Historicity of the change of the Sabbath Commandment

[BobRyan]

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

That was not a reference to the Bible - the yoke that could not be born was the one in Acts 15:5 that was 'invented" and not in the OT at all.

The one that could not be born was the Mark 7:6-13 "made up traditions" that are seen again in Acts 15:5.

All these details - much to be glossed over - when the intent is to attack scripture itself.

 

[BobRyan]

the Catechism of the Catholic Church sections 2168 to 2173 (for the Sabbath) and sections 2174 to 2188 (for the Lord's day).

Catholic Catechism -

2168 - 2173 admits the Lord's Day is Sabbath as given by God in the actual Bible -

2056 The word "Decalogue" means literally "ten words."11 God revealed these "ten words" to his people on the holy mountain. They were written "with the finger of God,"12 unlike the other commandments written by Moses.13 They are pre-eminently the words of God. They are handed on to us in the books of Exodus 14 and Deuteronomy.15 Beginning with the Old Testament, the sacred books refer to the "ten words,"16 but it is in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ that their full meaning will be revealed.


2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations.They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. the Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.


2063.... the words of the Decalogue remain likewise for us Christians. Far from being abolished, they have received amplification and development from the fact of the coming of the Lord in the flesh.26

2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 The Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."29


(Application in James 2)

2069 The Decalogue forms a coherent whole. Each "word" refers to each of the others and to all of them; they reciprocally condition one another. the two tables shed light on one another; they form an organic unity. To transgress one commandment is to infringe all the others.30 One cannot honor another person without blessing God his Creator. One cannot adore God without loving all men, his creatures. the Decalogue brings man's religious and social life into unity.

sections 2168 to 2173
I. The Sabbath Day
2168 The third commandment of the Decalogue recalls the holiness of the Sabbath: "The seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD."92
2169 In speaking of the Sabbath Scripture recalls creation: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."93
2170 Scripture also reveals in the Lord's day a memorial of Israel's liberation from bondage in Egypt: "You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out thence with mighty hand and outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep The Sabbath day."94

God declares the Sabbath to be the Lord's Day in that 2170 example - taken from Deut 5. And of course we find that same thing in Isaiah 58 - the Sabbath, the Lord's Day.

Keeping the Sabbath
Is 58
13 “If because of the Sabbath, you turn your foot
From doing your own pleasure on My holy day,
And call the Sabbath a delight, the holy day of the Lord honorable,
And honor it, desisting from your own ways,
From seeking your own pleasure
And speaking your own word,



sections 2174 to 2188

2174-2188 includes this "bending action" for the Sabbath.

2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.[/quote]

They are having to describe the one event of the resurrection as a "bent sabbath" because they need the Sabbath's "weekly cycle" and they don't have Jesus resurrected "once a week" nor a 7 day crucifixion nor a 7 day-in-the-grave etc.

They have ONE Birth of Christ and ONE death of Christ. But nothing of a 7 day nature for either one.

So they NEED the creation WEEK Sabbath cycle of 7 days - to "bend" -- to get this as a weekly event.

 

[BABerean2]

That was not a reference to the Bible - the yoke that could not be born was the one in Acts 15:5 that was 'invented" and not in the OT at all.

The one that could not be born was the Mark 7:6-13 "made up traditions" that are seen again in Acts 15:5.

All these details - much to be glossed over - when the intent is to attack scripture itself

Based on your version, Peter must have been confused when he used the word "yoke", in the same way that Paul must have been confused when he used the word "bondage" in Galatians chapter 4.

Someone is most certainly confused, just as the Judaisers were creating confusion during the first century.

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

However, it is not Peter or Paul.

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

In this case, it is those who cannot seem to decide if the door is shut or open...


The "Shut Door" Documents from the Estate of Ellen G. White
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/shutdoor.html

.

 

[BobRyan]

Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Act 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

That was not a reference to the Bible - the yoke that could not be born was the one in Acts 15:5 that was 'invented" and not in the OT at all.

The one that could not be born was the Mark 7:6-13 "made up traditions" that are seen again in Acts 15:5.

All these details - much to be glossed over - when the intent is to attack scripture itself.

Based on your version, Peter must have been confused when he used the word "yoke",

Not in "real life".

In "real life" - in Acts 10 Peter said that it is "unlawful" for a Jew to enter into the house of a gentile. But in fact that is not a law from the Bible - it is law from the made-up traditions of the Jews.

In "real life" - Peter condemns Christ in Matt 16 for daring to suggest that He - the Messiah - was going to be crucified - in contrast to what Jewish teachers had taught Peter.

In "real life" - Christ tells Peter to "beware of the leaven (teaching)" of the Pharisees - because he was so steeped in it.

in the same way that Paul must have been confused when he used the word "bondage" in Galatians chapter 4.

Just not in "real life' - in "real life" that Apostle's teaching was that the Law of God - the Commandments of God were "NOT a burden" 1 John 5:3-4


Someone is most certainly confused, just as the Judaisers were creating confusion during the first century.

Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

However, it is not Peter or Paul.

 

[BobRyan]

In "real life" this thread is about the historicity of the change of the 4th commandment via man-made tradition

And the Baptist Confession of Faith - joins with the Westminster Confession of Faith on that point.

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

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 67029856, member: 235244"]The Baptist Confession of Faith - section 19 almost identical to the Westminster section 19 quoted above.

Notice how they both fit that 7 point summary already posted on page 1?

Baptist Confession of Faith Section 19

Section 19:

C.H. Spurgeon's edition of the "Baptist Confession of Faith"
-- CH Spurgeon

The Perpetuity of the Law of God

Very great mistakes have been made about the law. Not long ago there were those about us who affirmed that the law is utterly abrogated and abolished, and they openly taught that believers were not bound to make the moral law the rule of their lives. What would have been sin in other men they counted to be no sin in themselves. From such Antinomianism as that may God deliver us. We are not under the law as the method of salvation, but we delight to see the law in the hand of Christ, and desire to obey the Lord in all things. Others have been met with who have taught that Jesus mitigated and softened down the law, and they have in effect said that the perfect law of God was too hard for imperfect beings, and therefore God has given us a milder and easier rule. These tread dangerously upon the verge of terrible error, although we believe that they are little aware of it.​

​

Section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" .​

​

Section 19​

. The Law of God ​

• God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.

• The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the TEN COMMANDMENTS, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

• Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away. ​

• To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it ​

Baptist Confession of Faith

Section 22.


Point 7

7. As it is the law of nature that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, should be set apart for the worship of God, so He has given in His Word a positive, moral and perpetual commandment, binding upon all men, in all ages to this effect. He has particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath to be kept holy for Him. From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ this was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ it was changed to the first day of the week and called the Lord's Day. This is to be continued until the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week having been abolished.
​

[/QUOTE]

 

[BABerean2]

In "real life" this thread is about the historicity of the change of the 4th commandment via man-made tradition

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.



Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.




Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


Mat 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

The veil in the temple was ripped in half signaling the end of the sacrifices, the Levitical priesthood, the Sabbath observance and the whole Sinai covenant, which was put in place 430 years "after" the promise to Abraham "until" the seed(Christ) could come. Galatians 3:16-29


The "Shut Door" Documents from the Estate of Ellen G. White
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/shutdoor.html

.

 

[BobRyan]

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

indeed --


Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command.

But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.


Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)

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

now lets return from that derail - back to the subject of the thread. "The historicity" - since there is nothing at all in Col 2 about "observing the Sabbath on week-day-1 instead of the Bible seventh-day"

 

[BobRyan]

Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Where we find nothing at all about "first day of the week is the Lord's Day" and nothing at all about " week-day-1 we always meet for worship - rather the reason for the meeting was that they were breaking bread together before Paul's departure.

now lets return from that derail - back to the subject of the thread. "The historicity" - since there is nothing at all in Acts 20 about "observing the Sabbath on week-day-1 instead of the Bible seventh-day"

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

Let's start with the "sola scriptura" case for Sunday vs the Bible Sabbath.


1. There is not one NT or OT text saying "week day 1 is the Holy Day of the LORD" but we DO have that for Sabbath in Is 58:13. (AND we do not have ONE text in the NT or OT that says "week day 1 is the LORD's Day)

2. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT that says that "they met EVERY week-day-1 for gospel teaching" for both Jews AND gentiles but we DO have that for Sabbath in Acts 18:4-6.

3. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT that says "they met week-day-1 after week-day-1 " for anything - but we DO have that in Acts 13 and Acts 17 regarding Sabbath for both Jews AND Gentiles.

4. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT saying "from week day 1 to week day 1 shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" - but we DO have that in Is 66:23 for the Sabbath.

5. There is not ONE text in the NT or OT saying "the Son of man is LORD of week day 1" but we DO have that in the NT for the Sabbath in Mark 2:28.

6. There is not ONE text in the NT saying "there REMAINS therefore a week-day 1 rest for the people of God" but we DO have that for Sabbath in Heb 4.

7. There is not ONE text in NT or OT saying "remember week-day-1 to keep it holy" but we DO have that in Ex 20:8 for the Sabbath.

8. There is NOT ONE text in NT or OT saying it is ok by God if we bend/edit/break/ignore one of the TEN Commandments - but we DO have condemnation for doing such a thing in the NT -- by the Words of Christ Himself! Mark 7:6-13


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[BobRyan]

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Heb 8:6=1- says that the NEW Covenant is the SAME Covenant that we find in Jer 31:31-33 and that it is made with "the house of ISRAEL and the house of Judah" -- and is the covenant where "I will write My LAWS on their heart and on their mind".

 

[BobRyan]

Mat 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

The veil in the temple was ripped in half signaling the end of the sacrifices,

.

That is true - but the Sabbath in Gen 2:1-3 was given before the sacrifices Ex 20:11 also confirms -

As do the majority of EVEN pro-sunday scholars affirm.

the point remains.

 

[BABerean2]

now lets return from that derail - back to the subject of the thread. "The historicity" - since there is nothing at all in Col 2 about "observing the Sabbath on week-day-1 instead of the Bible seventh-day"

You got it. Just as there is nothing else after Calvary about Christians needing to observe the Sinai Sabbath.

Why?

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.


You keep missing the details...

Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:


Paul battled the Judaisers during his ministry and they are singing the same song today.

They are claiming the New Covenant is a "new administration" of the Sinai covenant, even though Peter calls it a "yoke" in Acts chapter 15, and Paul calls it a covenant of "bondage" in Galatians chapter 4.

The writer of the Book of Hebrews says it is "obsolete".

When Christ said... "It is finished.", that is what He meant.

You can quote the "Sunday men" all day long, but it will not change the text of scripture.
They were like me, made of Flesh, as was Miller and Ellen G. White.


The "Shut Door" Documents from the Estate of Ellen G. White
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/shutdoor.html
.

 

[BobRyan]

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

indeed --


Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command.

But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.


Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)

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

now lets return from that derail - back to the subject of the thread. "The historicity" - since there is nothing at all in Col 2 about "observing the Sabbath on week-day-1 instead of the Bible seventh-day"

You got it.

Nice we can agree on something.

Just as there is nothing else after Calvary about Christians needing to observe the Sinai Sabbath.

Until you read the actual Bible where we find that Mark 2:27 "the Sabbath was MADE for mankind"
And Heb 4 "There REMAINS a Sabbath rest for the people of God"
and Rev 14:12 'the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

Are all written - AFTER THE CROSS!

In the Rev 21 NEW EARTH we are told "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

"ALL scripture given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine" 2 Tim 3:16


Hint --- the "FIRST Commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2 - in that still-valid unit of TEN -- is the 5th commandment "Honor your father and mother"

The point remains.

 

[bugkiller]

In "real life" this thread is about the historicity of the change of the 4th commandment via man-made tradition

In real life Jer 31:31-33 isn't accepted as truth.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

That is true - but the Sabbath in Gen 2:1-3 was given before the sacrifices Ex 20:11 also confirms -

As do the majority of EVEN pro-sunday scholars affirm.

the point remains.

hogwash!!!!

bugkiller

 

[BABerean2]

And Heb 4 "There REMAINS a Sabbath rest for the people of God"
and Rev 14:12 'the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

And there remains a sacrifice for the people of God... Christ

And there remains a priesthood for the people of God... Christ

And there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God... Christ

And there remains Commandments for the people of God... Christ

1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.


Christ is All.

Col_3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

The "Shut Door" Documents from the Estate of Ellen G. White
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/shutdoor.html

.

 

[Bob S]

indeed --


Col 2 is about making up a rule and judging others of being guilty of sin because they differ with you, even if that invented rule is related to a Bible command.

But Col 2 is not an attempt by Paul to delete the scriptures. Rather Paul condemns the idea of making stuff up that is not in scripture at all - where the only source/authority is "man".

Col 2:18 Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflatedwithout cause by his fleshly mind,
19 and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.


Col 2
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. (KJV)

Col 2
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.(NASB)

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

now lets return from that derail - back to the subject of the thread. "The historicity" - since there is nothing at all in Col 2 about "observing the Sabbath on week-day-1 instead of the Bible seventh-day"



Nice we can agree on something.



Until you read the actual Bible where we find that Mark 2:27 "the Sabbath was MADE for mankind"
And Heb 4 "There REMAINS a Sabbath rest for the people of God"
and Rev 14:12 'the saints KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

Are all written - AFTER THE CROSS!

In the Rev 21 NEW EARTH we are told "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

"ALL scripture given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine" 2 Tim 3:16


Hint --- the "FIRST Commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2 - in that still-valid unit of TEN -- is the 5th commandment "Honor your father and mother"

The point remains.

Col 2:16-17 verifies 2Cor 3:7-11. 2Cor 3:7-11 verifies 1Jn 3:19-24

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

Notice eating, drinking, religious festivals, new moon celebrations and the SABBATH are shadows. Are shadows reality? No, but Jesus is.
________________________________________________________________________________________

7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

Notice all the past tense words in the paragraph explaining the 10 commandments being exchanged for the Holy Spirit? If I am not mistaken the Sabbath command WAS part of the 10 commandments.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

19 This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: 20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.

Notice that we belong to the truth if we keep His commands and His commands are believing in Jesus and loving each other as Jesus asked us to do. John surely would have mentioned the old covenant Sabbath given only to Israel if it were part of the Christian's life. The 4th commandment must not have a "halo" around it since the New Testament never asks Christians to observe it. Wouldn't your think that somewhere we would be inspired to observe it by even one of the writers of New Testament scripture?

 

[1John2:4]

The nature of the forum is that we usually talk about facts, often so quite frankly. I'm a people loving person, and sometimes this makes me uncomfortable because I know it can hurt people's feelings. I'm going to discuss some facts now, but please know that you matter to me as a person, and that I value you as a Christian brother in Christ and as a fellow human being and a friend on CF.

SDA's are indeed Christians, but they are Christians DESPITE their church, which is heretical. Sola Scriptura is just one example of its heresies.

There was no New Testament in the first century. The existence of the documents is a far cry from having a scripture. The formation of a canon was a GRADUAL thing over the next several centuries that culminated with the bishops authorizing its canonicity in the fourth century. It is absurd to think that what we had in the fourth century was what we had in the first. What we had in the first century was the Septuagint and the authority of the apostles and presbyters/bishops. (AKA the authority of the church.)

You find in the Bible a Church that had sacraments in proto form: baptism, ordination, eucharist, confirmation (baptism in the holy spirit), anointing of the sick, marriage, confession. You have a structured teaching ordained church: deacons, presbyters, and bishops, with Peter at its head. You had salvific baptism and real presence in Eucharist. That's not the SDA church. That's Catholicism.

Dear Brother or Sister in Christ,
I was reading this post about SDA and her heresies, I know you are not trying to hurt anyone's feelings and that I believe is very honorable. Some of my favorite people are Catholic so I want to say this very lovingly. The SDA church does not have it all figured out, but the Catholic and the Protestant Churches have their fair share of heresies. Below I have posted some historical information if you would like to review the totality of the information, I provided a link. I only pasted up to the 4th century, it gets even worse in the Dark ages and continuing in the 19-20 century leading to the holocaust. I am trying to say this as lovingly as possible, I think all Christians should review the their denomination's history before they throw stones at another denomination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_antisemitism

A number of early and influential Church works — such as the dialogues of Justin Martyr, the homilies of John Chrysostom, and the testimonies of church father Cyprian — are strongly anti-Jewish.

During a discussion on the celebration of Easter during the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, Roman emperor Constantine said,

...it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. (...) Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way.[11]

Prejudice against Jews in the Roman Empire was formalized in 438, when the Code of Theodosius II established Christianity as the only legal religion in the Roman Empire. The Justinian Code a century later stripped Jews of many of their rights, and Church councils throughout the 6th and 7th century, including the Council of Orleans, further enforced anti-Jewish provisions. These restrictions began as early as 305, when, in Elvira, (now Granada), a Spanish town in Andalucia, the first known laws of any church council against Jews appeared. Christian women were forbidden to marry Jews unless the Jew first converted to Catholicism. Jews were forbidden to extend hospitality to Catholics. Jews could not keep Catholic Christian concubines and were forbidden to bless the fields of Catholics. In 589, in Catholic Iberia, the Third Council of Toledo ordered that children born of marriage between Jews and Catholic be baptized by force. By the Twelfth Council of Toledo (681) a policy of forced conversion of all Jews was initiated (Liber Judicum, II.2 as given in Roth).[12] Thousands fled, and thousands of others converted to Roman Catholicism.

 

[SAAN]

Dear Brother or Sister in Christ,
I was reading this post about SDA and her heresies, I know you are not trying to hurt anyone's feelings and that I believe is very honorable. Some of my favorite people are Catholic so I want to say this very lovingly. The SDA church does not have it all figured out, but the Catholic and the Protestant Churches have their fair share of heresies. Below I have posted some historical information if you would like to review the totality of the information, I provided a link. I only pasted up to the 4th century, it gets even worse in the Dark ages and continuing in the 19-20 century leading to the holocaust. I am trying to say this as lovingly as possible, I think all Christians should review the their denomination's history before they throw stones at another denomination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_antisemitism

A number of early and influential Church works — such as the dialogues of Justin Martyr, the homilies of John Chrysostom, and the testimonies of church father Cyprian — are strongly anti-Jewish.

During a discussion on the celebration of Easter during the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, Roman emperor Constantine said,

...it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. (...) Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way.[11]

Prejudice against Jews in the Roman Empire was formalized in 438, when the Code of Theodosius II established Christianity as the only legal religion in the Roman Empire. The Justinian Code a century later stripped Jews of many of their rights, and Church councils throughout the 6th and 7th century, including the Council of Orleans, further enforced anti-Jewish provisions. These restrictions began as early as 305, when, in Elvira, (now Granada), a Spanish town in Andalucia, the first known laws of any church council against Jews appeared. Christian women were forbidden to marry Jews unless the Jew first converted to Catholicism. Jews were forbidden to extend hospitality to Catholics. Jews could not keep Catholic Christian concubines and were forbidden to bless the fields of Catholics. In 589, in Catholic Iberia, the Third Council of Toledo ordered that children born of marriage between Jews and Catholic be baptized by force. By the Twelfth Council of Toledo (681) a policy of forced conversion of all Jews was initiated (Liber Judicum, II.2 as given in Roth).[12] Thousands fled, and thousands of others converted to Roman Catholicism.

Yet many think their true roots came from the apostles. There have been many threads showing Xmas & Easter was a RCC invention and not anything the apostles celebrated, yet many disagree and say all sources are lies just copying each others lies. Or deny how the spread of Christianity was by force and not genuine love of people wanting to come to Christ.

 

[1John2:4]

Yet many think their true roots came from the apostles. There have been many threads showing Xmas & Easter was a RCC invention and not anything the apostles celebrated, yet many disagree and say all sources are lies just copying each others lies. Or deny how the spread of Christianity was by force and not genuine love of people wanting to come to Christ.

I know it brother, it makes me so sad how much Satan has infiltrated the church with his lies, blinding people to the truth and leading them into disobedience against our Creator. I hope that I too do not fall into the error of the lawless.

 

[Meowzltov]

Some of my favorite people are Catholic so I want to say this very lovingly.

Because I am a Jew as well as a Christian, I am ACUTELY aware of the past history of Christian anti-Semitism. Thanks for the info though.