Nothing here except meaningless denominational religious diatribe, rant and discourse.
bugkiller
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nothing here except meaningless denominational religious diatribe, rant and discourse.Some Misunderstood Verses Explained
Question 1: But doesnt Revelation 1:10 say that Sunday is the Lords Day?
Answer: The Bible plainly identifies which day is the Lords Day. Matthew 12:8; Mark 2:28 and Luke 6:5 identifies Jesus as the Lord of the Sabbath. In Isaiah 58:13 the Lord calls the Sabbath my holy day, and the holy of the Lord. Exodus 20:10; Leviticus 23:3 and Deuteronomy 5:14 calls it the Sabbath of the Lord. Thus, allowing the Bible to explain the Bible, clearly the Sabbath is the Lords Day, and none other.
Question 2: Shouldnt we keep Sunday in honor of the resurrection?
Answer: No! No more than you would keep Friday in honor of the crucifixion. As clearly revealed in Romans 6:3-6, Christ gave the ordinance of baptism in honor of His death, burial, and resurrection. The Bible never suggests Sundaykeeping in honor of the resurrection (or for any other reason, for that matter). We honor Christ by obeying Him (John 14:15)--not by substituting man-made requirements in place of His.
Question 3: Isn't Acts 20:7-12 proof that the disciples kept Sunday as a holy day? (Acts 20:7)?
Answer: According to the Bible, each day begins at sundown and ends at the next sundown (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; Leviticus 23:32) and the dark part of the day comes first. So Sabbath begins Friday night at sundown and ends Saturday night at sundown. This meeting of Acts 20 was held on the dark part of Sunday, or on what we now call Saturday night. The New English Bible begins Acts 20:7 like this: "On the Saturday night in our assembly ..." It was a Saturday-night meeting as evidenced in verse 8 where it says and there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together, and it lasted until midnight. Paul was on a farewell tour and knew he would not see these people again before his death (verse 25). No wonder he preached so long! (No regular weekly service would have lasted all night.) Paul was "ready to depart on the morrow." He spent his entire day on Sunday traveling by foot and sailing. Does that sound like a Sabbath activity? The "breaking of bread" has no "holy day" significance whatever, because they broke bread daily (Acts 2:46). There is not the slightest indication in this Scripture passage that the first day is holy, nor that these early Christians considered it so. Nor is there the remotest evidence that the Sabbath had been changed. Incidentally, this meeting is probably mentioned in the Scripture only because of the miracle of raising Eutychus back to life after he fell to his death from a third-floor window. In Ezekiel 46:1, God refers to Sunday as one of the six "working days." Some may argue that even though the disciples came together Saturday night (which Biblically speaking begins the first day of the week), it was still the first day nonetheless and they were respecting it in honor of the resurrection. Assuming this is true, we discover a big problem. Christ rose early Sunday morning, not Saturday night. If the disciples were giving any respect to Sunday in honor of the resurrection, then why were they celebrating it during the time when Jesus was still dead and buried in the grave? As we can see, the arguments that Sundaykeepers use have no bearings whatsoever.
Question 4: Doesn't 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2 speak of Sunday school offerings? (1 Corinthians 16:2 )?
Answer: No, there is no reference here to a public meeting. The money was to be laid aside privately at home. A famine was raging in Judea (Romans 15:26; Acts 11:26-30), and Paul was writing to ask the churches in Asia Minor to assist their famine-stricken brethren. These Christians all kept Sabbath holy, so Paul suggested that on Sunday morning (which was the time they paid bills and settled accounts), after the Sabbath was over, they put aside something for their needy brethren so it would be on hand when he came. It was to be done privately or, as La Santa Biblia (a Spanish translation) says, "at home." Notice also that there is no reference here to Sunday as a holy day. In fact, the Bible nowhere commands or even suggests Sundaykeeping. By laying aside money, they were actually working on Sunday!
Question 5: Doesn't Colossians 2:14-17 do away with the seventh-day Sabbath?
Answer: Not at all. It refers only to the sabbaths which were "a shadow of things to come" and not to the seventh-day Sabbath. There were seven yearly holy days, or holidays, in ancient Israel which were also called sabbaths. These were in addition to, or "beside the sabbaths of the Lord" (Leviticus 23:38), or seventh-day Sabbath. These all foreshadowed, or pointed to, the cross and ended at the cross. God's seventh-day Sabbath was made before sin entered, and therefore could foreshadow nothing about deliverance from sin. That's why Colossians chapter 2 differentiates and specifically mentions the sabbaths that were "a shadow." These seven yearly sabbaths which were abolished are listed in Leviticus chapter 23. Additionally, Colossians 2:14 qualifies that it was the handwriting of ordinances that was against us that were blotted out at the cross. Therefore, all the, new moons, feast days and Sabbath days that are mentioned in verse 16 can only be those contained in the handwriting of ordinances that were against us. But what were these handwriting of ordinances? It had to do with the Jewish ceremonial laws that were written down on paper by the hand of Moses, not the finger of God on stone. Also, it had to do with all those ceremonial ordinances that were against us. In Deuteronomy 31:24-28, we are told that all those ritual laws that were against us were written by Moses in the book of the law. The passage is clear that this book of the law was placed in a side pocket of the Ark of the Covenant. According to Deuteronomy 10:5, the tables of stone were placed inside the Ark! Clearly, the Sabbath of the 4th commandment was part of the Ten Commandments placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, and not classified with the shadow Sabbaths of Colossians 2:14-17 that pointed forward to Christs death. The shadow Sabbaths along with the entire ceremonial law pointed FORWARD to Christs death, and these were nailed to the cross. The Sabbath of the 4th commandment points BACKWARD to creation. It was not made against us, but for us. The Sabbath was made for [not against!] man (Mark 2:27).
Question 6: But what about Romans 14:5? Doesnt it say that we are to esteem every day alike, and not esteem one day over another?
Answer: Notice that the whole chapter is on judging one another (Verses 4, 10, 13). The issue here is not over the seventh-day Sabbath, which was a part of the great moral law, but over the yearly feast days of the ceremonial law. Jewish Christians were judging Gentile Christians for not observing them. Paul is simply saying, "Don't judge each other. That ceremonial law is no longer binding." Additionally, the issue of contention in Romans 14:1 is in regard to doubtful disputations. There has never been anything doubtful concerning the Ten Commandments. It is to be remembered that the Jews regarded the Sabbath in much greater esteem than they did circumcision. However, the Jews were never once concerned about Paul breaking the Sabbath. It was always over circumcision and not paying respect to the other rituals of the ceremonial law. Had Paul not kept the Sabbath and broken it, an outcry from the Jews would have broken out throughout the land that Paul was a violator of the Sabbath. But no, their issue of contention with Paul was always over circumcision. The holidays being spoken of in Romans 14 had to do with Jewish and Gentile holidays which men esteem. Notice that the days in question have to do with days then men esteem, not which day God esteems. God esteems the Seventh-Day Sabbath. Now if man chooses to celebrate an additional Holiday, then if they are going to do it, let them do it unto the Lord. Its like Thanksgiving or Christmas. Traditionally we celebrate these Holidays. Is it required from the Bible that we keep these days? Of course not. But, according to Romans 14, if we choose to celebrate these days, let us do it unto the Lord. Let everyone be persuaded (or convinced) in his own mind. The Seventh-Day Sabbath of the 4th commandment has nothing to do with which days men esteem. That is already settled in stone.
Question 7: But isn't John 20:19 the record of the disciples instituting Sundaykeeping in honor of the resurrection? (John 20:19)
Answer: On the contrary, the disciples at this time did not believe that the resurrection had taken place (Mark 16:14). They had met there "for fear of the Jews" and had the doors bolted. When Jesus appeared in their midst, He rebuked them "because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." There is no implication that they counted Sunday as a holy day. Only eight texts in the New Testament mention the first day of the week; none of them imply that it is holy.
Apparently you did not pay attention to the argument.
Luke, a gentile gospel writer, 32 years after Christ’s ascension recognized the resting on the Sabbath day as “according to the commandment”. This Sabbath observance that was “according to the commandment” took place the day after Jesus died:
See Luke 23:54-56
Note that the New Covenant was in effect already on Friday, by the shedding of Christ’s blood. A covenant is in effect by the shedding of blood, not the resurrection. Had the blood of the New Covenant wiped away the need for Sabbath observance, Luke would not have recognized it as “according to the commandment”:
See Hebrews 9:16,17, 22; and Galatians 3:15
The point?
If nothing can be added or subtracted to the covenant after the covenant has gone into effect according to Galatians 3:15, then Sunday came 3 days too late. The New Covenant was in effect on Friday--and by what according to Hebrews 9:16-22? According to the shedding of the blood of the testator. Not the resurrection.
If that argument is valid then nothing after the actual issue of the 10 Cs is valid for any reason. Thus the rest of Exodus and the other 25 books of the Bible have no validity.
bugkiller
Is that not what the SDA do here? And they make an issue of it as well.
bugkiller
Nothing here except meaningless denominational religious diatribe, rant and discourse.
bugkiller
Also note that in the text of Deuteronomy 5 where the Sabbath keeping is explained, it is specified for the children of Israel that God brought out of Egypt that had covenanted with Him at Horeb.
Secondly, this Sabbath keeping has absolutely nothing to do with salvation. The agreement was that if they kept this observance (in all its ramifications which included observing it at home) they would live and prosper and remain in the land He was about to bring them into. We who are in Christ have no part in that covenant and are not given to dwell in the land of Israel so our livig and prospering therein is irrelevant but this is what He promised for observing it.
Paul
If that argument is valid then nothing after the actual issue of the 10 Cs is valid for any reason. Thus the rest of Exodus and the other 25 books of the Bible have no validity.
bugkiller
Jus my way of saying I am not going to clean up after the bull paste is slung.I do not understand how you get to that conclusion from what Lysimachus wrote about the new covenant--it was stated before Christs death--He said what was needed to be said to replace the animal sacrifce with His--Christ did not change the sabbath day to sunday before His death so it is still in effect.
Look so many of the verses posted were not anything related to the commentary. In short it was nothing more than spam.Then you're obviously not reading what he said wrote.
Please explain.Genesis 2 explodes your whole premise, as the Sabbath was established by God at the dawn of Creation.
No sir the covenant was spelled out after the recieving of the stone tablets and the sealing by the shedding of blood by sacrifice. The same occurs with the NC.Your problem is that you still do not comprehend the points I have presented. Perhaps you may want to go back and read them again. I am persuaded you are wearing false lenses when reading the verses, therefore, the plain meanings are not being perceived.
The Ten Commandments are fully in place, and valid, for Jesus was an example and kept all 10. Yet he fully illustrated how the festivals pointed to Himself, showing that "this is my body". Paul is very clear that the handwriting of ordinances were wiped away, not the Ten Commandments. Paul quotes the validity of the Ten Commandments several times in Romans and Ephesians.
The Lord's Supper and Baptism was instituted BEFORE Christ's Death.
Sunday Sacredness was instituted AFTER Christ's Death---this is squarely in contradiction to Hebrews 9:16-22 and Galatians 3:9 and Psalms 89:34.
(1) Before either of the two Covenants is put into effect, the conditions of the Covenants are made known (Ex. 24:1-8 );I should not fail to mention that Christ was very clear when He instituted the Lord's Supper prior to His death (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24,25), and John the Baptist also instituted Baptism. Neither of them even so much as hinted as to the abrogation of the Ten Commandment laws. But He did not even so much as "HINT" at instituting any Sunday sacredness or celebration in honor of His resurrection. We celebrate His resurrection through the sacrament of Baptism (See Romans 6:3-6; 1 Peter 3:20).
(2) Wherever there is a Covenant, the Covenant is sealed by the blood of the Testator (Heb. 9:16-22);
(3) Once the Covenant has been sealed by the blood, nothing can be added or subtracted from the covenant (Psalms 89:34; Gal. 3:15)
Bottom line:
The evangelical/Christian world is WRONG. They do not understand or grasp these spiritual principles.
The Catholic Church is WRONG. They do not understand or grasp these spiritual principles, and live based on the traditions of men, not the traditions of Christ and the Apostles.
Adventism has it RIGHT. Their teachings are in line with the Bible.
The Catholic Church and the Sunday Keeping Evangelical world has it WRONG. They do not go by the scriptures.
True Adventists do, whether part of a denomination or not.
I am not part of any denomination, yet I label myself as "SDA" simply for the fact that the Bible has FORCED me to subscribe to Adventist-Historicism.
The SDA Church happens to subscribe to the same Biblical beliefs I do, and I happen to subscribe to the same Biblical beliefs that the SDA Church subscribes to.
But I do not subscribe to SDA theology. I subscribe to Biblical theology that the SDA Church happens to subscribe to. True Biblical Adventism of the heart is God's remnant--whether denominationally tied or not.
Plain and simple.
Nothing here except meaningless denominational religious diatribe, rant and discourse.
bugkiller
One thing I did not say was that Isa 58:13 uses the phrase the Lord's Day.
The challenge is the sabbath is no called the Lord's Day anywhere in Scripture.
Apparently we do not call the sabbath the Lord's Day in English. I checked several translations and pharaphrase versions and only a paraphrased version comes close to saying the Lord's Day. I then wonder why none of the language professionals used the Lord's Day in Isa 58:13. I need an answer for this universal common mistake. Isa 58 is addressed exclusively to Israel (the House of Jacob [Isreal]).
I did not admit that Isaiah calls the sabbath the Lord's Day.
My discussion was not about possession. And neither is Rev 1:10.
No it would not be correct to call the sabbath the Lord's Day any more than it is techincally correct to refer to Sunday as the sabbath found in Ex 20.
About worship - it is rather odd that the SDA folks here say they celebrate the God of creation and that event. The main item signifying the keeping of the sabbath to them is worship on the sabbath. Check out their hymnal. They have and sing hymns to the sabbath. If anyone wants the words to a few of them they right next to my puter.
I also do not admit to keeping any ceremonial law. Worship is not a law found in the 10 Cs. Worship just like sin was before the law.
Are collections part of anything other than a general meeting on a regular specified basis? The mere receiving of funds is not taking up a collection of money.
Now what are the 137 mentions of the sabbath in the NT? Are they indeed about Christian assemblies? Hardly!!!!!!!!!
bugkiller
I would like to see these Hymns to the Sabbath that you mention.
*
*
No sir the covenant was spelled out after the recieving of the stone tablets and the sealing by the shedding of blood by sacrifice. The same occurs with the NC.
The reading of the will of the testator occurs only after their death and is not know in full detail until then.
bugkiller
Look so many of the verses posted were not anything related to the commentary. In short it was nothing more than spam.
bugkiller
Let's start with this:
Welcome, Day of Sweet Repose
Welcome, day of sweet repose!
Blessed be thy sacred hours!
We would trust the One who knows
All our weak and failing powers.
Welcome, day in Eden born!
Holy rest for sinless man!
Like the dawning of fair morn
Come thy hours to us again.
Welcome, day blessed by our Lord!
Toil shall cease and anxious care.
Day commanded by His word,
Day for song and praise and prayer.
Welcome, day our Savior kept!
Keeping, wrought our righteousness,
Day God bids us ne'er forget,
Day of days His name to bless.
Welcome, Day of Sweet ReposeI would like to see these Hymns to the Sabbath that you mention.
We have a history in which I have presented Scripture specifically to you which are denied. So do not goad me.I have searched in vain for a trace of scriptures in your posts.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?