Are professed Christians that worship our Lord on Sunday instead of Saturday sinning?

BobRyan · Thursday at 8:22 AM

Hentenza said:
You misunderstand the argument.

Not possible since you yourself claim to have "debunked" my post when the fact is you don't understand the argument

Hentenza said:
The issue has never been the Ten Commandments as being our moral guide.

How "interesting" then that this is the first time you have said it.

Even more "interesting" that each time I state that the Ten Commandments are included in the moral law of God that defines what sin is, you object.

Hentenza said:
The issue has ALWAYS been the sanitarians legalistic view of the Ten Commandments

Sadly for your new position, you failed mention that idea above each time I point out that almost all of Christianity affirming the glaringly obvious fact that the TEN (ALL TEN) are included in the moral law of God.

That statement is in my signature , often quoted, often posted

Hentenza said:
in particular that of the 4th commandment.

They explicitly include the 4th in their affirmation of the TEN, as even you yourself quoted.

Feel free to join the actual debate that the majority of Christian groups have against the 7th day Sabbath groups

Hentenza said:
My contention had always been that the 4th commandments ended with the old covenant

The affirmation of the Ten that even you quoted never uses "ENDED" it uses the very different concept of "TRANSFERRED". Their focus is to claim they continue to affirm the TEN (not your supposed NINE).

You frame your argument as opposition to them in their affirmation of ALL TEN. And then wish to act as if you have somehow only opposed the Bible Sabbath groups.

Hentenza said:
and Jesus is our sabbath rest in the new covenant

1. The New Covenant is OLD TESTAMENT Jer 31:31-34
2. Not one text says "JESUS IS our Sabbath" or "Jesus replaces the Sabbath"

Saying that would delete both a first day transferred Sabbath and an unedited 7th day Bible Sabbath

You can't keep yourself from framing your argument as a form of opposition to almost all of Christianity, for some unknown reason.

Hentenza said:
and Jesus is our sabbath rest in the new covenant which is exactly what the Westminster confession of faith states.

For once , actually quote a source saying what you just posted, rather than leaving it as "you" being the source for your statement

Hentenza said:
My contention is that the Christian has the freedom to celebrate our Lord’s resurrection on Sunday

Indeed we can celebrate whatever we wish on any day we wish.
Sabbath is about God's choice of the weekly day of worship and nowhere does the Bible say that the Sabbath that is actually in the Bible is a memorial of either the crucifixion or of the resurrection. And we all know it.

Hentenza said:
My contention is that the Christian has the freedom to celebrate our Lord’s resurrection on Sunday as the Lord’s day just as the Westminster confession of faith states.

My irrefutable position is that there is not one text in scripture saying "the first day of the week is the Lord's day" or "Sunday is the Lord's day". What we have "in real life" is scripture saying "Sabbath is the Holy day of the Lord" Is 58:13. And "Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath" Mark 2:28, "Sabbath was made for mankind" Mark 2:27

You have free will of course and can do as you please on Sunday, monday, Tuesday etc.

But the claim to "edit" /transfer/move etc one of God's commandments will always get a comment from those of us who find no basis for doing such a thing in actual scripture

Hentenza · Thursday at 10:17 AM

BobRyan said:
Not possible since you yourself claim to have "debunked" my post when the fact is you don't understand the argument

The irrefutable position is that no one kept the sabbath until Moses. I debunked your post because you claimed that the Westminster confession of faith agrees with your position but then I posted the parts of the confession that you ignored which states that Sunday is the Christian sabbath. You have not addressed this yet and you won’t because it doesn’t fit your legalistic belief.

BobRyan said:
How "interesting" then that this is the first time you have said it.

Even more "interesting" that each time I state that the Ten Commandments are included in the moral law of God that defines what sin is, you object.

I do object to how you present them, in particular the 4th commandment. It’s nonsense to believe that God will punish those that rest a few hours later than the Jews when the commandment was not even given to the Christian which you are yet to post a verse that requires the Christian to keep the Jewish sabbath.

BobRyan said:
Sadly for your new position, you failed mention that idea above each time I point out that almost all of Christianity affirming the glaringly obvious fact that the TEN (ALL TEN) are included in the moral law of God.

It’s always been my position but then you only reply to the parts of my post that you can quote out of context or if not just change my post in your quote altogether.

BobRyan said:
That statement is in my signature , often quoted, often posted

They explicitly include the 4th in their affirmation of the TEN, as even you yourself quoted.

And always wrong. So I debunked all of them in another thread and I just debunked one in this thread again. I challenge you to attempt to defend another.

BobRyan said:
Feel free to join the actual debate that the majority of Christian groups have against the 7th day Sabbath groups

Yep. Been there done that. The problem with legalism is that is easy to spot and debunk. Legalism did not work too well for the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus time and it still does not work well today. False teachings are not hard to spot either.

BobRyan said:
The affirmation of the Ten that even you quoted never uses "ENDED" it uses the very different concept of "TRANSFERRED". Their focus is to claim they continue to affirm the TEN (not your supposed NINE).

You frame your argument as opposition to them in their affirmation of ALL TEN. And then wish to act as if you have somehow only opposed the Bible Sabbath groups.

Strawman and theological drama from emotion argument. Nine of the Ten Commandments were repeated into Jesus two love commandments while Jesus became the Lord of the sabbath and our rest. The old covenant ENDED so yes it has passed away as scripture clearly teaches.

BobRyan said:
1. The New Covenant is OLD TESTAMENT Jer 31:31-34
2. Not one text says "JESUS IS our Sabbath" or "Jesus replaces the Sabbath"

Two things that you ignore in the verses from Jeremiah.

““Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord: “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭31‬:‭31‬-‭33‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Jeremiah 31:31-33 (NASB2020) - “Behold, days are coming,” declares | YouVersion

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took

bible.com

1. The new Covenant to come is with the house of Israel and the House of Judah not with the gentile church where there is no Greek or Jew but only Christians.

2. The new covenant is “after those days” which is eschatological speak for the end of times.

Your interpretation of these verses in Jeremiah have been debunked many times and yet you persist in your error.

Jesus Himself teaches that He IS the Lord of the sabbath BECAUSE the sabbath was made for man. You guys always ignore Mark 2:28 because it doesn’t fit your doctrine so your claim to sola scriptura only goes as far as your interpretation so if it doesn’t fit then throw it away or ignore it.

BobRyan said:
Saying that would delete both a first day transferred Sabbath and an unedited 7th day Bible Sabbath

Only in your legalistic mind. The Christian has the freedom to celebrate the resurrection of our Lord on Sunday that you guys ignore. You guys celebrate a day where Jesus was in the tomb. :doh:

BobRyan said:
You can't keep yourself from framing your argument as a form of opposition to almost all of Christianity, for some unknown reason.

Almost all of mainstream Christianity celebrates the resurrection of our Lord on Sunday. There are a small group of non mainstream Christians that celebrate another day.

BobRyan said:
For once , actually quote a source saying what you just posted, rather than leaving it as "you" being the source for your statement

Most post resurrection verses about Jesus appearances happened on the first day of the week. Jesus resurrected on the first day. The apostles and over 200 believers gathered in Mark’s house in the first day to receive the Holy Spirit. The new church gathered for services and to collect the tithing on the first day. Jesus Himself talked about the believer’s rest in Matt. 11.

““Come to Me, all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is comfortable, and My burden is light.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭11‬:‭28‬-‭30‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Matthew 11:28-30 (NASB2020) - “Come to Me, all who are weary and | YouVersion

“Come to Me, all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke

bible.com

BobRyan said:
Indeed we can celebrate whatever we wish on any day we wish.
Sabbath is about God's choice of the weekly day of worship and nowhere does the Bible say that the Sabbath that is actually in the Bible is a memorial of either the crucifixion or of the resurrection. And we all know it.

That covenant was completed by Jesus and Jesus being God can change the covenant at will and for His glory.

BobRyan said:
My irrefutable position is that there is not one text in scripture saying "the first day of the week is the Lord's day" or "Sunday is the Lord's day"

You don’t have an irrefutable position. Your position is not sustainable and never was which is why the vast majority of mainstream Christianity celebrates the Christian sabbath on Sunday.

The Liturgist · Thursday at 2:24 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
Because you say so is not a biblical argument.

Indeed, which is why I made no such argument. You’ll note that my argument refers specifically to Scriptural verses and avoids logical fallacies and factually incorrect information.

Specifically, to reiterate:

Pauline epistles are equally inspired portions of the Bible; they are not contramanded by 2 Peter 3:16.
In light of 2 Peter 3;16, exegesis is required - since the instruction of St. Paul not to judge vis a vis the Sabbath is consistent with what our Lord said, which was more broad, “judge not let ye not be judged,” we can say that an exegesis that disregards it is erroneous, and in light of Matthew 7:13, ironically, we can also say that an exegesis that claims it does not apply to the weekly Sabbath is erroneous, because St. Paul distinguishes between the Sabbath and Festivals, that is to say, other high Holy Days.
The claim that the Sabbath is the only Holy Day referred to in Scripture is entirely inaccurate for many more were ordained by our Lord - the Pascha, Pentecost, the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukhot), the Day of Atonement, et cetera, all of which have been translated into Christianity.
Concerning the Apostolic tradition referenced in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:37, this is consistent with what our Lord promised about the Church in Matthew 16:18 and is additionally consistent with declarations made concerning requirements for Christian believers in adopted by the Apostles in Acts 15, whereas Mark 7:13 explicitly refers to Pharisaical traditions which later would be partially adopted into the Mishnah.
For this reason, we can also say the use of Colossians 2:8 is inaccurate with regards to traditional mainstream Christianity (indeed, Colossians 2:8 is in the context of a chapter warning of different categories of error - legalism and the phiosophical neo-Platonic syncretism we see in early heretics such as Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Nicolas the fallen deacon and would later see redoubled in Marcion, Valentinus, Tatian, et al.
We can also assert that claims that worship on Sunday is forbidden are contradicted by the Apostles being gathered in the Upper Room with 200 disciples when they received the Spirit on Pentecost Sunday, the first day of the week. And indeed, they were gathered at the ninth hour. This is consistent with records of the early church such as St. Justin Martyr discussing worship on the First Day.
Based on these scriptural facts, we now come to the historical and moral issue: the continued criticism and judgement and deprecations of other Christian denominations by a vocal minority of Sabbatarians is unscriptural, particularly the of Roman Catholics and non-Sabbatarian Protestants, but also the Orthodox whose historical existence and agency is ignored insofar as our existence is effectively denied in the supposed narrative of what occurred at Nicaea - counting both the required daily masses and the daily prayer services required of all priests, not even counting devotional services consisting of laity such as the Rosary, Roman Catholic Church conducts upwards of 1.6 million worship services every Sabbath (factoring in three prayer services and one mass), which is substantially more than celebrated by any other denomination, and renamed the seventh day from Dies Saturnae to Sabato in Latin, which is why the words for the seventh day in Latin-derived languages such as Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Portuguese and French are derived from Sabato rather rather than referring to Saturn, so clearly the Roman Catholic Church is observing the Sabbath, and should not be subject to the kind of abuse it receives, nor should other denominations such as Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans et al be subject to attempts at converting our laity or persuading us that we practice a defective form of Christianity, as per the words of Christ and St. Paul.

SabbathBlessings · Thursday at 4:31 PM

The Liturgist said:
Indeed, which is why I made no such argument. You’ll note that my argument refers specifically to Scriptural verses and avoids logical fallacies and factually incorrect information.

Specifically, to reiterate:

Pauline epistles are equally inspired portions of the Bible; they are not contramanded by 2 Peter 3:16.

They are inspired and in the inspired Scripture we are plainly told that in all of his writings he is hard to understand people misinterpret as they do with the rest of Scripture to their own destruction. I think trying to make Paul teach against one of God’s commandments, that God Himself wrote and spoke, that He claimed as belonging to Him, something so sacred and holy, that sits under His mercy seat Exo25:21 in heaven Exo15:5 Rev 11:18-19, I would consider is doing just that. But I guess we can always test this theory.

The Liturgist said:
In light of 2 Peter 3;16, exegesis is required - since the instruction of St. Paul not to judge vis a vis the Sabbath is consistent with what our Lord said, which was more broad, “judge not let ye not be judged,” we can say that an exegesis that disregards it is erroneous, and in light of Matthew 7:13, ironically, we can also say that an exegesis that claims it does not apply to the weekly Sabbath is erroneous, because St. Paul distinguishes between the Sabbath and Festivals, that is to say, other high Holy Days.

Sure if one wishes to ignore the context he gave us in verse 14 and 17 and than refuse to allow the Bible to define what these things are, which they do plainly. Paul didn’t forget the context because he wanted to do the will of God. We do not judge each other God judges us based on what is under His mercy seat James 2:11-12 Rev11:18-19 His unedited Testimony Exo31:18 written by God, not man, and even warned us about following what one government/beast would do to His holy Sabbath day Dan7:25

The Liturgist said:
The claim that the Sabbath is the only Holy Day referred to in Scripture is entirely inaccurate for many more were ordained by our Lord - the Pascha, Pentecost, the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukhot), the Day of Atonement, et cetera, all of which have been translated into Christianity.

The annual holy days had to do with animal sacrifices that came after sin was never sanctified and blessed by God as a weekly day of rest and worship to honor God Isa 58:13 Exo20:8-11 The are not in the Ten Commandments and is not the holy day of the Lord thy God. Isa 58:13

The Liturgist said:
Concerning the Apostolic tradition referenced in 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 2:37, this is consistent with what our Lord promised about the Church in Matthew 16:18 and is additionally consistent with declarations made concerning requirements for Christian believers in adopted by the Apostles in Acts 15, whereas Mark 7:13 explicitly refers to Pharisaical traditions which later would be partially adopted into the Mishnah.

The apostles were keeping every Sabbath in every city in Acts 15:21, that was their custom to follow in the example of Jesus Christ Luke4:16 1John2:6 not do something different.

The Liturgist said:
For this reason, we can also say the use of Colossians 2:8 is inaccurate with regards to traditional mainstream Christianity (indeed, Colossians 2:8 is in the context of a chapter warning of different categories of error - legalism and the phiosophical neo-Platonic syncretism we see in early heretics such as Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Nicolas the fallen deacon and would later see redoubled in Marcion, Valentinus, Tatian, et al.

Your opinion, not what Paul said. Christ never commanded anyone to keep holy the first day, this is a man-made commandment that is according to the world, not according to Christ. God wrote His will by Himself Exo20:8-11 Exo31:18 and there is no one greater than He to change this. The major mistake people make is speaking for God as if He is not capable of doing this Himself that somehow we need to correct. God created everything, so I believe this is taking liberties away that belong only to God. God spoke on this matter, He personally wrote it out so we really won’t have any excuses.

The Liturgist said:
We can also assert that claims that worship on Sunday is forbidden are contradicted by the Apostles being gathered in the Upper Room with 200 disciples when they received the Spirit on Pentecost Sunday, the first day of the week. And indeed, they were gathered at the ninth hour. This is consistent with records of the early church such as St. Justin Martyr discussing worship on the First Day.

This was a one time meeting on Saturday evening after sunset, they came together to have a meal and they tell us why because Paul was going on a mission trip and would be traveling in the morning, on the first day and would be gone for a while. There is nothing in the Text that says they came together as corporate “worship” or that this is now the new day to come together or a new Sabbath or was it the’ Lords Day’. One can only make this argument by adding to God’s holy word and Ethan disregarding what God Himself said so plainly Isa 58:13 . While we have free will, God told us not to plainly. Pro 30:5-6

There is no Scripture that says the Pentecostal was on day 1. Pentecost was an annual holy feast day that could fall on any day of the week.

The Liturgist said:
Based on these scriptural facts, we now come to the historical and moral issue: the continued criticism and judgement and deprecations of other Christian denominations by a vocal minority of Sabbatarians is unscriptural, particularly the of Roman Catholics and non-Sabbatarian Protestants, but also the Orthodox whose historical existence and agency is ignored insofar as our existence is effectively denied in the supposed narrative of what occurred at Nicaea - counting both the required daily masses and the daily prayer services required of all priests, not even counting devotional services consisting of laity such as the Rosary, Roman Catholic Church conducts upwards of 1.6 million worship services every Sabbath (factoring in three prayer services and one mass), which is substantially more than celebrated by any other denomination, and renamed the seventh day from Dies Saturnae to Sabato in Latin, which is why the words for the seventh day in Latin-derived languages such as Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Portuguese and French are derived from Sabato rather rather than referring to Saturn, so clearly the Roman Catholic Church is observing the Sabbath, and should not be subject to the kind of abuse it receives, nor should other denominations such as Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans et al be subject to attempts at converting our laity or persuading us that we practice a defective form of Christianity, as per the words of Christ and St. Paul.

These are not Scripture facts, its conjecture that sadly is in opposition of what our Lord and Savior said plainly Exo20:8-11 Psa 89:34 Ecc3:14 Deut4:2 Pro30:5-6 Mat5:18-19 Rev22:18-19. It was His blood at the Cross, not Paul’s, not yours, not mind and Jesus kept the Sabbath and never told one person that we do not have to keep this commandment anymore. He warned of the opposite Mat5:19-30 Mat 15:3-14 Mark7:7-13

The Liturgist · Thursday at 5:26 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
They are inspired and in the inspired Scripture we are plainly told that people misinterpret his writings to their own destruction. I think trying to make Paul teach against one of God’s commandments, that God Himself wrote and spoke, that He claimed is belonging to Him, that sits under His mercy seat Exo25:21 in heaven Exo15:5 Rev 11:18-19, is doing exactly that. But I guess we can always test this theory.

Strawman argument - I have not called for any commandments of God to be disobeyed, nor said St. Paul said as much.

Rather, the issue is that that God says we should not judge unless we want to be judged, and St. Paul says we must not permit others to judge us on the manner of our observance of the weekly Sabbath, which as I have shown is consistent with what Christ said.

Pursuant to that I have nowhere judged SDA forms of Sabbath keeping, and we traditional Christians are scripturally required to insist that Sabbatarians not judge us concerning our Sabbath keeping, and most Sabbatarians, most Adventists, do not engage in such conduct. I have no idea why some do; it seems contrary to the principle of Sola Scriptura.

So in this particularly egregious case case your argument seeks to use 2 Peter once again as a means of sidelining an inconvenient Pauline statement, but rather than addressing the actual issue raised, which is the judgement of others, you’re instead trying to claim that I’m saying things about the Pauline epistle which are not the case.

SabbathBlessings said:
This was a one time meeting on Saturday evening after sunset,

No, it was on Sunday morning. The events occurred at the third hour, which is 9 AM, according to St. Peter, in Acts 2:15 - this was an essential point in arguing that those present were not intoxicated.

As for it being a one time meeting, there’s no evidence of that, whereas we do have evidence of continued meetings on the First Day, and of course the First Day is sanctified by being the day of Creation and of the Resurrection and of Pentecost. The Seventh Day is sanctified by being the day Christ reposed in the tomb after remaking us in His image on the Cross on the sixth day, which in turn is sanctified by being the day on which He was crucified.

SabbathBlessings said:
There is no Scripture that says the Pentecostal was on day 1. Pentecost was an annual holy feast day that could fall on any day of the week.

Wrong, entirely wrong. See Leviticus 23:15-16.

SabbathBlessings said:
These are not Scripture facts, its conjecture that sadly is in opposition of what our Lord and Savior said Plainly Exo20:8-11 Psa 89:34 Ecc3:14 Deut4:2 Pro30:5-6 Mat5:18-19 Rev22:18-19

So you’re denying our Lord says “Judge not, lest ye not be judged?”

Because that’s what this is about.

OR - if you were referring to historical and factual issues outside of Scripture, I clearly delineated these, and they are not conjectural: it is a fact that Roman Catholics celebrate over 1.6 million worship services on Sunday; this is indisputable. The rationale for this is simple: there are around 410,000 Roman Catholic priests, and each one of them is required to worship at least four times per day, through the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours, which actually has more than three services but is typically consolidated as such (read as Morning Prayer, Midday Prayer and Night Prayer, although some will separate it further; in addition I’m not even counting the individual offices, which consist of Matins, Lauds, Midday Prayer (which can be three services) Vespers and Compline. In addition to those services, every priest is required to celebrate the Mass daily, so that works out to four worship services. These are in addition to services such as Novenas and other devotional worship celebrated by laity and laity and clergy together on the Sabbath. It is also a historical fact that the pre-schism Roman Catholic Church together with the Greek Orthodox Church, the Romanian Orthodox Church and what is now the Russian Orthodox Church (with jurisdiction in Moldova, where a Romanian language is spoken) ensured that the word for the seventh day was changed from to Sabato and variants thereof by all speakers of Latinate languages.

Unfortunately they were not able to accomplish this for English, but insofar as they managed to achieve it in Latin, and thus, consequently, for Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, French, Romanian, Catalan, Sardinian, Aromanian, Sicilian and Romansch and some extinct languages such as Dalmatian, well, if the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church were trying to change the Sabbath to Sunday, obviously they would not have done that. That’s not conjecture, its historical fact.

SabbathBlessings said:
Sure if one wishes to ignore the context he gave us in verse 14 and 17 and than refuse to allow the Bible to define what these things are. Paul didn’t, and we do not judge each other God judges us

So then why are you continuing to make posts attacking traditional Christians, saying Roman Catholics and other Christians are not properly observing the Sabbath? Making a definitive statement about the motives of other Christians, and making definitive statements rejecting as sinful the sincere attempts of other Christians to follow the instructions of Christ our True God is passing judgement.

I have been pleading with Sabbatarian members to stop this judgement for years now, explaining how these remarks cause actual harm, all while refraining from accusing or implying a sinful quality to the worship practices of Adventists, for that would be judgement concerning the Sabbath, which we are not allowed to render - indeed, we must not judge anyone at all.

SabbathBlessings · Thursday at 6:07 PM

The Liturgist said:
Strawman argument - I have not called for any commandments of God to be disobeyed, nor said St. Paul said as much.

Rather, the issue is that that God says we should not judge unless we want to be judged, and St. Paul says we must not permit others to judge us on the manner of our observance of the weekly Sabbath, which as I have shown is consistent with what Christ said.

Pursuant to that I have nowhere judged SDA forms of Sabbath keeping, and we traditional Christians are scripturally required to insist that Sabbatarians not judge us concerning our Sabbath keeping, and most Sabbatarians, most Adventists, do not engage in such conduct. I have no idea why some do; it seems contrary to the principle of Sola Scriptura.

So in this particularly egregious case case your argument seeks to use 2 Peter once again as a means of sidelining an inconvenient Pauline statement, but rather than addressing the actual issue raised, which is the judgement of others, you’re instead trying to claim that I’m saying things about the Pauline epistle which are not the case.

No, it was on Sunday morning. The events occurred at the third hour, which is 9 AM, according to St. Peter, in Acts 2:15 - this was an essential point in arguing that those present were not intoxicated.

As for it being a one time meeting, there’s no evidence of that, whereas we do have evidence of continued meetings on the First Day, and of course the First Day is sanctified by being the day of Creation and of the Resurrection and of Pentecost. The Seventh Day is sanctified by being the day Christ reposed in the tomb after remaking us in His image on the Cross on the sixth day, which in turn is sanctified by being the day on which He was crucified.

Wrong, entirely wrong. See Leviticus 23:15-16.

So you’re denying our Lord says “Judge not, lest ye not be judged?”

Because that’s what this is about.

OR - if you were referring to historical and factual issues outside of Scripture, I clearly delineated these, and they are not conjectural: it is a fact that Roman Catholics celebrate over 1.6 million worship services on Sunday; this is indisputable. The rationale for this is simple: there are around 410,000 Roman Catholic priests, and each one of them is required to worship at least four times per day, through the celebration of the Liturgy of the Hours, which actually has more than three services but is typically consolidated as such (read as Morning Prayer, Midday Prayer and Night Prayer, although some will separate it further; in addition I’m not even counting the individual offices, which consist of Matins, Lauds, Midday Prayer (which can be three services) Vespers and Compline. In addition to those services, every priest is required to celebrate the Mass daily, so that works out to four worship services. These are in addition to services such as Novenas and other devotional worship celebrated by laity and laity and clergy together on the Sabbath. It is also a historical fact that the pre-schism Roman Catholic Church together with the Greek Orthodox Church, the Romanian Orthodox Church and what is now the Russian Orthodox Church (with jurisdiction in Moldova, where a Romanian language is spoken) ensured that the word for the seventh day was changed from to Sabato and variants thereof by all speakers of Latinate languages.

Unfortunately they were not able to accomplish this for English, but insofar as they managed to achieve it in Latin, and thus, consequently, for Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, French, Romanian, Catalan, Sardinian, Aromanian, Sicilian and Romansch and some extinct languages such as Dalmatian, well, if the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church were trying to change the Sabbath to Sunday, obviously they would not have done that. That’s not conjecture, its historical fact.

So then why are you continuing to make posts attacking traditional Christians, saying Roman Catholics and other Christians are not properly observing the Sabbath? Making a definitive statement about the motives of other Christians, and making definitive statements rejecting as sinful the sincere attempts of other Christians to follow the instructions of Christ our True God is passing judgement.

I have been pleading with Sabbatarian members to stop this judgement for years now, explaining how these remarks cause actual harm, all while refraining from accusing or implying a sinful quality to the worship practices of Adventists, for that would be judgement concerning the Sabbath, which we are not allowed to render - indeed, we must not judge anyone at all.

I really wish you would stop with the false accusations. I have not denied any Scripture, I deny not looking at the context of the Scriptures and teaching against what God said He would not alter and told us not to plainly. I deny that we need to correct God on His written and spoken Word Exo20:10 Isa 58:13 I deny elevating something above what God asked us to Exo20:9 Eze22:26

Regarding judging, I would consider you own words. I know I have not judged you or anyone else,I have never said anything about your conduct, and wish you would stop this, you are not the judge of how people should act, what they should say or how they should say it and what they should believe. Just state your case with Scripture no need to express your opinion about SDA’s constantly on what you wish they would do or not do, thats not up to you . The forum rules says address the post and not the poster.

Trying to get people back to what God said for us to Remember and keep holy, is not judging anyone. Teaching people what God said He judges us by James 2:11-12 Rev 11:18-19 Ecc12:13-14 Mat5:19-30 is not judging, is doing what God asks of us because we are to repent (turn from sin Pro28:13),because the Kingdom of God is at hand. Sin is breaking the law of God 1John3:4 God’s unedited version, not what man changed Dan7:25. Jesus told us to teach each other the commandments and warned about those who teach and break the least of these commandments Mat5:19-30.

I understand this probably can’t be reasoned with so I am going to move and agree to disagree. All will get sorted out in God’s time.

The Liturgist · Thursday at 6:45 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
Regarding judging, I would consider you own words. I know I have not judged you or anyone else, making accusations doesn;t mean anything unless there is evidence. Just because one says so, doesn’t make it true.

You have declared we are celebrating the Sabbath incorrectly - which seems judgmental. In this very thread you declared I was trying to quote St. Paul in a manner that contradicted the Sabbath, a position which you have not corrected. Please stop accusing me of violating the Sabbath and of encouraging others to do likewise.

And while we’re at it, please stop accusing Roman Catholics of having done things at the Council of Nicaea which they did not do.

SabbathBlessings · Thursday at 6:49 PM

The Liturgist said:
You have declared we are celebrating the Sabbath incorrectly - which seems judgmental. In this very thread you declared I was trying to quote St. Paul in a manner that contradicted the Sabbath, a position which you have not corrected. Please stop accusing me of violating the Sabbath and of encouraging others to do likewise.

I have not declared anything, I point back to how God said we should keep His Sabbath day holy. Exo20:8-11 Isa 58:13 Lev23:3. I disagree with elevating another day God said is made for works and labors Exo20:9 above the day God deemed to rest and keep holy Exo20:8-11 that God himself wrote. I deny calling any other day the Lords Day but the Sabbath when God claimed that day for Himself Exo20:10 Isa 58:13 Mark2:28 in His own words both written and spoken and asked us plainly not to speak for Him.

The Liturgist said:
And while we’re at it, please stop accusing Roman Catholics of having done things at the Council of Nicaea which they did not do.

The only time I reference the Catholic church is posting their own quotes or pertaining what they themselves admit. For someone who doesn't like false accusations, you might want to consider your own posts and allegations.

BobRyan · Saturday at 3:56 AM

Hentenza said:
The irrefutable position is that no one kept the sabbath until Moses.

Not true.

That is simply a guess based on paying no attention to the 7th day in Gen 2:2-3 made holy, sanctified for mankind to observe and Ex 20 affirms this fact about Gen 2. No other commandment appears that early in scripture. Irrefutable

No record in Genesis of someone complying with "do not covet" or "do not take God's name in vain", not one mention of it, but that does not mean they were breaking those commandments.

Hentenza said:
I debunked your post because you claimed that the Westminster confession of faith agrees with your position

interesting statement on your part that refuses to even mention the position that I have that is supposedly addressed.

You can't do it because each time I reference the Westminster Confession I point explicitly to my own statement that they affirm ALL TEN claiming that the TEN apply to all mankind and start in Eden. You deleted that context in an effort to bend the point , stick with the details.

If you ignore enough details you can prove whatever you wish, but you cannot get your readers to agree to ignore the details you needed to omit.

Hentenza said:
but then I posted the parts of the confession that you ignored which states that Sunday is the Christian sabbath.

Indeed you showed how the Westminster statement denied your own claims that "Sabbath was not made for mankind" and your claims that "Sabbath is ceremonial not moral and so does not apply"., your downsized-to-nine arguments.

If you omit enough details almost anything will appear to work

Hentenza said:
You have not addressed this yet

That is exactly what you appear to be doing

Hentenza said:
I do object to how you present them, in particular the 4th commandment.

If that is true, then quote something

Hentenza said:
the commandment was not even given to the Christian

again you oppose the westminster statement that ALL TEN are for ALL mankind both saved and unsaved.

Why keep opposing the Confessions of faith like that???

Are we "simply not supposed to notice"?

Hentenza said:
And always wrong. So I debunked all of them in another thread and I just debunked one in this thread again. I challenge you to attempt to defend another.

hint:
be specific when you make an accusation
quote something ..
Show that you are not opposing the Westminster statement that ALL TEN apply to all mankind both saved and not saved.

Hentenza said:
Yep. Been there done that. The problem with legalism is that is easy to spot and debunk. Legalism did not work too well for the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus time and it still does not work well today. False teachings are not hard to spot either.

Strawman and theological drama from emotion argument

derogatory pejoratives like the above with no specifics, are useless

Hentenza said:
. Nine of the Ten Commandments were repeated

No quote at all saying "Do not take God's name in vain" by Jesus or any other NT writer, yet it still applies.

By contrast the NT writers quote from the Sabbath commandment numerous times.

Your pattern of ignoring the details allows you to circle-back without actually identifying anything

Hentenza said:
into Jesus two love commandments

Jesus' Love commandments (be specific) in Matt 22 are direct quotes of the Law of Moses and they do NOT say "on these two commands are based ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS except for Sabbath" as your statement infers.

When we get specific, your argument does not hold

Hentenza said:
““Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord: “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
‭‭Jeremiah‬ ‭31‬:‭31‬-‭33‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Jeremiah 31:31-33 (NASB2020) - “Behold, days are coming,” declares | YouVersion

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took

bible.com

The Westminster Affirms that this Law is written on the heart in the OT and includes all the ten.

The Bible also affirms it in Deuteronomy and in Jer 31 ad in Heb 8

Your arguments are continually stated in a way to oppose the details in the Westminster confession of faith, not just scripture

Hentenza said:
1. The new Covenant to come is with the house of Israel and the House of Judah not with the gentile church

If your argument is that the New Covenant is not for gentiles then you are once again opposing almost all Christian Confessions of faith not just the Bible.

Heb 8 quotes directly from Jer 31 and affirms it applies to all Christians in Paul's day.

Hentenza said:
where there is no Greek or Jew but only Christians.

2. The new covenant is “after those days” which is eschatological speak for the end of times.

Heb 8 quotes directly from Jer 31 and affirms it applies to all Christians in Paul's day.

Hentenza said:
Your interpretation of these verses in Jeremiah have been debunked many times and yet you persist in your error.

your own speculation was explicitly refuted from Paul himself in Heb 8.
try again.

Hentenza said:
Jesus Himself teaches that He IS the Lord of the sabbath

No doubt. As Heb 8 states Jesus is the one speaking the Sabbath commandment at Sinai

Hentenza said:
BECAUSE the sabbath was made for man. You guys always ignore Mark 2:28

Mark 2:27 that you are carefully ignoring says Sabbath was made for mankind. The very teaching you reject
Mark 2:28 says that the fact that HE made it for mankind makes HIM Lord of the Sabbath. The very thing Paul affirms in Heb 8 where He says it is Christ speaking the TEN at Sinai

Hentenza said:
because it doesn’t fit your doctrine

If you ignore a sufficient number of details you can make any suggestion you wish

Hentenza said:
so your claim to sola scriptura only goes as far as your interpretation

The mere quote of the text is sufficient cause to give rise to your strong objection. The text includes details you need to omit.

Hentenza said:
The Christian has the freedom to celebrate the resurrection of our Lord on Sunday

indeed they do. You don't have a single quote from me saying that they don't have the right pick any day they wish and remember the resurrection of Christ. So you make that statement in the form of an accusation without giving even one proof of it.

If you ignore a sufficient number of details you can make any suggestion you wish

Hentenza said:
that you guys ignore. You guys celebrate a day where Jesus was in the tomb.

Indeed. Because Jesus said it is a memorial of creation week.

Hentenza said:
Almost all of mainstream Christianity celebrates the resurrection of our Lord on Sunday.

True today. Not one example of such a weekly Sunday practice of worship in actual scripture.

So obviously you no text for it.

Hentenza said:
Most post resurrection verses about Jesus appearances happened on the first day of the week

Indeed all the groups affirm a Sunday resurrection. But Jesus was born once, died once, resurrected once. None of that is "weekly" and there is not one statement in the NT saying that they meet weekly on Sunday in memorial of the resurrection. So you quote none.

Hentenza said:
. Jesus resurrected on the first day. The apostles and over 200 believers gathered in Mark’s house in the first day to receive the Holy Spirit.

not a weekly event

Hentenza said:
The new church gathered for services and to collect the tithing on the first day

no statement says they gathered weekly for tithe collection

Rather it says that "each one of you should set ASIDE by himself , alone, at home" funds at the start of each week. No mention of a gathering at all each sunday in that text.

But it does show that each individual did at least do "something" by himself on week day one. What a great place to put at least one text calling week day 1 the Lord's day" or to mention a worship service on week day one or to say that the Sabbath is now moved to week day one (as the Westminster document claims)

Hentenza said:
““Come to Me, all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is comfortable, and My burden is light.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭11‬:‭28‬-‭30‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Jesus did not say in Matt 11 "some day in the future come to Me". It was present reality , long before the cross and makes no reference to death, burial or resurrection being selected out.

Jesus and His disciples continued to keep the Sabbath in Matt 11.

Hentenza said:
You don’t have an irrefutable position.

Your pattern of deleting details leads you to that conclusion.

But the one that reads your post is not so easily forced to join you in ignoring details in the posts, and in scripture. The extreme nature of of the positions you take is the primary reason that no Christian confessions of faith join you in some of your wild statements against the TEN

BobRyan · Saturday at 4:00 AM

The Liturgist said:
You have declared we are celebrating the Sabbath incorrectly

If by "Sabbath" you mean the Sabbath commandment as it is actually in the Bible

Then...Isn't that what you yourself claim?

Isn't it your own claim that you do not keep the Sabbath on the day specified in the Bible? The very claim the Catholic Church makes in its own commentary on the Baltimore catechism after vatican II, when it speaks about the Sabbath commandment??

What did I miss??

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

Or did you actually mean to post "you have declared that some Christians edited the Sabbath to point to week day one instead of the seventh day of the week as written in scripture, and you think that is a mistake"

tall73 · Saturday at 8:23 AM

BobRyan said:
If by "Sabbath" you mean the Sabbath commandment as it is actually in the Bible

Then...Isn't that what you yourself claim?

Isn't it your own claim that you do not keep the Sabbath on the day specified in the Bible? The very claim the Catholic Church makes in its own commentary on the Baltimore catechism after vatican II, when it speaks about the Sabbath commandment??

What did I miss??

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

Or did you actually mean to post "you have declared that some Christians edited the Sabbath to point to week day one instead of the seventh day of the week as written in scripture, and you think that is a mistake"

You missed that @The Liturgist does not claim to omit the 7th day Sabbath, and argues the Eastern church, and to a degree the Western, still keep it, in addition to Sunday.

Of course, I think he is partly basing this on celebration of the eucharist, and other forms of worship.

I think you are largely talking past each other because you have different notions of what it means to keep the Sabbath.

The OT commanded rest.

There were texts that spoke of convocation, and assembly in association with the Sabbath (and the new moon), but rest was the focus.

The Liturgist appears to be interpreting it primarily as worship. This may be informed by some church fathers who still spoke of observance, but not in the manner of the Jews, and who spoke of celebrating eucharist on that day as a festal day.

tall73 · Saturday at 8:56 AM

From what I can tell, in @The Liturgist 's theology, OT appointed times have been incorporated into Christian liturgy, not abandoned.

These two fairly well known quotes showing this aspect may be a starting point to discuss:

Sozomen, 5th century

CHURCH FATHERS: Ecclesiastical History, Book VII (Sozomen)
The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria.

Socrates Scholasticus, History book 5, 5th century CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book V (Socrates Scholasticus)
For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.

These texts describe, centuries after the NT, that most churches were still assembling on the Sabbath, and celebrating the eucharist (sacred mysteries).
That does not necessarily mean they were observing a sabbath rest as in the commandment.

However, the following seems to have some elements of both, but still emphasizes not idleness of hands, but study of Scripture, worship, and assembly.

Apostolic Constitutions, around the 4th century

Philip Schaff: ANF07. Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

www.ccel.org

XXXVI. Have before thine eyes the fear of God, and always remember the ten commandments of God,-to love the one and only Lord God with all thy strength; to give no heed to idols, or any other beings, as being lifeless gods, or irrational beings or daemons. Consider the manifold workmanship of God, which received its beginning through Christ. Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands.

And a bit later on:

Be not careless of yourselves, neither deprive your Saviour of His own members, neither divide His body nor disperse His members, neither prefer the occasions of this life to the word of God; but assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord's house: in the morning saying the sixty-second Psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally on the Sabbath-day. And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection, on which we pray thrice standing in memory of Him who arose in three days, in which is performed the reading of the prophets, the preaching of the Gospel, the oblation of the sacrifice, the gift of the holy food?

The Liturgist · Saturday at 10:48 AM

BobRyan said:
If by "Sabbath" you mean the Sabbath commandment as it is actually in the Bible

Then...Isn't that what you yourself claim?

Isn't it your own claim that you do not keep the Sabbath on the day specified in the Bible? The very claim the Catholic Church makes in its own commentary on the Baltimore catechism after vatican II, when it speaks about the Sabbath commandment??

What did I miss??

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

Or did you actually mean to post "you have declared that some Christians edited the Sabbath to point to week day one instead of the seventh day of the week as written in scripture, and you think that is a mistake"

No, I’ve never claimed that - I have consistently from the start pointed to Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox observance of the Sabbath throughout the year, and also of Roman Catholic observance (they have more worship services on the seventh day than your denomination; around 1.6 million if you consider every priest must celebrate matins and lauds, midday prayer and vespers/compline in addition to the mass every Saturday, and even more if we add in Novenas and other worship services.

Of course, we also worship on Sunday, and that fact seems to be intolerable to some people. Additionally if someone wishes to celebrate the Sabbath on the Lord’s Day I am prohibited from judging them for it according to St. Paul.

The Roman Catholic Church also, in the first millennium, before their schism with us, renamed the seventh day from Dies Saturnae to Sabato, as I have shown repeatedly by listing the Ordo of the Roman Missal, and this is why the word for the seventh day is based on Sabbath in all Romance languages, rather than on the Greco-Roman pagan diety of the Titans, who was rather a disagreeable figure even as pagan deities go.

By the way, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the only official Roman Catholic catechism is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Not the Baltimore Catechism, not the Penny Catechism. Also, fun fact: the format of the catechism was invented by Martin Luther; it lacks precedent in antiquity, and this is doubtless why many independently published catechisms exist, which may have in some cases had imprimaturs from local bishops, but are not official documents of the Holy See.

The Liturgist · Saturday at 10:50 AM

SabbathBlessings said:
The only time I reference the Catholic church is posting their own quotes or pertaining what they themselves admit. For someone who doesn't like false accusations, you might want to consider your own posts and allegations.

We recently had debates about the Council of Nicaea in two other threads…

Hentenza · Saturday at 12:00 PM

BobRyan said:
Not true.

That is simply a guess based on paying no attention to the 7th day in Gen 2:2-3 made holy, sanctified for mankind to observe and Ex 20 affirms this fact about Gen 2. No other commandment appears that early in scripture. Irrefutable

Your problem continues to be the historical context. The Torah was not written until the 15th century BCE so no one read it before then. Secondly there are no instances of anyone including Adam, Abraham, or Noah keeping the sabbath. Unless you can provide evidence you have no argument or worse an argument from silence.

BobRyan said:
No record in Genesis of someone complying with "do not covet" or "do not take God's name in vain", not one mention of it, but that does not mean they were breaking those commandments.

There are examples of people actually breaking the “commandment”. I’ll keep it simple for you.

Eve coveted the fruit from the tree of knowledge, wanting something specifically forbidden to her. She saw it was "good for food," "pleasant to the eyes," and desirable for gaining wisdom, leading her to take what was not hers.

Laban coveted the wealth that was increasing under Jacob's stewardship, causing him to cheat Jacob multiple times.

When Isaac asks how he found the game so quickly, Jacob replies, "Because the Lord your God brought it to me." Jacob uses God's name to make his lie believable to his father, a clear example of using the Lord's name to commit fraud.

What we never see is an example of keeping the sabbath or even of God chastising anyone for not keeping the sabbath as He frequently does after the commandment is actually given.

BobRyan said:
interesting statement on your part that refuses to even mention the position that I have that is supposedly addressed.

You can't do it because each time I reference the Westminster Confession I point explicitly to my own statement that they affirm ALL TEN claiming that the TEN apply to all mankind and start in Eden. You deleted that context in an effort to bend the point , stick with the details.

If you ignore enough details you can prove whatever you wish, but you cannot get your readers to agree to ignore the details you needed to omit.

lol I’m the one adding the details to put in context what you claim but you won’t really address that. I challenged you to support another one from your list but you continue to ignore the challenge.

BobRyan said:
Indeed you showed how the Westminster statement denied your own claims that "Sabbath was not made for mankind" and your claims that "Sabbath is ceremonial not moral and so does not apply"., your downsized-to-nine arguments.

If you omit enough details almost anything will appear to work

I showed you where the Westminster confession explicitly states that the Christian is not under the law and that the Christian sabbath is a celebration of our Lords resurrection on Sunday. This confession does not support your claim,

BobRyan said:
That is exactly what you appear to be doing

Yep. I’m addressing your error.

BobRyan said:
If that is true, then quote something

lol it’s all over this thread. My main issue with your legalism is you judging every professed Christian that does not agree with you to be a sinner and in need of repentance for resting on Sunday. This exemplifies legalism and exactly what the scriptures warns us about false teaching.

BobRyan said:
again you oppose the westminster statement that ALL TEN are for ALL mankind both saved and unsaved.

Why keep opposing the Confessions of faith like that???

Are we "simply not supposed to notice"?

You are suppose to notice your misuse of the confession. You obviously got that list from some biased website that doesn’t bother to quote it in context. This is what you call quote mining. If in fact the Westminster confession IN CONTEXT teaches what you claim then why does it teach reformed theology like the preservation of the saints and OSAS. Do you also agree with those.

Secondly what is written after the quote mines that you posted destroys your interpretation.

“Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.
Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it: the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done”

BobRyan said:
hint:
be specific when you make an accusation
quote something ..
Show that you are not opposing the Westminster statement that ALL TEN apply to all mankind both saved and not saved.

derogatory pejoratives like the above with no specifics, are useless

Hint: instead why don’t you read my posts and reply to them fully. In fact, I challenge you to reply to this post fully rather than ignore the context of my post. You have even reduced yourself to changing my words to yours and then claiming I wrote them. But I guess desperation breeds that kind of behavior.

BobRyan said:
No quote at all saying "Do not take God's name in vain" by Jesus or any other NT writer, yet it still applies.

By contrast the NT writers quote from the Sabbath commandment numerous times.

Your pattern of ignoring the details allows you to circle-back without actually identifying anything

Again, there continues to be a disconnect between you and the context of scripture and you are still to post a verse that requires the Christian to keep the Jewish sabbath. “Your pattern of ignoring the details and context allows you to circle-back without actually identifying anything”

BobRyan said:
Jesus' Love commandments (be specific) in Matt 22 are direct quotes of the Law of Moses and they do NOT say "on these two commands are based ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS except for Sabbath" as your statement infers.

When we get specific, your argument does not hold

So much for sola scriptura for you. There you go.

“Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22‬:‭40‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Matthew 22:40 (NASB2020) - Upon these two commandments hang th | YouVersion

Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”

bible.com

BobRyan said:
The Westminster Affirms that this Law is written on the heart in the OT and includes all the ten.

Not in the way that you are interpreting it. See my reply above.

BobRyan said:
The Bible also affirms it in Deuteronomy and in Jer 31 ad in Heb 8

It does not.

BobRyan said:
Your arguments are continually stated in a way to oppose the details in the Westminster confession of faith, not just scripture

My argument takes the confession in context. Again, your legalistic belief is only shared by a very small portion of Churches and most are not mainline churches.

BobRyan said:
If your argument is that the New Covenant is not for gentiles then you are once again opposing almost all Christian Confessions of faith not just the Bible.

Heb 8 quotes directly from Jer 31 and affirms it applies to all Christians in Paul's day.

It tells you in scripture who it belongs to. The new covenant for the church is the new covenant of blood.

“And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭14‬:‭24‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Mark 14:24 (NASB2020) - And He said to them, “This is My bl | YouVersion

And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many.

bible.com

“And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Luke 22:20 (NASB2020) - And in the same way He took the cup | YouVersion

And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.

bible.com

BobRyan said:
Heb 8 quotes directly from Jer 31 and affirms it applies to all Christians in Paul's day.

It does not. It tells you who it belongs to. Don’t ignore scripture.

BobRyan said:
your own speculation was explicitly refuted from Paul himself in Heb 8.
try again.

No doubt. As Heb 8 states Jesus is the one

Nope. This is what the inspired writer of Hebrews actually says,

“For in finding fault with the people, He says, “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will bring about a new covenant With the house of Israel and the house of Judah,”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭8‬:‭8‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Hebrews 8:8 (NASB2020) - For in finding fault with the peopl | YouVersion

For in finding fault with the people, He says, “BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL BRING ABOUT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND THE HOUSE OF JUDAH

bible.com

Notice two things. First the “days are coming” meaning the times are not yet here and this book was written post resurrection. Secondly it was addressed to the house of Judah and the house of Israel. Nowhere here does it say gentiles or the church.

BobRyan said:
speaking the Sabbath commandment at Sinai

Mark 2:27 that you are carefully ignoring says Sabbath was made for mankind. The very teaching you reject
Mark 2:28 says that the fact that HE made it for mankind makes HIM Lord of the Sabbath. The very thing Paul affirms in Heb 8 where He says it is Christ speaking the TEN at Sinai

Wow I’m impressed you actually referred to verse 28 but you missed the grammar as usual.

BobRyan said:
If you ignore a sufficient number of details you can make any suggestion you wish

But you don’t really address what I write including the additional details that debunk your interpretation.

BobRyan said:
The mere quote of the text is sufficient cause to give rise to your strong objection. The text includes details you need to omit.

But you don’t merely just quote the scripture you use your interpretation. We both have the same scriptures but you ignore the historical and cultural context to make it say what it doesn’t.

BobRyan said:
indeed they do. You don't have a single quote from me saying that they don't have the right pick any day they wish and remember the resurrection of Christ. So you make that statement in the form of an accusation without giving even one proof of it.

Since Christ is the Lord of even the sabbath and since Christ is our rest and since scripture is clear about that and since those verses have been posted many times you are just making a disingenuous claim.

BobRyan said:
True today. Not one example of such a weekly Sunday practice of worship in actual scripture.

Sure is and it has already been posted and you ignored it.

BobRyan said:
So obviously you no text for it.

Sure is.

BobRyan said:
Indeed all the groups affirm a Sunday resurrection. But Jesus was born once, died once, resurrected once. None of that is "weekly" and there is not one statement in the NT saying that they meet weekly on Sunday in memorial of the resurrection. So you quote none.

not a weekly event

And? The celebration is a weekly event and Christ rest is forever. No need for legalism.

BobRyan said:
no statement says they gathered weekly for tithe collection

“On the first day of every week, each of you is to put aside and save as he may prosper, so that no collections need to be made when I come.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭16‬:‭2‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

1 Corinthians 16:2 (NASB2020) - On the first day of every week, eac | YouVersion

On the first day of every week, each of you is to put aside and save as he may prosper, so that no collections need to be made when I come.

bible.com

BobRyan said:
Rather it says that "each one of you should set ASIDE by himself , alone, at home" funds at the start of each week. No mention of a gathering at all each sunday in that text.

Your interpretation does not follow. Why only on the first day to save money? You don’t think that they can save money through out the week? The reason for the “first day” reference is because it was to be collected on the first day so that no collection had to be made when Paul came. The collection was taken on the first day.

BobRyan said:
But it does show that each individual did at least do "something" by himself on week day one. What a great place to put at least one text calling week day 1 the Lord's day" or to mention a worship service on week day one or to say that the Sabbath is now moved to week day one (as the Westminster document claims)

But that is what it says exactly. t just doesn’t fit your theology.

BobRyan said:
Jesus did not say in Matt 11 "some day in the future come to Me". It was present reality , long before the cross and makes no reference to death, burial or resurrection being selected out.

Jesus and His disciples continued to keep the Sabbath in Matt 11.

I addressed that in my post and you ignored (again). No surprise there. I’ll post Paul’s words as a hint to you.

“To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might gain Jews; to those who are under the Law, I became as one under the Law, though not being under the Law myself, so that I might gain those who are under the Law;”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭9‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

1 Corinthians 9:20 (NASB2020) - To the Jews I became as a Jew, so t | YouVersion

To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might gain Jews; to those who are under the Law, I became as one under the Law, though not being under the Law myself, so that I might gain those who are under

bible.com

under grace1 · Saturday at 4:31 PM

Hentenza said:
Your problem continues to be the historical context. The Torah was not written until the 15th century BCE so no one read it before then. Secondly there are no instances of anyone including Adam, Abraham, or Noah keeping the sabbath. Unless you can provide evidence you have no argument or worse an argument from silence.

There are examples of people actually breaking the “commandment”. I’ll keep it simple for you.

Eve coveted the fruit from the tree of knowledge, wanting something specifically forbidden to her. She saw it was "good for food," "pleasant to the eyes," and desirable for gaining wisdom, leading her to take what was not hers.

Laban coveted the wealth that was increasing under Jacob's stewardship, causing him to cheat Jacob multiple times.

When Isaac asks how he found the game so quickly, Jacob replies, "Because the Lord your God brought it to me." Jacob uses God's name to make his lie believable to his father, a clear example of using the Lord's name to commit fraud.

What we never see is an example of keeping the sabbath or even of God chastising anyone for not keeping the sabbath as He frequently does after the commandment is actually given.

lol I’m the one adding the details to put in context what you claim but you won’t really address that. I challenged you to support another one from your list but you continue to ignore the challenge.

I showed you where the Westminster confession explicitly states that the Christian is not under the law and that the Christian sabbath is a celebration of our Lords resurrection on Sunday. This confession does not support your claim,

Yep. I’m addressing your error.

lol it’s all over this thread. My main issue with your legalism is you judging every professed Christian that does not agree with you to be a sinner and in need of repentance for resting on Sunday. This exemplifies legalism and exactly what the scriptures warns us about false teaching.

You are suppose to notice your misuse of the confession. You obviously got that list from some biased website that doesn’t bother to quote it in context. This is what you call quote mining. If in fact the Westminster confession IN CONTEXT teaches what you claim then why does it teach reformed theology like the preservation of the saints and OSAS. Do you also agree with those.

Secondly what is written after the quote mines that you posted destroys your interpretation.

“Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.
Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it: the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done”

Hint: instead why don’t you read my posts and reply to them fully. In fact, I challenge you to reply to this post fully rather than ignore the context of my post. You have even reduced yourself to changing my words to yours and then claiming I wrote them. But I guess desperation breeds that kind of behavior.

Again, there continues to be a disconnect between you and the context of scripture and you are still to post a verse that requires the Christian to keep the Jewish sabbath. “Your pattern of ignoring the details and context allows you to circle-back without actually identifying anything”

So much for sola scriptura for you. There you go.

“Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭22‬:‭40‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Matthew 22:40 (NASB2020) - Upon these two commandments hang th | YouVersion

Upon these two commandments hang the whole Law and the Prophets.”

bible.com

Not in the way that you are interpreting it. See my reply above.

It does not.

My argument takes the confession in context. Again, your legalistic belief is only shared by a very small portion of Churches and most are not mainline churches.

It tells you in scripture who it belongs to. The new covenant for the church is the new covenant of blood.

“And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭14‬:‭24‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Mark 14:24 (NASB2020) - And He said to them, “This is My bl | YouVersion

And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many.

bible.com

“And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭22‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Luke 22:20 (NASB2020) - And in the same way He took the cup | YouVersion

And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood.

bible.com

It does not. It tells you who it belongs to. Don’t ignore scripture.

Nope. This is what the inspired writer of Hebrews actually says,

“For in finding fault with the people, He says, “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will bring about a new covenant With the house of Israel and the house of Judah,”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭8‬:‭8‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Hebrews 8:8 (NASB2020) - For in finding fault with the peopl | YouVersion

For in finding fault with the people, He says, “BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL BRING ABOUT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND THE HOUSE OF JUDAH

bible.com

Notice two things. First the “days are coming” meaning the times are not yet here and this book was written post resurrection. Secondly it was addressed to the house of Judah and the house of Israel. Nowhere here does it say gentiles or the church.

Wow I’m impressed you actually referred to verse 28 but you missed the grammar as usual.

But you don’t really address what I write including the additional details that debunk your interpretation.

But you don’t merely just quote the scripture you use your interpretation. We both have the same scriptures but you ignore the historical and cultural context to make it say what it doesn’t.

Since Christ is the Lord of even the sabbath and since Christ is our rest and since scripture is clear about that and since those verses have been posted many times you are just making a disingenuous claim.

Sure is and it has already been posted and you ignored it.

Sure is.

And? The celebration is a weekly event and Christ rest is forever. No need for legalism.

“On the first day of every week, each of you is to put aside and save as he may prosper, so that no collections need to be made when I come.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭16‬:‭2‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

1 Corinthians 16:2 (NASB2020) - On the first day of every week, eac | YouVersion

On the first day of every week, each of you is to put aside and save as he may prosper, so that no collections need to be made when I come.

bible.com

Your interpretation does not follow. Why only on the first day to save money? You don’t think that they can save money through out the week? The reason for the “first day” reference is because it was to be collected on the first day so that no collection had to be made when Paul came. The collection was taken on the first day.

But that is what it says exactly. t just doesn’t fit your theology.

I addressed that in my post and you ignored (again). No surprise there. I’ll post Paul’s words as a hint to you.

“To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might gain Jews; to those who are under the Law, I became as one under the Law, though not being under the Law myself, so that I might gain those who are under the Law;”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭9‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

1 Corinthians 9:20 (NASB2020) - To the Jews I became as a Jew, so t | YouVersion

To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might gain Jews; to those who are under the Law, I became as one under the Law, though not being under the Law myself, so that I might gain those who are under

bible.com

Well Paul believed the law was in gentiles hearts when he wrote his epistles(Rom2:14&15&2Cor3:3)
He also believed gentiles sins and lawless deeds would be remembered no more
He also believed there were no more sacrifices for sin
so Paul believed, what is written in the covenant in Jeremiah31&Heb8&10 is now fully reflected in the lives of gentile believers.

JacquelineDeane55 · Saturday at 4:41 PM

Lol, every time I come on here and find people debating, for me its like entertainment, I go and get the popcorn and then watch the show. It's funny.

Are you glad I find you guys go be so entertaining?

Hentenza · Saturday at 4:56 PM

under grace1 said:
Well Paul believed the law was in gentiles hearts when he wrote his epistles(Rom2:14&15&2Cor3:3)

Romans 2 relates to providential law not to the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law was never given to the gentiles. The 10 commandments are indeed written in our hearts and administered by the Holy Spirit, however, the 4th commandment is now the Christian sabbath which is the rest in Christ not the rest in one day.

under grace1 said:
He also believed gentiles sins and lawless deeds would be remembered no more

As long as they are believers which leads to justification.

under grace1 said:
He also believed there were no more sacrifices for sin

Exactly. The last sacrifice was Christ redemptive sacrifice on the cross. This is why the new covenant is the new covenant of Jesus blood.

under grace1 said:
so Paul believed, what is written in the covenant in Jeremiah31&Heb8&10 is now fully reflected in the lives of gentile believers.

No he did not. The new covenant depicted in Jeremiah and Hebrews 8 is directed to the house of Israel and the house of Judah and it will happen in the “days to come” which is eschatological speak of the end days.

under grace1 · Saturday at 5:00 PM

Hentenza said:
Romans 2 relates to providential law not to the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law was never given to the gentiles. The 10 commandments are indeed written in our hearts and administered by the Holy Spirit, however, the 4th commandment is now the Christian sabbath which is the rest in Christ not the rest in one day.

As long as they are believers which leads to justification.

Exactly. The last sacrifice was Christ redemptive sacrifice on the cross. This is why the new covenant is the new covenant of Jesus blood.

No he did not. The new covenant depicted in Jeremiah and Hebrews 8 is directed to the house of Israel and the house of Judah and it will happen in the “days to come” which is eschatological speak of the end days.

Yes so Paul believed applicable law was written in gentiles hearts.
The other two you seem to agree with.
Of course the house of Israel and Judah was mentioned in Jeremiah and copied in Hebrews for they were the only ones in covenant at the time

under grace1 · Saturday at 5:11 PM

JacquelineDeane55 said:
Lol, every time I come on here and find people debating, for me its like entertainment, I go and get the popcorn and then watch the show. It's funny.

Are you glad I find you guys go be so entertaining?

My dad used to say, its better to laugh than cry, so Im sure you are grateful to people here!

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Are professed Christians that worship our Lord on Sunday instead of Saturday sinning?

Are professed Christians that worship our Lord on Sunday instead of Saturday sinning?

Yes

No

Maybe

Junior Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Active Member

Newbie

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads