Adventist pastor; Doug B.; admitting to Sunday as biblical? (I otherwise, have no idea where this goe https://youtu.be/4IWVnC9H2os?si=SCapMIhwfvErnHKh

This guy is reading his Bible but missing context info - when studying Early Church History one can easily find Sunday gatherings were pretty common very early (probably at least late 1st century). However that doesn't mean that's a Biblical instruction, because it isn't. And several Christian communities also kept celebrating Sabbath.

There is no Sunday celebration or rest command - it gradually developed simply out of a custom to celebrate Yeshua's resurrection on that day. From the 2nd century CE we can observe belief statements pop up that the TNK/OT Sabbath day had ceased to be relevant. And that only become stronger as the Church became more Gentile oriented and departed from its Jewish roots. With that development also the attitude towards e.g. sexuality changed (perceived as inherently evil by the church, but good and blessed in Judaism). Towards the 4th century CE - the attitude from the Church towards Jews was outright hostile.

The idea that the Sunday celebration only started with Emperor Constantin in the 4th century is incorrect - it was already common near the end of the 1st century - and maybe even before that; we just have no documentary evidence for that.

Btw - I prefer to rest on the Sabbath day (Saturday) because to me it seems it has a universality to all mankind (there are several verses that support this).

SabbatarrianSundayer said:

May I ask, what a Universality is? I for 1; do support Sabbath teachings; yet I do think that Paul's, Ministration of death, means the 10Cs, and means is abolished.

Click to expand...

With universality I mean that given the verses on the Sabbath Day in the Bible (and some directed towards all people, not just the Israelites), to me it seems the Sabbath Day is universally relevant to all mankind (I can look up those verse if you want but ChatGPT is your friend here).

I don't think Paul or his ministry abolished the 10 Words (and neither did Yeshua) .. that would seem odd to me as all pastors these day would still vigorously defend and promote 9 of the 10 commandments. By including the Sabbath rest I can keep them as a unity. That's beautiful.

It's true the Sabbath Day was not mentioned in Acts 15 where they debated the requirements for Gentile believers. It could be the Jewish leaders of the church didn't consider the Sabbath Day of the utmost important for Gentiles, or it could be their decision focused on ceromonial/food/circumcision stuff only and therefore omitted mentioning the Sabbath Day as implicitly assumed - I'm not sure of that.

The funny thing is that in the orthodox Reformed Churches I grew up in - up to this day every Sunday morning the reverend would read out the full text of the 10 words/commandments and emphasise their applicability for believers today. Of course they do that with classical Replacement Theology - so the Sunday is the new Sabbath Day, so that way they think they also keep the 10 Commandments ...

SabbatarrianSundayer said:

If Paul didn't abolished the 10 Cs; then what is the Law of Christ, about? Gal 6:2.
Why is Sabbath breaking, never mentioned in listed sins. Why isn't Sabbath mentioned; past Colossians?
"Sabbath"; doesn't really belong in Heb 4:9.

Click to expand...

God promised He would write His Law on the hearts of the Israelites - so His guidance/instructions would be internalised.

The word 'Law' in English has quite a negative connotation - English speakers associate that with fines/court cases/etc. But in Hebrew the word has a much broader meaning: guidance / instruction / teaching - the Father giving that to His people so we find/sustain life and righteousness.

Yeshua emphasises he did not come to abolish/cancel the Law - but that the Law would remain until the end (Luke 16:16-17). Paul kept celebrating the Mosaic Law feasts (this is mentioned in Acts), he had an assistant circumcised in Jerusalem to counter the rumour he was teaching to abandon Mosaic Law (also in Acts). Paul refers to the Shema several times in his letters - Gentile believers easily overlook that. Paul celebrated Pesach (that was yesterday for 2025 btw) along with other Jewish believers .. (as found in 1 Corinthians).

When Paul is writing to Jewish believers there would be no need to mention the Sabbath command; as every Jew would already know about that. For letters addressed to Gentile believers maybe that was not his primary concern.

In Genesis the 7th Day is declared holy long before Israel as a people came into existence. Yeshua mentions the Sabbath Day was made for mankind (i.e. not just Israel) (Mark 2:27). Several prophecies that still have come te pass mention the Sabbath Day (e.g. Isaiah 56:6-7).

Hebrews (as the name suggests) was addressed to Jewish believers - and it assumes knowledge of the TNK; it points to being in Yeshua as an 'eternal rest' indeed. But I don't find the exhortation to abandon resting one day per week, or to stop circumcising baby boys. To argue Israelites should stop resting on the Sabbath Day would amount to declaring that day is not holy anymore (which conflicts with Genesis 2:2-3).

It's fascinating that nearly ALL believers would say it's healthy to have at least one day of rest per week; and then it would make sense to do that on the same day rythm-wise. As soon as one reaches that point it makes sense to make that the Saturday as the Bible has many verses on the Sabbath, but none on instructions for resting on Sunday.

(and yet I also happily visit a church service on Sunday - no objections there)

Have you ever discussed this with any Messianic believers from Israel?

SabbatarrianSundayer said:

May I ask, what a Universality is? I for 1; do support Sabbath teachings; yet I do think that Paul's, Ministration of death, means the 10Cs, and means is abolished.

Click to expand...

SabbatarrianSundayer said:

Adventist pastor; Doug B.; admitting to Sunday as biblical?

Click to expand...

I actually like listening to Doug batchelor he is a good teacher I am not a Seventh-Day activist but I do attend Sabbath services from time to time.

Constantine did make it law for the day of worship to be on Sundays the first day instead of Saturdays the seventh day.

Now there are instances written in scripture where Paul met on the first day of the week, but that does not imply that he negated the Sabbath or that he didn't meet on the Sabbath.

And there are articles of study written of by those who have studied, saying that Christ did not actually rise on the first day of the week but actually rose on the 7th day. Listing the Sabbath that are mentioned in the Bible surrounding the events leading to his arrest and the discovery of the empty tomb and how the Hebrew Israelites viewed and what they did on those particular sabbaths and there are several sabbaths mentioned.

With that in mind one should question exactly what happened in the early churches of the Roman empire and do unbiased research.

After all it is called the Lord today now why would the Lord change his day from a Saturday to a Sunday, actually the Lord didn't, the early church did and Constantine made it law.

SabbatarrianSundayer said:

To me; Constantine couldn't be more useless to talk about. Whatever we THINK he did; concerning the change from Sabbath to Sunday; "God" did it; or did it 1st.
Am I right; and Doug accidentally admitted to Sunday as biblical?

Click to expand...

No, did you not watch the video?He is not claiming Sunday as biblical. He is going over popular debates people use over keeping the Sabbath commandment and showing through Scripture how it’s not biblical.

SabbatarrianSundayer said:

May I ask, what a Universality is? I for 1; do support Sabbath teachings; yet I do think that Paul's, Ministration of death, means the 10Cs, and means is abolished.

Click to expand...

I'll leave the English lesson to the poster who used the word. As for Paul's "ministration of death" may I assume you refer to his New Covenant discourse found in 2Corinthains 3:7-18. Paul is comparing the "ministration of death" and the "ministration of condemnation" to the "ministration of righteousness" taught by Christ. Most scholars agree that Paul is speaking of those who seek justification under Mosaic Law and comparing it with the "ministration of righteousness". Ellicot's Commentary for English Readers says "The “letter,” the “written law,” as such, works death, because it brings with it the condemnation which awaits transgressors. It holds out to them the pattern of a righteousness which they have never had, and cannot of themselves attain unto, and passes its sentence on them as transgressors. Contrasted with it is the ministration which has “righteousness” as its object and result, and therefore as its characteristic attribute—the “law of the Spirit of life”—a law written in the heart, working not condemnation, but righteousness and peace and joy". The Benson Commentary has a similar well written explanation but it's quite extensive, so I'll forgo sharing it in it's entirety but you can read it yourself if you're so inclined. I've read the passage and many commentaries on it and not only can I not find anything in it that could be construed as a call to abandon the Sabbath. If you take into account the entirety of Paul's teachings you will find that he did not mandate a shift from Sabbath observance to Sunday worship, but rather emphasized that both days could be observed without conflict. We know from Acts 3:14 and Acts 17:2 that Paul, like Christ, attended and taught in the synagogue on the Sabbath. We also know that he attended gatherings of early Christians on Sundays but he never told anyone to abandon the Sabbath. Christ honored the Sabbath and even clarified it's observance on several occasions. Why would Christ clarify the observance of something He never meant for us to follow? And even if Paul had recommended it's abandonment (which I can find no evidence that he did), if God commanded it and Christ observed it and clarified it, then by what authority could Paul condemn it even if he wished to?

It’s important when reading Pauls writings to understand his role. He was a servant of Christ commissioned to spread the gospel, not to change God’s commandments, God’s personal Testimony written by the finger of God Exo 31:18 which there is no greater authority than God. Paul never taught in contradiction to God. Paul never taught to observe a weekly Sunday for worship, not once, that would undermine God’s authority as God said to work all days except the seventh day, that day we are commanded to keep the Sabbath day holy Exo 20:8-11, the seventh day Exo 20:10 Gen 2:1-3 Heb 4:4 as it is God’s holy day Isa 58:13, the one He assigned, in His own words, not one man assigned to Him, as if they know better than God. Paul was faithful to God even in Sabbath keeping which he did keep weekly Acts 15:21 Acts 13:42 Acts 13:44 Acts 18:4

Here is an in-depth commentary on 2 Cor 3:3


THE CHARGE

Paul says in 2 Cor. 3 that the Ten Commandments, which was written in stone (verse 3) were a ministration of death and condemnation that was abolished.

THE SHORT ANSWER

Since the law was written in the hearts of the Corinthians, and they literally became living, moving and walking epistles, it follows that the Law was not abolished, but rather changed from tables of stone to “fleshy tables of the heart” (verses 2- 3). One need not tell them to avoid stealing, killing or lying. So long as they continue submitted to the Spirit, they will live the precepts of the Law in their lives. They are “known and read by all men.” How then, pray tell, has the Ten Commandments been abolished?

Two things are mentioned as done away, the ministration of that which was engraved on stone, along with the glory that was shining on the face of Moses (verses 7-16). The latter was replaced by Christ’s more glorious face, according to verses 13-18. But what does Paul mean by “ministration?” The word holds the original meaning of service towards others. Note that it was not the Decalogue itself, but the ministration of it, or the then instituted manner of teaching and enforcing it, that was abolished, to be succeeded by the ministration of the same Law by the apostles and the Spirit (3:3, 4:1)!
The ultimate proof that the Ten Commandment are not here being spoken of as abolished is in verse 12:

“Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, [which] put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.”

In Exodus 34 we read the story to which Paul is referring to. It says in verse 29 that “when Moses came down from Mount Sinai” the “two tablets of the Testimony were in Moses’ hand…” Thus they could look at the Decalogue. What, then, was it that they could not look at? “And when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil on his face… And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him” (verses 33-25). What the Israelites could “not stedfastly look” at was the face of Moses when he covered it. That was what was abolished, to be replaced by the face of Christ!
Unfortunately, this veil still prevented their hearts from seeing the glory of Christ when they read the scriptures. But when that heart is turned to the Lord, “the vail shall be taken away” and they shall behold “the glory of the Lord” (verses 14-18). These same people have the Law in their hearts, manifest it through their actions and as a result do not go around saying that it has been abolished.

THE LONG ANSWER

2 Corinthians 3 is the critic’s go-to when they want to claim that the Ten Commandments have been abolished, but a closer examination of each text in question reveals a different story.(6)Before speaking of what has been abolished, Paul actually establishes the Ten Commandments by revealing that the Corinthians are living examples of what the New Covenant looks like in living form. They are the epistle because, as the New Covenant promised, the Ten Commandments have been written in their hearts (cf. verses 1-3, Jer. 31:33). In other words, far from being abolished, they are reestablished in a better location, from tables of stone to “fleshy table of the heart” (verse 3). Keep in mind that we are literally talking about the Ten Commandments here, because that is the allusion when the text speaks about “tables of stone.”
What does the text mean by the heart? Not the literal organ of course. The heart represents the mind, the seat of all thoughts, intellect, passions, desires, affections and endeavors. The mind is what makes who we are in person and character, and dictates our actions in the physical realm. “For as he thinketh in his heart” says the wise man, “so is he” (Prov. 23:7). So then, if the Law was written in their hearts, it has become a natural part of their very being. One need not tell them to avoid stealing, killing or lying. They know the Law, their very impulse, so long as they continue submitted to the Spirit, is to obey God. Their lives demonstrate it’s precepts to the whole world as if they were living, walking, and talking epistles. People can read the Law in their lives and character. They are “known and read by all men.” How then, pray tell, has the Ten Commandments been abolished? Any thinking man with reasoning powers can see that such a claim flies in the face of the very point that Paul is trying to make here!
With this in mind we know for sure that what follows in this chapter cannot now say that the Ten Commandments have been abolished. Therefore, a critical look at each reference to something being abolished reveals exactly what those things were. Let us do that now:

“But if the ministration of death, written [and] engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which [glory] was to be done away. How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation [be] glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away [was] glorious, much more that which remaineth [is] glorious.” (verses 7-11).

Click to expand...

Two things are mentioned as done away with here, the ministration of that which was engraved on stone, along with the glory that was shining on the face of Moses. The latter was replaced by Christ’s more glorious face, according to verses 13-18. But what does Paul mean by “ministration?” The word holds the original meaning of service towards others. Note that it was not the Decalogue itself, but the ministration of it, or the then instituted manner of teaching and enforcing it, that was abolished, to be succeeded by the ministration of the same Law by the apostles and the Spirit (3:3, 4:1)! It is like taking a man from point A to point B on a bike versus taking him on a car. The car is the better, faster way. But changing the mode of transportation does not change the man being transported. Whereas before of their own strength the people sought to reach the standard of the moral precepts of the Decalogue,(8) now God takes His people there by using His Spirit to write the Ten Commandments in their hearts.
Recall the New Covenant promise, “I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts.” “A new heart also 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 I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].” (Jer. 31:33, Eze. 36:26-27). Clearly what was removed was the manner in which that law is given. The ministration changed, not the Law.
The ultimate proof that the Ten Commandment are not here being spoken of as abolished is in verse 12:

“Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, [which] put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished.”

Click to expand...

In Exodus 34 we read the story to which Paul is referring to. It says in verse 29 that “when Moses came down from Mount Sinai” the “two tablets of the Testimony were in Moses’ hand…” Thus they could look at the Decalogue. What, then, was it that they could not look at? “And when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil on his face… And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him” (verses 33-25). What the Israelites could “not stedfastly look” at was the face of Moses when he covered it. That was what was abolished, to be replaced by the face of Christ!
Unfortunately, this veil still prevented their hearts from seeing the glory of Christ when they read the scriptures. But when that heart is turned to the Lord, “the vail shall be taken away” and they shall behold “the glory of the Lord” (verses 14-18).

Two things remain to be addressed. What did Paul mean when he said that the letter kills, and why did he address the Ten Commandments as the ministration of death and condemnation? One answer will suffice to reply to both these questions. The phrase “letter of the law” is an idiomatic phrase contrasting the spiritual, or principles of the law from the literal keeping of the words of the law. That there are these two aspects to the Law is made crystal clear by Jesus when he used the seventh commandment as an example. One can keep the letter (literally having relations with another woman outside your marriage) and yet break the spiritual aspect (lusting after that woman in your heart).(10) When one tries to keep the letter of the law, without the spiritual principles, you will fail, and thus be condemned to death by it. Moreover, when you are not aware of the Law, it will condemn you once you do become aware of it, because you will see that you are in violation. This is why the Law is called the ministration of death and condemnation, because it kills you and condemns you when you break it, not when you keep it!
Paul does not go deep into explaining what he means by death and condemnation here, but he does in Romans. Notice:

“What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all [manner of evil] desire. For apart from the law sin [was] dead. I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which [was] to [bring] life, I found to [bring] death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed [me].” (Rom. 7:7-11)

Click to expand...

It was the moment he became aware that he was in violation of the tenth commandment that the Law condemned him to death. You see the problem was not in keeping the commandment, but in not keeping the commandment! Note the next three verses:

“Therefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.” (Rom 7:12-14).

Click to expand...

Three important details I want to highlight here:

1. The fact that the Law points out his sin places no fault on the law, but on him. Thus the Law is “holy, just and good.”
2. It was sin that produced death in him. The commandment pointed out his fault, and in this way brings death only when you are in violation of it!
3. Did the fact that the commandment pointed out his sin mean that he no longer had to keep it? Of course not! He clearly said that that which is good, the Law, has not become death to him.

It would not be the first time that the Law is spoken of in this manner. Notice how David speaks of the Law in the same way but uses that as motivation to actually keep it!

“All Your commandments [are] faithful; They persecute me wrongfully; Help me! They almost made an end of me on earth, But I did not forsake Your precepts. Revive me according to Your lovingkindness, So that I may keep the testimony of Your mouth.” (Psa. 119:86-88).

Click to expand...

The critics view their inability of keeping the Law as a reason to avoid it or believe it must have been abolished. But the Bible views our inability to keep it as a reason to cry out to God for strength to obey!

Now, how can the Law be both death/condemnation and also “holy, just and good?” As explained above, it is death when breaking it, but life when keeping it. The old “ministration” of the Ten Commandments under Moses came with punishments and death when broken. Since the people could not keep the Law (Heb. 8:8), God now has a new ministration, the ministration of righteousness. God is now placing the Law in the heart of the individual who desires it, causing him to obey it, and thus avoiding the penalty that comes with breaking it. It is too bad that the critics interpret 2 Cor. 3 to mean that the Law has been abolished. Not only is that contrary to the context, but it leads the believer to go on breaking a Law he thinks is abolished!
The very next chapter says that the life of Christ is made “manifest” through the believer (2 Cor. 4:10-11). This is the very essence of the New Covenant. Christ lives His life, a life of obedience, through the acts of the believer, essentially causing him to live the moral precepts of the Law that has been written in his heart. So rather then going around saying that the Ten Commandments have been abolished, the believer, living under the New Covenant, will both manifest obedience to them through his acts and proclaim the importance of obedience to others as well.

SabbatarrianSundayer said:

Adventist pastor; Doug B.; admitting to Sunday as biblical?

Click to expand...

Here is the whole video so we can see the whole context

SabbatarrianSundayer said:

I watched the entire video. I heard him accidentally say, Sunday is biblical.
I'm amused by those people; who presume to try and say excuses for him.

Click to expand...

He is using arguments that Sunday pastors make as a form of debate. Hence the suit and “Pastor Barney”. Any reasonable person who views the whole video will see this.

SabbatarrianSundayer said:

I saw what he was literally doing.
That's why I call it an "accident"; to be saying Sunday is biblical; which he did say.
Im trying to get more people to see this; for the more specific reason, that Im not fighting so much for Sunday to be seen as biblical; even as I am fighting for Sunday to be seen as biblical;
As I am fighting more for the issue of genuine vrs counterfeit bibles.
Which is not the immediate issue; as Sabbath vrs Sunday is.

Click to expand...

When he is speaking as Pastor Barney he is not speaking for himself, Pastor Batchelor, he is using this as a form of debate of the popular arguments most Sunday pastors teach. This was my personal pastor for many years I have listened to probably thousands of his sermons, I know what he teaches and again any reasonable person who listens to the whole video will see he is a devout Sabbath-keeper and he does not believe Sunday worship over keeping the commandments of God is biblical. We should worship God 365 24/7 and our worship relates to keeping God's commandments as Jesus taught Mat 15:3-14 Rev 14:12

Regardless, if you believe this or not, still doesn't change what God says, who we are to follow Exo 20:8-11

SabbatarrianSundayer said:

Playing a Sunday pastor; he mentioned a verse that a Sunday pastor could/might declare, on declaring Sunday as biblical.
Pastor Doug said a verse, to strongly suggest Sunday is actually biblical.
It was an accident I know. But Doug said it
It's also in Ex 31:13 I think; Duet 5:15; Ez 20:12; says Sabbath was for ISRAEL only.
Paul's, Ministration of death, means the 10Cs; is abolished.
Otherwise; why do all I have for Sabbath; is an "Ellen" church?
As Ellen does describe Sunday in DA; would you care to see?
And no sins listed; ever lists Sabbath breaking; is this correct?
I saw Doug; nearly account for 2 Cor 3:7; but still DOESN'T. That would be bad for "Sabbath" business. Correct?

Click to expand...

No, you must have misunderstood Pastor Doug, just as you misunderstand Paul. Paul does not have the authority to abolish God’s personal Testimony. Exo 31:18 nor would he as a servant of Christ. Paul never taught anyone to sin Rom 7:7, dishonor God by breaking His law Rom 2:21-23 and to be an enmity to God by not keeping His law Rom 8:7-8 . I would recommend reading this link below about 2 Cor 3:3 which breaks this misunderstood passage down. We need to keep in mind, we have warnings of misunderstanding Paul as a salvation issue 2 Peter 3:15-16 having Jesus say depart from Me, ye who practice lawlessness Mat 7:23 sounds exactly like the warning so we need to be careful with his writing and be sure to harmonize them with what Jesus taught and lived

Adventist pastor; Doug B.; admitting to Sunday as biblical? (I otherwise, have no idea where this goe https://youtu.be/4IWVnC9H2os?si=SCapMIhwfvErnHKh

Regarding Pastor Doug, you obviously do not know him. He had no relations to the SDA church, was not raised an Adventist, his father was a billionaire, his mother an actress, he walked away from his family’s money. He was into drugs and lived in a cave where a bible was left and he started reading it to argue against Christians because he was an atheist. Reading the Bible, it changed him and he started to go to church mainly Sunday churches and from the Bible alone, he realized it wasn't biblical and eventually became a Seventh-day Adventist. If at anytime he thought the Sabbath wasn’t biblical he would leave, but its not what he believes, its not what he teaches and showing a snippet of a video when he is pretending to be a Sunday Pastor in a faux debate, to use against him is not being honest.

Regarding the commandments, all of the commandments was for Israel, the New Covenant is for Israel Heb 8:10- God’s Israel represents His church and if we are part of His church we are grafted in through faith Gal 3:26-29 and if we have faith in and of Jesus we would have faith in what He taught, like the Sabbath was made for man Mark 2:27 to keep the commandments, and be a follower of Christ which is what a Christians means following in His example who kept all of the commandments including the Sabbath. John 15:10 1 John 2:6 Luke 4:16-17 etc. Sunday-keeping is a tradition of man, that man changed as the corporate day of worship in the third centuary, just as we were warned Dan 7:25. Jesus told us clearly what He thinks about keeping our traditions over obeying the commandments of God Mat 15:3-14. We can follow the crowd or we can follow Jesus, everyone will need to make these choices.