, "On this same day you shall make a proclamation as well; you are to have a holy convocation. You shall do no laborious work. It is to be perpetual statute in all your dwelling places throughout your generations." Leviticus 23:21.

Click to expand...

all of these texts are valid reason to commemorate the work of the Lord, but do they constitute a mandate to replace Sabbath and abandoned it? I don't think it does.

BobRyan said:

Is the Bible "a can"? or "a canned response" to a doctrinal question in your POV?
Is that your definition of sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and practice?

Click to expand...

What I also see in general throughout CF is folks referring to all their posts as the Bible. Although it's usually God's Word or God's Holy Word. Wait... Genesis 1:1. There now I can call this post the Bible. A canned response is a cut and paste post that was written ahead of time and kept in a file. I know one person (not on this thread) who does that a lot. They're very lengthy and elaborate, with lots of colored text and different font sizes. He says the same thing; that all his posts are God's Holy Word. Just because someone throws some verses into what they've written, doesn't mean they're using scripture properly and or applicably.

BobRyan said:

Those Bible texts look pretty clear to me and the interesting part is that the bible details are so clear that even the Bible scholars on both sides of the Sabbath topic - agree ... as noted above on the bible detail mentioned in my post.

Click to expand...

If that is clear to you then how much clearer are these...........

The Ten Commandment Covenant, --the Old Covenant was made with Israel, and NOT with the Gentiles.

Look at Exodus 31:13, 16 and 17: "But as for you, speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'You shall surely observe My sabbaths; for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the Lord who sanctifies you....So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever;..."

icedragon101 said:

all of these texts are valid reason to commemorate the work of the Lord, but do they constitute a mandate to replace Sabbath and abandoned it? I don't think it does.

Click to expand...

And that is exactly what you have been taught.

Personally, I am going to stick with what the Bible says and having said that, you continue to go to church on Sat. and I will go on Sunday.

God bless my friend!

Major1 said:

Do I believe the words of Jesus?

YES I DO!

DO YOU?

You are so focused on the Law keeping - DO you believe that Jesus Christ DID NOT KEEP THE SABBATH?????

Healing is one of those things which are not permitted on the Sabbath.

The gospels record several instances when Jesus healed a person on the Sabbath:
1. Simon Peter’s mother-in-law in Peter’s home (Mark 1:29–31).
2. A man with a withered hand in the synagogue (Mark 3:1–6).
3. A man born blind in Jerusalem (John 9:1–16).
4. A crippled woman in a synagogue (Luke 13:10–17).
5. A man with dropsy at a Pharisee’s house (Luke 14:1–6).
6. A demon-possessed man in Capernaum (Mark 1:21–28).
7. A lame man by the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1–18).

The answer of course is that Jesus did not break the Sabbath, as outlined by God under the Old Covenant. As He publicly stated, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17).

The Pharisees had so conflated their own standard of holiness with God’s that they accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath law. They were furious over Jesus’ actions, yet it was only their Sabbath law He did not keep. Jesus kept God’s law, and He had done nothing to violate the Sabbath.

Since that is the case......how can Christian today be accused of not keeping the Sabbath????

Click to expand...

Are you saying Jesus did not tell the truth? John 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. You need to understand what you are implying here, if Jesus sinned, there is no hope for any of us!

Jesus kept all the commandments including the Sabbath as our example. The Pharisees was accusing Jesus of breaking God's Sabbath, which He was not, and was keeping it like He told us to as well. John 14:15, John 15:10, 1 John 5:3, Deut 20:6,

Th Pharisee's added more rules to God's Sabbath and Jesus was teaching them how to keep the Sabbath. It is not a sin to eat or to do good on God's Sabbath day according to Jesus.

Major1 said:

Exodus 31:13-14...........
"Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come

Click to expand...

Is 56:6 gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping
Mark 2:27 Sabbath "made for mankind" - said Christ, -- (so not "just Jews)
Is 66:23 for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship"
Ex 20:11 points to Gen 2:1-3 for making of mankind and the Sabbath at creation week itself.

Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations agree on this point
For example:

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism

Major1 said:

LEVITICUS 23:5-11 - Look at verse 11:.........
"'And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord for you to be accepted; on the day after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.'"

Click to expand...

Agreed the bible does say that.

Major1 said:

The day after the Sabbath is Sunday.

Click to expand...

You are talking about one day out of the year when you single out the Passover in Lev 23:5-11 reference to "Day after the Sabbath"



4 ‘These are the appointed times of the Lord, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at the times appointed for them. 5 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight is the Lord’s Passover. 6 Then on the fifteenth day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. 7 On the first day you shall have a holy convocation; you shall not do any laborious work. 8 But for seven days you shall present an offering by fire to the Lord. On the seventh day is a holy convocation; you shall not do any laborious work.’”

9 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When you enter the land which I am going to give to you and you gather its harvest, then you shall bring in the sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest. 11 He shall wave the sheaf before the Lord for you to be accepted; on the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it.

Major1 said:

This is the Feast of Pentecost. It was one of the compulsory feasts of Israel.

Click to expand...

Agreed so then you also agree it is not a weekly event and we are not talking about a weekly observance of week-day-1.

Major1 said:

Note on the day of Pentecost, a Sunday God's people were commanded to worship. God says, "On this same day you shall make a proclamation as well; you are to have a holy convocation. You shall do no laborious work. It is to be perpetual statute in all your dwelling places throughout your generations." Leviticus 23:21.

Click to expand...

Is it your claim that there is a weekly day of Pentecost or is it your claim that in every year there was a once-a-year event where people were commanded to observe a week-day-1 as holy?

MMXX said:

Yes and I gave you my honest conclusion. You seem to believe that "many are called but few are chosen" means that you are the among the few who are chosen. And as you said, you concluded this through your own study of scripture. However, it's not you who came to this conclusion, but rather it came to you through the Holy Spirit. Like I said, that's what I've honestly deduced from what you've said.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you have a misunderstanding here. I posted scripture to you from the very words of Jesus. They are Gods Word not my words so do not really have much to do with me accept are also applicable to me as they are to everyone else. Jesus not me says that the many are called will be lost and only the few will be chosen in *Matthew 22:14; Matthew 7:13-14; Joel 2:28-32; Romans 9:27; Revelation 12:17 etc. I only posted the above because your argument to me earlier was that the majority do not believe SDA teachings therefore the scriptures I have been sharing with you here must be wrong. I did not say to you at any time that I am among the chosen. This is something you have tried to read into the scripture that were shared with you to show that your claims about the majority must be correct is not biblical. What you have posted here does not change the fact that according to the scriptures Jesus is saying that many are called but only the few are chosen. The majority will be lost and God's people are only a remnant.

MMXX said:

Added to that most of Christianity don't hear Jesus and don't follow him and are sons of the devil. Which would include me of course since I stand with them.

Click to expand...

According to the scriptures we hear God and follow him by believing and following what God's Word says *John 10:26-27. I do not know your relationship with God Brian so I do not comment on it and do not judge you. It is the Word of God that we believe or not believe that becomes our judge come judgment day according to John 12:47-48. Who we stand with is who we believe and follow.

MMXX said:

I'm sorry, but at this time I don't know what else to to get from what you've said.

Click to expand...

I have only provided Gods' Word that are not my words but God's Word and we should believe and follow them. What is it Brian you do not believe?

Hope this clears up any misunderstandings.

Albion said:

This has gone on far too long IMO,

Click to expand...

You need not participate beyond your willingness. However, I am trying to assess the points you are making.

so here's the pulpit commentary from the appropriate page in Biblehub. It basically reflects the orthodox and historic view of the evidence.

Click to expand...

"The first day of the week. This is an important evidence of the keeping of the Lord's day by the Church as a day for their Church assemblies (see Luke 24:1, 30, 35; John 20:19, 26; 1 Corinthians 16:2).

I agree it is important evidence of their meeting on the first day of the week. But it does not designate it the Lord's day. Nor is it certain in any of those texts that it is customary practice. But the sum of the texts suggest a trend. No rationale is given such as "in honor of the resurrection." If there was, there wouldn't be much need for this important evidence they speak of as we would be referencing that clear rationale given instead.


To break bread. This is also an important example of weekly communion as the practice of the first Christians. Comparing the phrase, "to break bread," with St. Luke's account of the institution of the Holy Eucharist (Luke 22:19) and the passages just quoted in Luke 24, and St. Paul's language (1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:24), it is impossible not to conclude that the breaking of bread in the celebration of the Lord's Supper is an essential part of the holy sacrament, which man may not for any specious reasons omit.

We have reference to breaking of bread daily as well. What do you think is the significance?

Further, this passage seems to indicate that evening Communion, after the example of the first Lord's Supper, was at this time the practice of the Church. It was preceded (see ver. 11) by the preaching of the Word.

Click to expand...

The word used suggests more dialogue, and perhaps question and answers with Paul doing the majority of the talking, leading to the Eutychus incident. And that is not just nitpicking, because one of the features of the meeting was Paul talking a long time because he was going to leave the next day. If we put it together with his comments about an open door for ministry in Troas when writing to the Corinthians, but that he had to find Titus and get news about the Corinthian situation so he did not stay working there long it would make sense that he would have a long session of worship, dialogue, and such before leaving. Their were likely a number of new converts that he had left in a hurry and who had not yet heard a number of things about the faith.

Regular reference is made to time, days, etc. in the travel log in that chapter. So it is probably that singling out the first day means something but not conclusive.

So again, I think it is quite likely that it is referring to regular worship on Sunday, and is a formula. But it is not spelled out as you would like.


The following description, given by Justin Martyr, in his second Apology to Antoninus Plus (or Marcus Aurelius), of the Church assemblies in his day, not a hundred years after this time, is in exact agreement with it: - "On the day which is called Sunday, all (Christians) who dwell either in town or country come together to one place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read for a certain time, and then the president of the meeting, when the reader has stopped, makes a discourse, in which he instructs and exhorts the people to the imitation of the good deeds of which they have just heard. We then all rise up together, and address prayers (to God); and, when our prayers are ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president, to the best of his ability, offers up both prayers and thanksgivings, and the people assent, saving 'Amen.' And then the distribution of the bread and wine, over which the thanksgivings have been offered, is made to all present, and all partake of it."

He also gave multiple rationales:

But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

The first rationale is regarding creation.

The second is regarding the resurrection.

And we have other early church fathers who speak of the 8th day, of a new creation, etc.

The Didascalia gives a variety of rationales:

The apostles further appointed; On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the holy scriptures, and the oblation , because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the place of the dead, and on the first day of the week he arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week he ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week he will appear at last with the angels of heaven (Didascalia 2 [A.D. 225]).

But the NT only gives hints they were meeting, and doesn't not spell out such rationales, or say it is the practice of Christians as does Justin.

Major1 said:

And that is exactly what you have been taught.

Personally, I am going to stick with what the Bible says and having said that, you continue to go to church on Sat. and I will go on Sunday.

God bless my friend!

Click to expand...

the problem with using the festivals as a replacement is that they were never a replacement in the scripture, no you are pitting God vs Himself. that dose not work. How can God Contradict himself. God's ruler ship over creation has not been reestablished and so his Sabbath or sign (sign of the Eternal Father) cannot be done away with either.

SabbathBlessings said:

Are you saying Jesus did not tell the truth? John 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

Jesus kept all the commandments including the Sabbath as our example. The Pharisees was accusing Jesus of breaking God's Sabbath, which He was not, and was keeping it like He told us to as well. John 14:15, John 15:10, 1 John 5:3, Deut 20:6,

Click to expand...

I am telling exactly what is found in the Scriptures my friend!!!!

Open your Bible to John 9:15 and read.......
"Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, "This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.".

Major did not write that.

If Jesus did not want us to understand that He was breaking the Sabbath why did He not speak against these accusations. It's because Jesus had the right and the authority to break the Sabbath because He is Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath does not bind Him. Think about this, if it does not bind Him, are we not "in Christ"? Why would it be any more binding upon us. (Again Read Matthew 12:1-14 carefully).

One of the issues that needs to be honestly faced is the fact that Jesus never commanded anyone to keep the Sabbath and none of His apostles ever commanded anyone to keep it either. Not once in the New Testament are we told to keep the Sabbath. Those commands to the Church are conspicuously absent from the teachings of the New Testament.

icedragon101 said:

the problem with using the festivals as a replacement is that they were never a replacement in the scripture, no you are pitting God vs Himself. that dose not work. How can God Contradict himself. God's ruler ship over creation has not been reestablished and so his Sabbath or sign (sign of the Eternal Father) cannot be done away with either.

Click to expand...

NO.
There is no contradiction.....only a lack of understanding.

And No, the Law is not eternal.

Galatians 3:19 gives the purpose of the Law. It says: .......
"What, then, was the purpose of he law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come."

The law was given 430 years after Abraham. Gal. 3:17-18......
"What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise."

The Law had a definite beginning time (430 years after Abraham) and a definite ending time, --When the promised Seed (Christ, vs. 16) came.

It is just that simple!

tall73 said:

Did I imply at all that Acts is not inspired? It is not just what some writer said.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think you did imply that. What I wrote was this: "I have noticed that it's common to have people say...."

I am at the point of having heard from a number of contributors going round and round with some of the same arguments, and I'm attempting to keep the entire thread in mind so that we stay on course.

A number of them have taken the approach that I referred to. What's more, I am not the only one here who has noticed the same thing.

Major1 said:

NO.
There is no contradiction.....only a lack of understanding.

And No, the Law is not eternal.

Galatians 3:19 gives the purpose of the Law. It says: .......
"What, then, was the purpose of he law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come."

The law was given 430 years after Abraham. Gal. 3:17-18......
"What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise."
"
The Law had a definite beginning time (430 years after Abraham) and a definite ending time, --When the promised Seed (Christ, vs. 16) came.

It is just that simple!

Click to expand...

Genesis 26:5 "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." contradicts this view. not that simple.

Major1 said:

I am telling exactly what is found in the Scriptures my friend!!!!

Open your Bible to John 9:15 and read.......
"Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, "This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath.".

Major did not write that.

If Jesus did not want us to understand that He was breaking the Sabbath why did He not speak against these accusations. It's because Jesus had the right and the authority to break the Sabbath because He is Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath does not bind Him. Think about this, if it does not bind Him, are we not "in Christ"? Why would it be any more binding upon us. (Again Read Matthew 12:1-14 carefully).

One of the issues that needs to be honestly faced is the fact that Jesus never commanded anyone to keep the Sabbath and none of His apostles ever commanded anyone to keep it either. Not once in the New Testament are we told to keep the Sabbath. Those commands to the Church are conspicuously absent from the teachings of the New Testament.

Click to expand...

So you believe a Pharisee who was spying on Jesus and did not think He was the son of God over the Word of Jesus?

icedragon101 said:

the problem with using the festivals as a replacement is that they were never a replacement in the scripture,

Click to expand...

This is a good point - if a once-a-year day of Pentecost on week-day-1 meant "switch the weekly Sabbath o week-day-1" then it would have happened at the time of Joshua at the first feast of Pentecost.

Major1 said:

NO.
There is no contradiction.....only a lack of understanding.

And No, the Law is not eternal.

Click to expand...

When does the command to "not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 expire in your POV?

mmksparbud said:

The message has to be according to the bible. We are to test all the spirits. What the angels say is tested against what the bible says. The bible is the bottom line. If what an angels says goes against the bible, it is not from God. Also there are signs about the prophet which are like the prophets in the bible had---like no breath, increased strength and then frailty again. What the angel said and her physical manifestations all had to agree with the scriptures----they did. She was examined by Dr's (non-believers) who verified her lack of breath and increased strength. It's all easily found in the EGW website.
Cor 11:14 is one I used extensively with the Mormons.

Click to expand...

I would not expect anything less than what you said.

You said.............
"The bible is the bottom line. If what an angels says goes against the bible, it is not from God. Also there are signs about the prophet which are like the prophets in the bible had---like no breath, increased strength and then frailty again. What the angel said and her physical manifestations all had to agree with the scriptures----they did."

I can only say that one of has not read the historical facts of our dear friend.

The Great Controversy book contradicts both the Bible and historical facts!

The Investigative Judgment from Ellen White's statements contradict the Bible!

Did a 1755 earthquake, a dark day in 1780 take place?, a

Was there a meteor shower in 1833 that fulfilled a Bible prophecy?

What historical proof can YOU provide that Jesus entered the Holy of Holies in 1844.

In her own writings, Why was Sister White's vision changed?

From Source Embarrassing Failed Prophecies
"Mrs. White reportedly had a vision showing the fate of those people attending the conference. She specifically states that some of them would suffer the seven last plagues, and some would be alive when Jesus returned. The Whites had such confidence in this "vision" that it was published in Mrs. White's Testimonies to the Church and received widespread distribution. However, by the early 1900s, all those who attended the conference had passed away. This left the SDA Church with the dilemma of trying to figure out how to explain away such a prominent prophetic failure.

The Bible leaves no doubt that when a prophet makes a prediction that does not come to pass, that prophet is not speaking for the Lord:

Deut. 18:22.......
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Is that enough or do you want to go on?????

BobRyan said:

When does the command to "not take God's name in vain" Ex 20:7 expire in our POV?

Click to expand...

NEVER!

tall73 said:

You need not participate beyond your willingness. However, I am trying to assess the points you are making.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. But I think nothing is going to be gained by continuing on. Of course, that's just my own view of things. By the way, I have appreciated your contributions.