Why do SDA preach

LoveGodsWord said:

Agreed that the New moons are a part of the appointed times as well as the annual sabbaths in the feast days that included Gods' 4th commandment. It is not a true application to God's 4th commandment however as an appointed time because the appointed times were monthly and annual and Gods' 4th commandment is only included in Gods' appointed times (annual Feast days) because some of the Feasts went longer than seven days or depending on the yearly cycle could fall on any day of the week.

Click to expand...

Show me where it says they were only included because of that. It calls in appointed time. It is included in a list of appointed times. And just like the other appointed times it had sacrifices.

The appointed times or the application to these times to the Hebrew words, מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ; to holy convocations is to that calling out to a public assembly to a sacred place. In reference to the Sabbath (7th day) this was only applied to the annual Feast days during the times of the annual Feasts and never to the weekly "seventh day" Sabbaths of God's 4th commandment outside of the appointed Feast times. So your claims here are not biblical.

Click to expand...

Yet we just had a protracted discussion by the Adventists earlier in the thread that it was in fact a time of worship, and an appointed time.

And of course texts were posted about going to synagogue, Isaiah 66, etc.

You were shown from the scriptures that the new moons were both to show Gods appointed times and was an appointed time. The fact that it was an appointed time of animal sacrifices does not rule out it's purpose as shown already through scripture that the purpose of the new moons was also to determine the annual Feast days or God's appointed times.

Click to expand...

You didn't show that. That was my point. You quoted a text talking about the moon, and just supplied the application to the new moon assembly.

The context to Colossians 2:16 is not to God's 4th commandment but to the meat and drink offering, the new moons and the sabbaths (plural) in the annual Feast days. As posted earlier it is impossible for Gods' 10 commandments to be a shadow of anything because it is a part of the "finished work of creation" *Genesis 2:1-3. It point backwards to the finished work of creation (Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11) not forwards to things to come (Colossians 2:17).

Click to expand...

The plural is a non-starter because the plural is used in Ezekiel 45 in the LXX where the context spells out the weekly Sabbath is included in a parallel listing of appointed times.

And the Sabbath was in fact a memorial of creation--given to Israel as a covenant with them. And it is a sign of God's sanctification--given to Israel. And it was also a memorial of redemption from Egypt (Deut. 5) of Israel. And it also had sacrifices as an appointed time. And it was included in Ezekiel 45, which is a listing of the appointed times, along with reference to sacrifices, and we see the same kind of list in Colossians, but you want to say it is not there. But it is, because it is referring to appointed times and their sacrifices.

The Sabbath is a ceremonial law in the heart of the covenant document with Israel. But in Acts 15 and 21, though the Gentiles were included in the promises, and included in the blessings to Abraham, and included in Israel, they were not in fact required to be circumcised and keep the whole law. Throughout the NT they are required to obey moral commandments, including those in the ten. But just as the other memorials for Israel with sacrifices, etc. the Sabbath was included in Colossians 2.

There was no sin and no law and no plan of salvation for unfallen man when the Sabbath was made for mankind *Mark 2:27; Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 20:8-11.

Click to expand...

Yet we have no record of that being commanded of mankind until Israel, and in the context of a sign and a covenant, and a two way memorial with them. Just as the other appointed times were given to Israel, and most said to be forever statutes for them throughout their generations in all their dwellings.

You seem to be confused in relation to God’s 10 commandments not being all moral laws as an expression of love to God and love to man.

Click to expand...

No in fact I am not confused. That a memorial, sign, covenant with Israel with attendant sacrifices is ceremonial is manifestly obvious.

Now of course it was still very much required of them, and so were the other ceremonial aspects.

What is the grain and drink offering for thou shalt not kill?
What is the grain and drink offering for thou shalt not commit adultery?

Seem silly? That is because those are moral principles, and the Sabbath is a ceremonial aspect in the heart of the covenant document--unique to that people.

Well that is great but how does the above help your argument? It doesn't. No one has argued that God's 4th commandment was not a part of the annual Holy convocations (calling out to private assemblies to a sacred place). If you remember I have already posted Leviticus 23 showing this earlier. Once again Ezekiel 45:17 just like Colossians 2:16 the context here is to the burnt offerings, the meat and drink offerings, the new moon and the sabbaths (plural once again) in the annual Feast days. This therefore does not help your argument.

Click to expand...

No the fact that it spells out the weekly Sabbath means that it is included among those things. And it is the same type of listing in Colossians. And the plural in the LXX means the plural means nothing for your argument because it still included the weekly.

Albion said:

No. There is nothing even close to a significant minority of Bible scholars or church bodies that discount the New Testament out of hand and insist that only the Old Testament is God's word.

Click to expand...

Where does the "discount the New Testament out of hand" comment come from??

Albion said:

Very well, let's suppose that there is more support from famous people than might be supposed. Nothing really is changed by that. Sabbatarianism is still a relatively tiny slice of the Christian pie. You're entitled to it. We are entitled to agree with the great majority of Christians of the past 2000 years and we have the New Testament to explain why Sunday worship is in accord with God's intentions.

And then we can turn to something else on which we agree rather than disagree.

Click to expand...

If you take the entire subject and every detail - then "sure" you will find differences between the Bible Sabbath keeping groups and ones such as "the Baptist Confession of Faith" but not in section 19 of that document dealing with Law and Grace and the TEN Commandments,

and not in "the Westminster Confession of Faith" Section 19 dealing with Law and Grace and the TEN Commandments

- nor in similar statements to those found in the many other Christian denominations. There they are in agreement even with the Bible Sabbath keeping groups.

Having a difference on a few details - is not the same as differing on all of that topic such that the entire section 19 dealing with law and grace is pretty much held in common by groups on both sides of the Sabbath topic.

BobRyan said:

Albion said: ↑
Rather, it is that the New Testament does not have any standing.

Click to expand...

I am 100% sure you have never seen me post such a thing and you have seen no such thing from the 28 fundamental Beliefs published by SDAs. And of course "we do not believe that to be true at all"

(So I would "really" like to know where that even came from !)

Click to expand...

@Albion
I hope you will answer this question because I really would like to know the answer

LoveGodsWord said:

Well I have never said anywhere that I am aware of that Jesus spoke only of the 10 commandments. So your claim is not really relevant here.

Click to expand...

It is relevant because you don't actually DO all the commandments. James, etc. did.

The gentiles were not required to.

As posted somewhere else to you the "addition" in Ezekiel 20:11-13 is that the Sabbath was not only only of Gods 10 commandments but it was also a sign to God's people that we worship the only true God of creation and it is our God who sanctifies us.

Ezekiel 20:11-13
[11], AND I GAVE THEM MY STATUTES, AND SHOWED THEM MY JUDGMENTS, WHICH IF A MAN DO, HE SHALL EVEN LIVE IN THEM.
[12], MOREOVER (Further more; continuing from what was stated in v11) ALSO I GAVE THEM MY SABBATHS, TO BE A SIGN BETWEEN ME AND THEM, THAT THEY MIGHT KNOW THAT I AM THE LORD THAT SANCTIFY THEM (another reason the Sabbath was given to God’s people).
[13], But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness: they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury on them in the wilderness, to consume them.

Click to expand...

No, He gave them the law by which one lives if they do it. THEN moreover He gave them a sign.

According to the scriptures Gods' Israel is no longer those born of the flesh of the seed of Abraham but are now all those who are now born of the Spirit through faith in the promise..

Click to expand...

Correct. All those who are in the faith are children of Abraham.

But Acts 15 and 21 did not place all the law on the Gentiles. And the Jewish believers went on keeping all of it--not just the ten. But you don't.

So if you are Israel, you should be trying to get back to Jerusalem for Pentecost like Paul was. And that was quite some time after Jesus fulfilled the sacrifices of that feast.

Therefore if we are not a part of Gods' Israel we have no part in Gods' new covenant promise which is to God's Israel who today are all those who believe and follow Gods' Word...

Click to expand...

Gentiles are included in the promise. They are not required to keep all the law:

Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, “It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses.”
Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.

The issue was whether they had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

And the decision that went out did not in fact require them to:

23 They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.


Farewell.

Then in Acts 21, quite some time later, the same is reiterated. It is stated that James and the Jewish bretheren are zealous for the law.

And in this case it is made even more clear that Paul was accused of turning Jewish believers from circumcision and the customs of the Jewish people. And this included aspects of the law because the plan was to make plain Paul also kept the law. But again there was no issue with him in regards to gentile believers, and they reiterate they were not required to do these things.


Act 21:17 When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly.
Act 21:18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
Act 21:19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,
Act 21:21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.
Act 21:22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
Act 21:23 Do therefore what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
Act 21:24 take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law.
Act 21:25 But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

The New Covenant is for God's Israel...

Ezekiel 36:26-27 [26], A NEW HEART WILL I GIVE YOU, AND A NEW SPIRIT WILL I PUT WITHIN YOU; AND I WILL TAKE AWAY THE STONY HEART OUT OF YOUR FLESH, AND GIVE YOU A HEART OF FLESH. [27], AND I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU, AND CAUSE YOU TO WALK IN MY STATUTES AND YOU SHALL KEEP MY JUDGEMENTS AND DO THEM.

Click to expand...

Indeed, the covenant was with Israel. And gentiles were included in that by faith. But Acts 15 and 21 spells out they didn't have the same requirements.

Albion said:

Show that the NT verses do not speak of Sunday, the first day of the week, having been made the primary day of worship.

Click to expand...

If you ask me to "Show that the NT verses do not speak of Tuesday the third day of the week having been made the primary day of worship." I would simply note the absence of texts.

If you said the same about Friday I would note the absence of such texts.

EVEN though I would admit that in Acts 2 they "met every day to break bread" - which would have to have included some Tuesdays and some Fridays.

1. In the Bible we can find "Remember the Sabbath day to Keep it Holy... the 7th day is the Sabbath of the Lord" Ex 20:8-11

So -- can we also find 'Remember the Lord's Day to keep it holy... the first day is the Lord's Day"? in NT? in OT? anywhere in the Bible?

We can certainly find "the Sabbath the Holy Day of the Lord" Is 58:13 but where is the equivalent to that for week-day-1? in NT? in OT? anywhere in the Bible?

We can find "the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" Mark 2:27 but where is the "Son of Man is Lord of week day 1" or "the Lord's day is week-day-1"?

IF it were true that in the OT it says "the seventh day is the Sabbath" Ex 20:10 (which it does say) -- but in the NT it says "week-day-1 is the Sabbath" THEN one could argue that anyone not keeping the Sabbath on week-day-1 was ignoring the NT and only reading the OT. but such is not the case - for there is no such text in the NT for week-day-1 as the Sabbath, or even "week-day-1 is the Lord's Day"

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

2. In the Bible we can find gospel preaching "every Sabbath" to both gentiles and Jews in Acts 18:4.

So -- can we find Gospel preaching "every week day 1" to both gentiles and Jews in the NT?
How about "we call week day 1 - the Lord's Day" in the NT?
How about "the term Sabbath now refers to week-day-1" in the NT - or is it the case that every reference to a meeting on Sabbath in the NT is always the seventh day and never week day 1?

in fact the Catholic Church has some very strong statements on this paucity of scripture evidence in the document "The Faith Explained" by Leo Trese -- A denominationally approved (Papal Imprimatur) book - commentary on the Baltimore Catechism after Vatican II.

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

Albion said:

No intimating that the New Testament verses are just the opinions of Paul or some other mortals and not divine revelation.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Where does that idea even come from?

Albion said:

And nothing about God being unable under any circumstances to develop and/or change anything that had been given by him to the Israelites.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Heb 10:4-12 is a good example of taking away animal sacrifices as of the cross - as part of the liturgy in worship.

Albion said:

Of course he did change plenty, including the entire system of salvation when God himself took on our nature and died for our sins.

Click to expand...

I differ somewhat on that one because Gal 1:6-9 says there is only ONE Gospel and Gal 3:8 says that "Gospel was preached to Abraham". So that means Moses and Elijah in Matt 17 on the mount of transfiguration standing with Christ in glory - got there only one way - the blood of Christ , saved by grace through faith not of works, the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34.

Regarding the blood of Christ Romans 4 says "God counts those things that are not as though they were" and refers to Christ as "the Lamb of God slain from the foundations of the World"-- So then Enoch and Elijah were translated directly to heaven - but still saved through the one and only means - the blood of Christ who died for the sins of the World.

LoveGodsWord said:

No not at all but let me explain why. I have never argued the Mosaic shadow laws for the remission of sins including the annual Feast days are abolished. They are now fulfilled and continued in Christ to who they pointed to and continued in Christ and his work on our behalf in the heavenly Sanctuary

Click to expand...

a. the same thing you do with those needs to be done with the weekly Sabbath, listed in Ezek. 45 and in Col. 2.

b. Paul still wanted to be back in Jerusalem for Pentecost, long after Jesus' death.

You do not in fact keep all the law as the brothers with James did, or as Paul did.

Now you said with the new moon the only part that was a shadow was the sacrifices. Why wouldn't you apply that to the appointed times if you are a Jew spiritually?

Paul became all things to all people so that he might win them to Christ.

Click to expand...

And yet Paul didn't dispute the plan offered, or that he lived in observance of the law.

BobRyan said:

Do I have any post saying
1. SDAs discount the NT out of hand?
2. SDAs and Bible scholars in other denominations are argeed in that they " discount the NT out of hand"
3. SDAs believe that "only the Old Testament is God's word"

To engage here you need to reference something that the SDA denomination has published as an actual statement of belief. Do you know where to find that online? I assume you must already have access to it to post as if you were informed on it.

Click to expand...

I think they are trying to make a case that there are 11 commandments, one was added in the NT about Sunday worship, but as you know, there is no supporting scripture stating this. The trust me argument is a slippery slope for Christians.

SabbathBlessings said:

I think they are trying to make a case that there are 11 commandments, one was added in the NT about Sunday worship, but as you know, there is no supporting scripture stating this. The trust me argument is a slippery slope for Christians.

Click to expand...

I don't think they are making a case for the 11th commandment - if you read that section 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith it is only 10.

http://files1.wts.edu/uploads/pdf/about/WCF_30.pdf

And if you look at section 21 (XXI) the 4th commandment is edited to point to week day 1.

VII"Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him:437 which, from the beginning of the world to the
resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week: and, from the resurrection of Christ,
was changed into the first day of the week,438 which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's
Day,439 and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.
440
VIII. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of
their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an
holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly

The Baptist Confession of Faith has the same statement regarding the Sabbath commandment.

D.L. Moody also uses that same language where the Sabbath refers to Sunday for the NT. How Shall We Spend the Sabbath? by Dwight L. Moody

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

In fact I don't find anyone here arguing for an 11th commandment.

Sabbath vs. Sunday Statements by Protestant Churches | Empower Missions

LoveGodsWord said:

Actually, I do not get that out of James 2:1-7 whatsoever. Deuteronomy 16:18-20 is talking about Israel of the old covenant appointing judges to judge the people and not showing partiality in judgement of the Hebrew laws. James is not talking about appointing judges but showing partiality between the rich and the poor and what it means to love our neighbor as our self.

Click to expand...

He literally says they have become judges with evil thoughts.

Jas 2:3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,”
Jas 2:4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

He is applying the principle in the law against partiality.

Agreed there are similarities in Leviticus 19 though as shown earlier Paul in Romans 13:8-10 and elsewhere in the new testament scriptures show that Leviticus 19:18 as well as Deuteronomy 6:5 is simply summarizing God’s 10 commandments as our duty of love to both God and our neighbor.

Click to expand...

You have it backwards. All the law AND the prophets hang on the two--love God and love your neighbor--not the other way around.

The ten, like the other commandments, stem, from those two. Which is why they are the greatest commandments.

As posted earlier love is expressed in obedience to Gods’ law not by breaking God’s law and this is what James is also talking about by showing partiality to the poor and the rich and loving our neighbor as ourself.

Click to expand...

And by doing so he is referencing law outside of the ten before he ever mentions the ten:

Jas 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.
Jas 2:9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
Jas 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.

He warned them against failing in one point, partiality, which is not in the ten. And by this they would became transgressors of the whole law.

Then he relates that to other laws, which in this case are from the ten.

Love is expressed through obedience to Gods’ law not by breaking God’s law. This is what Jesus is talking about when he says “on these two great commandments of love to God and love to man hang all the law and the prophets.

It means that those two principles are behind all the law and the prophets. Everything else depends on them, hangs on them.

And yes, we are to obey God. But the whole question is what does He require, and per Colossians 2 the Sabbath, along with the others, were shadows.

That is all those laws that show us how to love God and our fellow man. Paul here is shows us in Romans 13:9 that loving our neighbor as ourselves is simply summing up those of Gods’ 10 commandments

Click to expand...

He doesn't say only the ten. He lists some from the ten and says and any other commandment.

Rom 13:9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Of course any supplementary laws connected with Gods’ 10 commandments and how we love our fellow man are also applicable no one has argued that they are not.

Click to expand...

You say you have not argued that they are not. But then you keep talking about the ten being the moral law, and others as supplemental, etc. They were all part of the law. That was the whole point of if you break one point you break the whole thing.

So to try and argue here that we can love God or our neighbor as our self without being obedience to God's 10 commandments is simply unbiblical because love to God and man is expressed as Paul shows here in obedience to God's 10 commandments.

Click to expand...

Except I have not argued that Paul's list there is wrong. What I have argued is that one of the ten is ceremonial and whatever you do with the other ceremonial laws in Col. 2 you have to do with it. And Ezekiel 45, a similar listing of the appointed times, shows it is included.

So I am not making an antinomian argument. Gentiles still have moral requirements. But the Sabbath is not moral but ceremonial.

BobRyan said:

My point has been that anyone coming into this topic with a Bible and an interest to learn about this subject - might start with the "easy Bible details" that are sooo obvious that Bible scholarship on BOTH sides of the Sabbath topic admit to them. A good place to start the Bible study.

Click to expand...

You know there are more than "both" sides. Here are some of the views I have seen. And you have acknowledged some of them before.

- Sunday sacredness view that holds the 4th as binding, but applied to Sunday

- Sabbath sacredness that thinks the Sabbath is still enjoined upon all believers in the NT era.

- Those who hold that moral laws are binding but the Sabbath is ceremonial and included in Col. 2.

- Those who hold that the whole of the Mosaic law was removed.

- Those who see a distinction between the Israelites to whom the covenant was given and Gentiles, to whom it was not.

SabbathBlessings said:

I think they are trying to make a case that there are 11 commandments, one was added in the NT about Sunday worship, but as you know, there is no supporting scripture stating this. The trust me argument is a slippery slope for Christians.

Click to expand...

Bob is quite aware some of us are NOT making an argument for Sunday at all. Others are. That is just one reason there is more than "both" views he keeps talking about.

There is only one Sabbath and it is not Sunday. The question is whether it is required.

tall73 said:

Show me where it says they were only included because of that. It calls in appointed time. It is included in a list of appointed times. And just like the other appointed times it had sacrifices.

Click to expand...

Unlike the Sabbath it is not mentioned for Eden and none of the other denominations argue that in eden they had new moon sacrifices.

Unlike the Sabbath it is not mentioned in Mark 2:27 "made for mankind"

Unlike the Sabbath it came into being in Ex 20 with animal sacrifices a part of the liturgy for corporate worship at Sinai.

In Dan 9 we see prayer and worship in Babylon by Daniel - without sacrifice or priest - so we know this level of worship and direct access to God without animal sacrifice was a reality even in the OT.

Heb 10:4-12 says all animal sacrifices ended at the cross.

So then the New Earth context for both Sabbath and the New Moon - is certainly without animal sacrifices just as worship in Eden as of Gen 2:1-3 would have been without animal sacrifice -- so this was already a reality in Daniel 9.

Again I don't see this as a difficult issue.

tall73 said:

Bob is quite aware some of us are NOT making an argument for Sunday at all. Others are. That is just one reason there is more than "both" views he keeps talking about.

There is only one Sabbath and it is not Sunday. The question is whether it is required.

Click to expand...

Indeed - I list that under the "Steve Gregg" example of a group with that view.

BobRyan said:

Unlike the Sabbath it is not mentioned for Eden and none of the other denominations argue that in eden they had new moon sacrifices.

Unlike the Sabbath it is not mentioned in Mark 2:27 "made for mankind"

Unlike the Sabbath it came into being in Ex 20 with animal sacrifices.

In Dan 9 we see prayer and worship in Babylon by Daniel - without sacrifice or priest - so we know this was a reality "without sacrifices" even in the OT.

Heb 10:4-12 says all animal sacrifices ended at the cross.

So then the New Earth context for both Sabbath and the New Moon - means without animal sacrifices, and worship "without animal sacrifices" was already a reality in Daniel 9.

Again I don't see this as a difficult issue.

Click to expand...

The issue is not that you should be offering sacrifices. And to get the rest you would have to go through the whole conversation.

He is disputing that the Sabbath was in fact an appointed time. But it was.

And there is no command in Eden. And it was given to Israel.

At this point we are just going in circles again. Perhaps I will start that new thread that I discussed with Ice to look at a different aspect.

tall73 said:

Bob is quite aware some of us are NOT making an argument for Sunday at all. Others are. That is just one reason there is more than "both" views he keeps talking about.

There is only one Sabbath and it is not Sunday. The question is whether it is required.

Click to expand...

It’s only a question for those who prefer their will over God’s. It’s really that simple. There is no scriptures stating God said the first day is significant (holy, blessed, hallow, sanctified), but how much more clearer can this be: Ezekiel 20:20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God. Just one scripture out of hundreds on the importance of God’s Sabbath day. How comforting to know if you obey God and hallow His Sabbath day that God makes a sign between us. If we hallow His Sabbath Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. Isaiah 58:14

God promises if I hallow His Sabbath day there will be a sign between me and my Savior and I will delight myself in the Lord. Who wouldn’t want that?

tall73 said:

And there is no command in Eden. And it was given to Israel.

Click to expand...

Regarding the Sabbath or New Moon?

In any case - - also true of "Do not take God's name in vain" and a great many other things like "Love God with all your heart" and "Love your neighbor as yourself" - not commanded in Eden in an explicit text.

But with the Sabbath we do have Gen 2:1-3 and in Ex 20:11 a direct reference to Gen 2:1-3 as the start point for the Sabbath set aside as a day of worship. A binding obligation for mankind.

Obviously that argument in your post cannot be applied consistently to God's commandments - so it always ends up as a cherry picking exercise - and as I note in my now famous posts - that is not the sort of cherry picking all Christian denominations are willing to do - not even the non-Bible-Sabbath ones.

But as you point out - people are free to ignore those details as they wish and I fully agree with that.

tall73 said:

You know what is even easier? Just ask, "do you think the ten commandments are still valid?"

Then you are right into a biblical discussion with no Moody needed. So if you are trying to keep it simple, to tailor to their understanding, with no nose counting, you don't need your approach.

And your approach can seriously backfire with those who see the irony of an Adventist appealing to consensus of Christian scholars.

Click to expand...

It reminds me of Muslims appealing to Bible scholar turned atheist Bart Ehrman. Since they claim the New Testament was corrupted, they use things said by Ehrman against the NT to back up that claim. Even though there's no way that Ehrman would lend any scholarly support the Koran and Islam.

MMXX said:

It reminds me of Muslims appealing to Bible scholar turned atheist Bart Ehrman. Since they claim the New Testament was corrupted, they use things said by Ehrman against the NT to back up that claim. Even though there's no way that Ehrman would lend any scholarly support the Koran and Islam.

Click to expand...

The NT is sacred scriptures just like the OT. Jesus taught all about the Sabbath throughout the New Testament. There is no corruption in any of the scriptures. That all came centuries later when a group tried to delete one of God’s commandments in lieu of traditions, the very thing Jesus warned us about Matthew 15:3-9