Is the seventh day the Sabbath?

[from scratch]

Far from it!
I am saying you refuse to acknowledge truth. You stop your ears and shut your eyes.

Oh I acknowledge the truth all right, the SDA truth I don't and will never accept.

 

[BobRyan]

Oh I acknowledge the truth all right, the SDA truth I don't and will never accept.

Is it your claim that the pro-sunday sources listed below in the signature line who all admit to the Bible fact that the Sabbath was given to mankind in Eden -- are only admitting to it because they are all SDA??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by from scratch

So is Moses talking about the Sabbath in Gen 2 or is Moses talking about the 7th day of creation?​

They are the same thing according to God in Ex 20:11.


I thought we all knew that by now

At least for those who take the time to actually read Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 as even the pro-sunday sources listed in my signature line will admit.

In your dreams maybe.

So without showing your point has substance you will now just abandon it??

really?

Bait and switch?

Casting about you for something that will work?

Why not take your own point seriously - and show that it stands up to the details in the text instead of having to insert "not" into the text at almost every turn?

Do you believe Jesus fulfilled the law for you

Yes - He loved God with all of His heart Deut 6:5 and Loved his Neighbor as himself Lev 19:18 -- perfectly.

His perfect obedience stands in the place of my faulty attempts to follow as He calls all the saints to follow - when I am compared to that still-valid perfect standard of the law of God.

or do you believe you must fulfill the law yourself?

I believe the Law is written on the heart and mind under the new covenant - not 'thrown under a bus'.

As Paul said "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19.

And as John said "the saints are those who KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12.

No amount of "word games" will change these basic obvious points regarding the saints and the Law of God.

I think we all knew that.

Certainly the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below appear to know it.

Since you visit 1 Cor 7:19 I'll ask you if the cross matters, or if all that matters is the law?

Are you wanting to insert the word "NOT" into 1Cor 7:19??

Are you wishing to insert the idea that if Paul is right then the Cross must not matter because in your gospel the cross was intended to abolish the Law of God or else it is pointless.

"Do we then abolish the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31

And of course that same Jer 31:31-33 law is "written on the heart and mind" under the new Covenant.

This seems to say you don't need Jesus to get into heaven.

Nobody seems to say that - but you on these threads?

Why keep doing it?

Why keep arguing that if Paul is right then we do not need Jesus?

Maybe you need to accept the Gospel where both are valid instead of constantly inserting "not" into the text or arguing against Paul.

The point of the Gospel and the New Covenant is the law is a has been and isn't part of it

Until you actually read the New Covenant where God says "I will write my LAW on their heart and on their mind".

A Bible doctrine that even the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below - easily accept.

according to the prophets. Also interesting it isn't part of the New Covenant based on better promises instead of law.

You love to talk about it without actually quoting it because you are at with the statement in the "actual" New Covenant that says

"I will write my LAW on their heart and on their mind".

In doing so you give evidence of the fact that your complaint about the Law of God at this point is due to a flaw in your gospel model.

You make assumptions and assert things that aren't present in those passages

Until you take the time to read the texts.

I asked if Paul is in league with John or against what John says about commandments of God

They agree that the saints keep the commandments of God.

The point remains.

As was pointed out by Paul himself "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19

Christ identifies the Ten commandments as the "Commandments of God" in Mark 7:6-13 before the cross.

Paul identifies the Ten commandments as the Commandments of God -- in Eph 6:1-2

You're right only the keeping of the commandments matter. Jesus is insignificant.

I find the logic in your opposition to the text -- illusive.

Personally I believe you are totally by passing Jesus or adding requirements Jesus didn't issue for salvation.

Quote Jesus instead of limiting your post to quoting you in support of your ideas.

John 14:15 "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments"

Matt 5
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


Maybe you need to accept the Gospel where both are valid instead of constantly inserting "not" into the text or arguing against

You intend for my law to be the covenant issued to Israel at Sinai against the clear statement of the passage.Yes lies are very easy to accept. .

By contrast - the actual New Covenant language of both Heb 8 and Jer 31:31-33 has God saying "I will write MY LAWs on their heart and on their mind".

Exegesis states that we admit to the Law that Jeremiah was writing about.

Laws that include the Ten commandments and also "love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18

And so I do admit to that obvious point.

So also do the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below.


By contrast you hope to edit/change Jer 31:31-33 "I will write different laws on the heart and the mind".

An edit the text that does not work.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Elder 111]

Bro. "from scratch"
If I may start over, I will make some points as well as ask some questions at which you can reply.

1. What is sin? This question is in light of the fact that you said that sin was before the law. Therefore the definition used by John and Paul does not apply.
2. What does fulfill mean? If Jesus fulfilled the law how does that mean that we are not to keep it? The substitutional sacrifices of old did not negate the law why would that of Jesus do so?
3. Jesus said that nothing will be removed from the law not even the dot of an "I" or the crossing of a "T" so how can the whole law be remove?

There was no command for returning tithe before Sinai. But Abraham returned tithe. Gen 14:20.
No written command is seen saying that offerings to God was to be a blood offering but God rejects Cain's offering. Is that not unjust by God?
No Command is seen written before Sinai about murder so why is Cain guilty?
The point is that because it is not written thou shall not kill before Sinai it certainly is shown that the law existed as with others.
Your response is awaited.

 

[Elder 111]

Oh I acknowledge the truth all right, the SDA truth I don't and will never accept.

Because it is SDA?

 

[from scratch]

Is it your claim that the pro-sunday sources listed below in the signature line who all admit to the Bible fact that the Sabbath was given to mankind in Eden -- are only admitting to it because they are all SDA??

in Christ,

Bob

Nope and I've no idea how you arrive at such a conclusion. There is no record of Adam and the Sabbath. In fact Moses says the Sabbath was given to Israel alone. Moses obviously knew the word for Sabbath. It up to you to prove why Moses didn't use the word in Genesis.

 

[VictorC]

They are the same thing according to God in Ex 20:11.

This mythology comes from those waging their personal war against the Law of God. They are not the "same thing", according to Exodus 20:11 and the covenant nature of the Sabbath itself that you don't seem to have an answer for.

 

[VictorC]

if you are going to make stuff up like that - how can your post be taken seriously??

Why do that?

in Christ,

Bob

In a parallel thread you again showed that you urge others to reject God's redemption, just as you did on this thread to another member. It is a logical fallacy to attribute motives to conclusions rendered, and is often a violation of the forum rules. It doesn't come as a surprise that you don't take me seriously, but attributing this to others is also a logical fallacy.

 

[from scratch]

Bro. "from scratch"
If I may start over, I will make some points as well as ask some questions at which you can reply.

1. What is sin? This question is in light of the fact that you said that sin was before the law. Therefore the definition used by John and Paul does not apply.

1. You're expecting me to give you a list in which you can say the law defines that as sin. No deal. The Bible clearly says sin was before the law. Therefore the law doesn't invent or make sin sin. If you read the forum and particularly my posts you'll see this has already been covered with quoted Scripture showing the law was issued so that men may be charged. Like usual you simply throw it out because it doesn't agree with your POV. It seems to me you love your POV and hate the Bible. If you were to read the Bible instead of using it as a proof text for your ideas you'll see and understand exactly what I'm talking about.

   [*]What does fulfill mean? If Jesus fulfilled the law how does that mean that we are not to keep it? The substitutional sacrifices of old did not negate the law why would that of Jesus do so?

   Don't you have a dictionary. You have access to several as I do via the net. I've no idea why you don't understand what fulfill means. Since you have this access I see your point only as pointless arguing.

   [*]Jesus said that nothing will be removed from the law not even the dot of an "I" or the crossing of a "T" so how can the whole law be remove?

Obviously you don't understand what you just wrote above. I've covered this several times and you just throw it out and ask me again and again. Why do you not understand the truth doesn't change. You want and demand I say what you like. You have no interest in the truth. When you face this and decide you're interested in the truth things will change for you.

There was no command for returning tithe before Sinai. But Abraham returned tithe. Gen 14:20.
No written command is seen saying that offerings to God was to be a blood offering but God rejects Cain's offering. Is that not unjust by God?
No Command is seen written before Sinai about murder so why is Cain guilty?
The point is that because it is not written thou shall not kill before Sinai it certainly is shown that the law existed as with others.
Your response is awaited.

You obviously have no idea what the Biblical tithe is. The store house isn't a bank nor the church. There's no record of money being tithed in the Bible. There's record of offerings of money though.

 

[from scratch]

Because it is SDA?

There's truth and there's SDA truth. If you know haw to read you'll understand I said there's truth and there's lies. You've been presented both over the course of time and chose to select what you believe.

 

[VictorC]

Because it is SDA?

We have to reject your contentions because you keep running from the truth. That you're SDA is the disease causing the symptoms on display.

Jesus is Lord. Does that mean He never was? Or that He is only Lord now and in the future?

For this comparison to have validity, you would need to demonstrate how the seventh day continued to exist - not only 2.1+ million days later, but before creation itself to match the eternal nature of the Living God. Bottom line: your comparison is invalid.

Verbal tenses have great meaning in Scripture, as Jesus demonstrated according to John 8.

48 Then the Jews answered and said to Him, “Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?”
49 Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. 50 And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges. 51 Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.”
52 Then the Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death.’ 53 Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Who do You make Yourself out to be?”
54 Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. 55 Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.​

Jesus revealed His pre-incarnate divinity with His revealed name, which is a verb in the present tense, contrasted with Abraham described in the past-tense.
Forcing your theology into the Bible violates the verbs Scripture uses. They have meaning, that you still can't reconcile your opinions with.

Adam was an Israelite?

Red herring. Adam didn't have the Sabbath.

Or is it that the term man is only in reference to Jews? Gen. 1: 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Red herring. Adam didn't have the Sabbath.
And even your appeal to the Mosaic covenant proves that he didn't.

How ridiculous can you be? God said it was the Seventh day!
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God...

You just showed that you know how verbal tenses are used in a sentence, and show others that you've been lying all along. God didn't say the sabbath was the seventh day. That's Elder111 inserting his fiction into the account.

There is no burden of proof on my part it is on your part to prove. You have stated that is means future and present only. If that is the case then in all applications it must be the same.

You haven't met the burden of proof that rests within your responsibility, and I already responded to your post wherein you showed that you do understand verbal tenses, and how you violated their usage to refer to an entity in the past tense that doesn't exist presently.

Jesus based His claim to divinity on the tense of a verb. That lesson is lost on you, while the Biblical account shows that everyone in attendance had absolutely no difficulty understanding exactly what He meant. Jesus again appealed to the tense of a verb to validate the resurrection, according to Matthew 22:31-33 - and again everyone in attendance understood what Jesus meant.

Here's your argument in a nutshell.
You would claim that since yesterday is Wednesday, it follows that today is Wednesday as well, since you used the present-tense "is" to refer to an event in the past in denial of its expiration.
Yesterday was Wednesday, and your whole premise is a horrible mistake.

 

[Elder 111]

There's truth and there's SDA truth. If you know haw to read you'll understand I said there's truth and there's lies. You've been presented both over the course of time and chose to select what you believe.

The truth!

 

[from scratch]

The truth!

SDA truth, yes; the truth no. Did I make a true statement? Yes!!!

 

[Elder 111]

SDA truth, yes; the truth no. Did I make a true statement? Yes!!!

In the end SDA truth/biblical truth will be vindicated. The only thing is that it will be too late for all those who have rejected the bible all along. To me I find it a sad situation, a very sad one. Jesus Himself cried when He saw the rejection of the truth by the Jews as He over looked Jerusalem Luke 13:34-35. When He was on His way to the cross He said , (Luke 23: 28) Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
I tell you the truth it hurts. But it is your choice and not even Jesus can change that.

 

[from scratch]

In the end SDA truth/biblical truth will be vindicated. The only thing is that it will be too late for all those who have rejected the bible all along. To me I find it a sad situation, a very sad one. Jesus Himself cried when He saw the rejection of the truth by the Jews as He over looked Jerusalem Luke 13:34-35. When He was on His way to the cross He said , (Luke 23: 28) Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
I tell you the truth it hurts. But it is your choice and not even Jesus can change that.

hehehehehawhe

 

[VictorC]

In the end SDA truth/biblical truth will be vindicated. The only thing is that it will be too late for all those who have rejected the bible all along. To me I find it a sad situation, a very sad one. Jesus Himself cried when He saw the rejection of the truth by the Jews as He over looked Jerusalem Luke 13:34-35. When He was on His way to the cross He said , (Luke 23: 28) Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
I tell you the truth it hurts. But it is your choice and not even Jesus can change that.

I guess your last recourse is to beg somebody to vindicate the indefensible. That just confirms the indefensible nature of Adventism, which doesn't really attempt discussion. It was never your intent all along.

 

[Sophrosyne]

In the end SDA truth/biblical truth will be vindicated. The only thing is that it will be too late for all those who have rejected the bible all along. To me I find it a sad situation, a very sad one. Jesus Himself cried when He saw the rejection of the truth by the Jews as He over looked Jerusalem Luke 13:34-35. When He was on His way to the cross He said , (Luke 23: 28) Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
I tell you the truth it hurts. But it is your choice and not even Jesus can change that.

Another ironic post..... akin to the splinter/beam comment Jesus made once.

 

[Yekcidmij]

The option I would have voted for wasn't on the list.

My answer would be "yes," in the bible the 7th day of the week is the Sabbath, however that 7th day does not correspond to Saturday...or Sunday (or any particular day of our week).

My contention is that the Israelite calendar was a lunar calendar (and certainly not our modern Gregorian Calendar). The beginning of the month was on the New Moon and always began with a Sabbath. Count out 7 days and you have your first sabbath of the month. Count out 7 days and you have your next sabbath of the month, and so on.

Today we use the luni-solar, Gregorian Calendar. Neither Saturday nor Sunday (nor any particular day of the week on the Gregorian Calendar) corresponds to the Sabbath as Moses would have recognized it. Moses' Sabbath is easy to identify though. It's the 8th day after the New Moon and every 7 days until the next New Moon.

Evidence for this can be found in Lev 23 (among other places).

At least by the time of the Selucid empire, Jews were no longer using a strictly lunar calendar (eg, 1 Macc, 1:54). During the Babylonian exile, the Jews seem to have adopted a Babylonian system (seen in the names of the months themselves), which was a luni-solar rather than a strictly lunar calendar. Daniel seems to have been using a strictly solar calendar (Daniel 12) as does the author of Genesis 7-8. Further evidence indicates that they ceased using a lunar calendar before the 1st Temple was destroyed. Ezekiel, a priest who would have been very familiar with Lev 23, says:

Eze 22:26 Her priests abuse my law and have desecrated my holy things. They do not distinguish between the holy and the profane, or recognize any distinction between the unclean and the clean. They ignore my Sabbaths and I am profaned in their midst.
​

Which I think was probably (at least in part) a reference to them ditching the lunar calendar in favor of a solar calendar seen in the priest's fascination and emphasis on the sun:

Eze 8:16 Then he brought me to the inner court of the Lord’s house. Right there at the entrance to the Lord’s temple, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men with their backs to the Lord’s temple, facing east – they were worshiping the sun toward the east!

​

Calendars are always taken for granted in these discussions, but this is a critical mistake. I doubt anyone is following a Sabbath as instituted in the OT for the reason that nobody uses a lunar calendar like an ancient Israelites did as seen in Lev 23.

 

[from scratch]

The option I would have voted for wasn't on the list.

My answer would be "yes," in the bible the 7th day of the week is the Sabbath, however that 7th day does not correspond to Saturday...or Sunday (or any particular day of our week).

My contention is that the Israelite calendar was a lunar calendar (and certainly not our modern Gregorian Calendar). The beginning of the month was on the New Moon and always began with a Sabbath. Count out 7 days and you have your first sabbath of the month. Count out 7 days and you have your next sabbath of the month, and so on.

Today we use the luni-solar, Gregorian Calendar. Neither Saturday nor Sunday (nor any particular day of the week on the Gregorian Calendar) corresponds to the Sabbath as Moses would have recognized it. Moses' Sabbath is easy to identify though. It's the 8th day after the New Moon and every 7 days until the next New Moon.

Evidence for this can be found in Lev 23 (among other places).

At least by the time of the Selucid empire, Jews were no longer using a strictly lunar calendar (eg, 1 Macc, 1:54). During the Babylonian exile, the Jews seem to have adopted a Babylonian system (seen in the names of the months themselves), which was a luni-solar rather than a strictly lunar calendar. Daniel seems to have been using a strictly solar calendar (Daniel 12) as does the author of Genesis 7-8. Further evidence indicates that they ceased using a lunar calendar before the 1st Temple was destroyed. Ezekiel, a priest who would have been very familiar with Lev 23, says:

Eze 22:26 Her priests abuse my law and have desecrated my holy things. They do not distinguish between the holy and the profane, or recognize any distinction between the unclean and the clean. They ignore my Sabbaths and I am profaned in their midst.
​

Which I think was probably (at least in part) a reference to them ditching the lunar calendar in favor of a solar calendar seen in the priest's fascination and emphasis on the sun:

Eze 8:16 Then he brought me to the inner court of the Lord’s house. Right there at the entrance to the Lord’s temple, between the porch and the altar, were about twenty-five men with their backs to the Lord’s temple, facing east – they were worshiping the sun toward the east!

​

Calendars are always taken for granted in these discussions, but this is a critical mistake. I doubt anyone is following a Sabbath as instituted in the OT for the reason that nobody uses a lunar calendar like an ancient Israelites did as seen in Lev 23.

 

[BobRyan]

The option I would have voted for wasn't on the list.

My answer would be "yes," in the bible the 7th day of the week is the Sabbath, however that 7th day does not correspond to Saturday...or Sunday (or any particular day of our week).

My contention is that the Israelite calendar was a lunar calendar (and certainly not our modern Gregorian Calendar).

So then you think that the Jews have it all wrong today - and that Christ may have been resurrected on Tuesday as easily as Sunday - since there is no telling what they were calling "week day 1".

Interesting.

in Christ,

Bob