Sabbath in Eden - Bible fact affirmed by both Sunday and Sabbath groups

[BobRyan]

This topic is starting up again - a few more comments being set for posting here.. stay tuned.

 

[Dale]

Jesus also does not say anything about "do not take God's name in vain" and the Bible scholars on both sides of the Sabbath vs Sunday discussion knew that. A key detail you keep sidestepping.

They knew that Matthew 5 was nothing at all of a "Bible digest saying to ignore everything not in Matthew 5"

Thus they could not use your "solution".



But He does in Matthew 19 when He says "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "which ones".

All those Bible scholars knew that - so they could not take the narrow approach of "just look here not there" that you suggest.



Until you read the teaching of Jesus in places like Mark 7:6-13 and Matthew 19.

The bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sunday vs Sabbath discussion knew this and could not do as you suggest in ignoring that teaching of Jesus or the rest of the NEW Testament.

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of GOD" where those commandments include "the fifth commandment as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2

No wonder Jesus teaches that the "Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND" Mark 2:27 as Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sunday vs Sabbath discussion well knew and as they reference

For all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sunday vs Sabbath discussion well knew this obvious Bible detail and could not simply "ignore texts" to get to a less compelling position.



It does not say to Love God, It does not say " Do not take God's name in vain" it does not say to Honor parents, it does not say to not murder. etc. It does not say it is a replacement for the Bible.

Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sunday vs Sabbath discussion well knew this obvious Bible detail and could not simply "ignore" the rest of scripture for gentiles AS IF Acts 15 were saying "ignore the word of God - just read these 4 sentences" -- they needed a much more compelling solution.

Why get stuck on "the easy part" that BOTH sides already admit to seeing in the actual Bible?

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

In short thanks for explaining where you think all Bible scholars in the world are wrong when they agree to certain obvious Bible details about the TEN commandments - but as you see in the examples above - a more narrow less defensible position was not an option for them. They needed a position that would stand up to at least some level of "close review" as compared to the Bible.



And none of it saying "ignore the rest of the Bible just pay attention to Matthew 5" as I am sure we all know and agree.


33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Matthew 5: 33-37 NIV

Is a great example of not finding the quote "do not take God's name in vain" of Ex 20:7



Is a great example of not reading anything at all from Matthew 5.



Especially when you read the words of Christ in Matthew 19:18
“You shall not commit murder;
You shall not commit adultery;
You shall not steal;
You shall not bear false witness;
19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

What we do not find is "do not take God's name in vain" - but this "means nothing" since that is not a funny kind of rule of exegesis for deleting one of the TEN Commandments.

So far your speculation in this area does not survive these Bible details.

The point remains.

You are completely wrong about what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount. On taking the Lord's name in vain, look at this passage.


Oaths

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

--Matthew 5: 33-37 NIV




Jesus condemns swearing or any use of God's name as an expletive in the strongest terms.


Jesus says nothing about Sabbath observance in the Sermon on the Mount or in the parables, as I have already pointed out.




You are going to incredible lengths to distort the Gospel to back up your Old Testament-centered view.

 

[BobRyan]

here are some things they should have thought about.

The moral teaching of Jesus is very well summarized in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke. Jesus doesn't say anything about observing the Sabbath

Jesus also does not say anything about "do not take God's name in vain" and the Bible scholars on both sides of the Sabbath vs Sunday discussion knew that. A key detail you keep sidestepping.

They knew that Matthew 5 was nothing at all of a "Bible digest saying to ignore everything not in Matthew 5"

Thus they could not use your "solution".

in the Sermon on the Mount or the Sermon on the Plain. Jesus doesn't say anything about the Ten Commandments in the Sermon on the Mount or the Sermon on the Plain.

But He does in Matthew 19 when He says "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "which ones".

All those Bible scholars knew that - so they could not take the narrow approach of "just look here not there" that you suggest.

It is certainly true that on many points, Jesus makes the Old Testament law more strict. Yet He does not make the Ten Commandments the foundation of his teaching nor does he treat them as a useful summary of OT law.

Until you read the teaching of Jesus in places like Mark 7:6-13 and Matthew 19.

The bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sunday vs Sabbath discussion knew this and could not do as you suggest in ignoring that teaching of Jesus or the rest of the NEW Testament.

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of GOD" where those commandments include "the fifth commandment as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2

No wonder Jesus teaches that the "Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND" Mark 2:27 as Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sunday vs Sabbath discussion well knew and as they reference

For all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sunday vs Sabbath discussion well knew this obvious Bible detail and could not simply "ignore texts" to get to a less compelling position.

In Acts 15, the Apostles meet in Jerusalem to decide under what conditions Gentiles, or non-Jews, may become Christians. In a letter to three churches, writing in the name of the Holy Spirit, they urge abstinence from sexual immorality but otherwise lay no new or unfamiliar burdens on non-Jewish Christians. The letter doesn't say to follow the Ten Commandments

It does not say to Love God, It does not say " Do not take God's name in vain" it does not say to Honor parents, it does not say to not murder. etc. It does not say it is a replacement for the Bible.

Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sunday vs Sabbath discussion well knew this obvious Bible detail and could not simply "ignore" the rest of scripture for gentiles AS IF Acts 15 were saying "ignore the word of God - just read these 4 sentences" -- they needed a much more compelling solution.

Why get stuck on "the easy part" that BOTH sides already admit to seeing in the actual Bible?

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

In short thanks for explaining where you think all Bible scholars in the world are wrong when they agree to certain obvious Bible details about the TEN commandments - but as you see in the examples above - a more narrow less defensible position was not an option for them. They needed a position that would stand up to at least some level of "close review" as compared to the Bible.

You are in error. There is a lot more to know about the Sermon on the Mount.

And none of it saying "ignore the rest of the Bible just pay attention to Matthew 5" as I am sure we all know and agree.


33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Matthew 5: 33-37 NIV

Is a great example of not finding the quote "do not take God's name in vain" of Ex 20:7

12 Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned. James 5:12 NIV

Is a great example of not reading anything at all from Matthew 5.

The Gospels do deal with murder directly as well.

19 [Jesus says,]For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

Matthew 15:19 NIV

Especially when you read the words of Christ in Matthew 19:18
“You shall not commit murder;
You shall not commit adultery;
You shall not steal;
You shall not bear false witness;
19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Obvious Bible details in support of God's TEN Commandments that Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the debate freely admit as we saw here --
Tuesday at 11:14 PM #80


What we do not find is "do not take God's name in vain" - but this "means nothing" since that is not a funny kind of rule of exegesis for deleting one of the TEN Commandments.

So far your speculation in this area does not survive these Bible details.

The point remains.

You are completely wrong about what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount. On taking the Lord's name in vain,

He never quotes that commandment. This is irrefutable. In fact no NT author quotes it.

look at this passage.
33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
--Matthew 5: 33-37 NIV

Indeed another great place to not find the quote "do not take God's name in vain" -- as I was saying

 

[Dale]

Jesus also does not say anything about "do not take God's name in vain" and the Bible scholars on both sides of the Sabbath vs Sunday discussion knew that. A key detail you keep sidestepping.

They knew that Matthew 5 was nothing at all of a "Bible digest saying to ignore everything not in Matthew 5"

Thus they could not use your "solution".



But He does in Matthew 19 when He says "KEEP the Commandments" and is asked "which ones".

All those Bible scholars knew that - so they could not take the narrow approach of "just look here not there" that you suggest.



Until you read the teaching of Jesus in places like Mark 7:6-13 and Matthew 19.

The bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sunday vs Sabbath discussion knew this and could not do as you suggest in ignoring that teaching of Jesus or the rest of the NEW Testament.

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of GOD" where those commandments include "the fifth commandment as the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2

No wonder Jesus teaches that the "Sabbath was MADE for MANKIND" Mark 2:27 as Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sunday vs Sabbath discussion well knew and as they reference

For all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sunday vs Sabbath discussion well knew this obvious Bible detail and could not simply "ignore texts" to get to a less compelling position.



It does not say to Love God, It does not say " Do not take God's name in vain" it does not say to Honor parents, it does not say to not murder. etc. It does not say it is a replacement for the Bible.

Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the Sunday vs Sabbath discussion well knew this obvious Bible detail and could not simply "ignore" the rest of scripture for gentiles AS IF Acts 15 were saying "ignore the word of God - just read these 4 sentences" -- they needed a much more compelling solution.

Why get stuck on "the easy part" that BOTH sides already admit to seeing in the actual Bible?

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

In short thanks for explaining where you think all Bible scholars in the world are wrong when they agree to certain obvious Bible details about the TEN commandments - but as you see in the examples above - a more narrow less defensible position was not an option for them. They needed a position that would stand up to at least some level of "close review" as compared to the Bible.



And none of it saying "ignore the rest of the Bible just pay attention to Matthew 5" as I am sure we all know and agree.


33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Matthew 5: 33-37 NIV

Is a great example of not finding the quote "do not take God's name in vain" of Ex 20:7



Is a great example of not reading anything at all from Matthew 5.



Especially when you read the words of Christ in Matthew 19:18
“You shall not commit murder;
You shall not commit adultery;
You shall not steal;
You shall not bear false witness;
19 Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Obvious Bible details in support of God's TEN Commandments that Bible scholars on BOTH sides of the debate freely admit as we saw here --
Tuesday at 11:14 PM #80


What we do not find is "do not take God's name in vain" - but this "means nothing" since that is not a funny kind of rule of exegesis for deleting one of the TEN Commandments.

So far your speculation in this area does not survive these Bible details.

The point remains.




He never quotes that commandment. This is irrefutable. In fact no NT author quotes it.




Indeed another great place to not find the quote "do not take God's name in vain" -- as I was saying

Bob, I have no idea what you are trying to do in post #83. Apparently you are trying to deny that Matthew 5:22-37 has anything to do with the OT prohibition of taking the name of the Lord in vain.




Take a look at this passage from Ellen White:




<< “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.”




This commandment not only prohibits false oaths and common swearing, but it forbids us to use the name of God in a light or careless manner, without regard to its awful significance. >>




This is from Chapter 27: The Law Given to Israel, of the book Patriarchs and Prophets, part of Conflict of the Ages. Ellen White does associate taking the name of the Lord in vain with "false oaths and common swearing." Ellen White sees the connection. Why don't you?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, I have no idea what you are trying to do in post #83. Apparently you are trying to deny that Matthew 5:22-37 has anything to do with the OT prohibition of taking the name of the Lord in vain.

I simply point out that Matthew 5:22-37 is a great example of not quoting "do not take God's name in vain" -- something that you cannot then "blame on Ellen White".

Take a look at this passage from Ellen White:

<< “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.”

your point that Ellen White does know what a direct quote of Ex 20:7 looks like - is noted.

But no amount of "Ellen White" on your part inserts Ex 20:7 as being quoted in Matthew 5.

The moral teaching of Jesus is very well summarized in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke. Jesus doesn't say anything about observing the Sabbath in the Sermon on the Mount or the Sermon on the Plain. Jesus doesn't say anything about the Ten Commandments in the Sermon on the Mount or the Sermon on the Plain.

No doubt Ellen White points to repeated references to the Sabbath and to all the commandments as "implied" all through the NT. But your statement did not allow "Sabbath as being implied" but rather called for a "direct quote" even though now you are straining to get one of the Ten Commandments "do not take God's name in vain" inserted as a quote in Matthew 5 while claiming "Jesus doesn't say anything about the Ten Commandments in the Sermon on the Mount."

And while totally ignoring his outright quoted of them in Mathew 19 and Mark 7:6-13 where he argues that the slightest tweak of their obligation invalidates all of worship. (as if in your theology such a thing would be minor)

 

[klutedavid]

Often in "pop culture" it is assumed that only Sabbath keeping groups like Seventh-day Adventists will admit to the Bible fact that the Ten Commandments (including the Sabbath commandment) were the moral law of God even as far back as Eden. (So then no "taking God's name in vain" for Adam and Eve).

But as it turns out - a great many denominations are on record as admitting to this detail.

I am glad these Sunday sources all affirm the Ten Commandments for Christians.

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson


Of course the reason that Sabbath keeping groups accept the Bible detail of the Sabbath in Eden -- and for all mankind -- includes some of the obvious texts.

Mark 2:27 "the Sabbath was made for mankind and not mankind for the Sabbath" -- which speaks of the "making" of both mankind and the Sabbath.

Gen 2:1-3 - the making of Sabbath
Gen 1-2:3 the making of mankind and the Sabbath.
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.


Ex 20:11 points make to that singular 7 day event for the making of the Sabbath.

Ex 20
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Is 66:23 "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall mankind come before Me to worship"
Is 56:6-8 - gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping

And of course both the Sunday and Sabbath groups agree that the New Covenant of Jer 31:31-33 "I will write My LAW on their heart" was made "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah"
Just as the TEN commandments with their command "Do not take God's name in vain" was included in the moral law of God given to Israel.

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



=========================================
Baptist Confession of Faith -- sectn 19

Here is it in Spurgeon's exanded edition in th 19th century.
The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)

19. The Law of God

1. 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.
   
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
   
3. 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.
   
   
   
4. 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.
   
   
5. 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.
   
   
   
6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expected in this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace.
   
   
   
7. The aforementioned uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but they sweetly comply with it, as the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do freely and cheerfully those things which the will of God, which is revealed in the law, requires to be done.

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

Westminster Confession of Faith
Westminister Confession of Faith Chapter 19

Westminister Confession of Faith Chapter 19
Of the Law of God

1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him, and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six our duty to man.
3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances; partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth diverse instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.
4. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
5. 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.
6. 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 requires to be done.

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


D.L. Moody insists that the Sabbath begins in Eden.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS text by D. L. Moody

Moody says this in that sermon

"The Sabbath was binding in Eden, and it has been in force ever since. The fourth commandment begins with the word remember, showing that the Sabbath already existed when God wrote this law on the tables of stone at Sinai. How can men claim that this one commandment has been done away with when they will admit that the other nine are still binding?

I believe that the Sabbath question today is a vital one for the whole country. It is the burning question of the present time. If you give up the Sabbath the church goes; if you give up the church the home goes; and if the home goes the nation goes. That is the direction in which we are traveling.

The church of God is losing its power on account of so many people giving up the Sabbath, and using it to promote selfishness."

Both the "Baptist Confession of Faith" - sectn 19 and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" sectn 19 affirm the same point about the TEN Commandments as the moral law of God that is given in Eden.

The lack of depth in the accusations made in the post is reflected somewhat by this statement "Most Christian advocates of Sabbath observance are influenced by Ellen White" - as if all Christians who are not at war against God's 4th commandment -- take their doctrine from Ellen White when it comes to God's Sabbath Commandment.

That is such an extreme statement it is hard to overstate the level of its exaggeration.

You quoted from the nineteenth chapter of the Westminster Confession. You should have kept reading the Westminster Confession and you would have read the following.

Chapter 21

Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath day

VII. As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath.

So the Westminster Confession is opposed to the seventh day Sabbath!

 

[klutedavid]

I find your logic "illusive" just then.

You will find that the Baptist Confession also is in disagreement with your church.

Baptist Confession 1689

Chapter 22

Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day

7. As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished. ( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )

How can you be wrong twice?

 

[BobRyan]

Westminster Confession. You should have kept reading ...
Chapter 21 Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath day

VII. As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath.

As highlighted above you are wrong 3 times. I am not wrong at all

your own quote shows that

1. it began in Eden "from the beginning of the world"
2. It applies to all mankind: "in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages"
3. It was bent .. "changed" - " was changed into the first day of the week"

As pointed out in section 19 and section 21 - it refutes your every claim on this topic. It says it is a positive moral and perpetual commandmentment binding on all mankind. you have flatly denied the very basics on that point. I keep saying they are so exceptionally and glaringly obvious that both sides agree. Were we simply "not supposed to notice".

So the Westminster Confession is opposed to the seventh day Sabbath!

And as we all know I call this "a sunday source" not a "bible Sabbath" source even in your own quote of me ---

Where is the "news" in what you have posted?

 

[BobRyan]

Paul says that the Ten Commandments still apply to Christians -- that includes "do not take God's name in vain" --- Eph 6:2 Paul reminds us that the 5th commandment "is the first commandment with a promise" in that still-valid unit of TEN

No wonder Paul says "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19.

And he affirms the Jer 31:31-33 fact that the "LAW is written on the heart" Hebrews 8:6-13 under the New Covenant

No wonder even these Sunday sources all affirm the Ten Commandments for Christians.
...

Yes you include all those human authorities, but ignore the authority of God's Word. Also, who is our Father if we are born of God .. it is God the Father ('Call no man on earth your father ...')

I find your logic "illusive" just then.

Baptist Confession 1689 Chapter 22: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day

7. As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished. ( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )

How can you be wrong twice?

As highlighted above you are wrong 3 times. I am not wrong at all

your own quote shows that

1. it began in Eden "from the beginning of the world"
2. It applies to all mankind: "in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages"
3. It was bent .. "changed" - " was changed into the first day of the week"


As pointed out in section 19 and section 21 - it refutes your every claim on this topic. It says it is a positive moral and perpetual commandmentment binding on all mankind. you have flatly denied the very basics on that point. I keep saying they are so exceptionally and glaringly obvious that both sides agree. Were we simply "not supposed to notice".

And as we all know I call this "a sunday source" not a "bible Sabbath" source even in your own quote of me ---

Where is the "news" in what you have posted?

Sorry Bob, no one agrees with you. Not the Westminster Confession or the Baptist Confession,

I find your logic "illusive" just then.

The irrefutable facts above that you simply choose to "ignore" do not vanish once you ignore them. were we simply not supposed to notice???

 

[klutedavid]

As pointed out in section 19 and section 21 - it refutes your every claim on this topic. It says it is a positive moral and perpetual commandmentment binding on all mankind. you have flatly denied the very basics on that point. I keep saying they are so exceptionally and glaringly obvious that both sides agree. Were we simply "not supposed to notice".

It also admits that it was "bent" or "changed" to point to week-day-1. Another point you have rejected.

And as we all know I call this "a sunday source" not a "bible Sabbath" source even in your own quote of me ---

Where is the "news" in what you have posted?

Sorry Bob, no one agrees with you. Not the Westminster Confession or the Baptist Confession, they both recognize a change in the law has taken place. I quoted this from both Confessions and you will cease from falsely quoting from these sources.

 

[BobRyan]

Baptist Confession 1689 Chapter 22: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day

7. As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished. ( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )

How can you be wrong twice?

As highlighted above you are wrong 3 times. I am not wrong at all

your own quote shows that

1. it began in Eden "from the beginning of the world"
2. It applies to all mankind: "in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages"
3. It was bent .. "changed" - " was changed into the first day of the week"


As pointed out in section 19 and section 21 - it refutes your every claim on this topic. It says it is a positive moral and perpetual commandmentment binding on all mankind. you have flatly denied the very basics on that point. I keep saying they are so exceptionally and glaringly obvious that both sides agree. Were we simply "not supposed to notice".

And as we all know I call this "a sunday source" not a "bible Sabbath" source even in your own quote of me ---

Where is the "news" in what you have posted?

Sorry Bob, no one agrees with you. Not the Westminster Confession or the Baptist Confession,

I find your logic "illusive" just then.

The irrefutable facts above that you simply choose to "ignore" do not vanish once you ignore them. were we simply not supposed to notice???

 

[klutedavid]

I find your logic "illusive" just then.



As highlighted above you are wrong 3 times. I am not wrong at all

your own quote shows that

1. it began in Eden "from the beginning of the world"
2. It applies to all mankind: "in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages"
3. It was bent .. "changed" - " was changed into the first day of the week"


As pointed out in section 19 and section 21 - it refutes your every claim on this topic. It says it is a positive moral and perpetual commandmentment binding on all mankind. you have flatly denied the very basics on that point. I keep saying they are so exceptionally and glaringly obvious that both sides agree. Were we simply "not supposed to notice".

And as we all know I call this "a sunday source" not a "bible Sabbath" source even in your own quote of me ---

Where is the "news" in what you have posted?



I find your logic "illusive" just then.

The irrefutable facts above that you simply choose to "ignore" do not vanish once you ignore them. were we simply not supposed to notice???

Your interpretation is downright illusive.

The Westminster confession recognizes a change in the fourth commandment. The Westminster Confession does not support the literal ten commandments of Exodus. Read chapter twenty one again and again.

The resurrection altered everything including the law.

 

[BobRyan]

Paul says that the Ten Commandments still apply to Christians -- that includes "do not take God's name in vain" --- Eph 6:2 Paul reminds us that the 5th commandment "is the first commandment with a promise" in that still-valid unit of TEN

No wonder Paul says "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19.

And he affirms the Jer 31:31-33 fact that the "LAW is written on the heart" Hebrews 8:6-13 under the New Covenant

No wonder even these Sunday sources all affirm the Ten Commandments for Christians.
...

Yes you include all those human authorities, but ignore the authority of God's Word. Also, who is our Father if we are born of God .. it is God the Father ('Call no man on earth your father ...')

I find your logic "illusive" just then.

Baptist Confession 1689 Chapter 22: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day

7. As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished. ( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )

How can you be wrong twice?

As highlighted above you are wrong 3 times. I am not wrong at all

your own quote shows that

1. it began in Eden "from the beginning of the world"
2. It applies to all mankind: "in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages"
3. It was bent .. "changed" - " was changed into the first day of the week"


As pointed out in section 19 and section 21 - it refutes your every claim on this topic. It says it is a positive moral and perpetual commandmentment binding on all mankind. you have flatly denied the very basics on that point. I keep saying they are so exceptionally and glaringly obvious that both sides agree. Were we simply "not supposed to notice".

And as we all know I call this "a sunday source" not a "bible Sabbath" source even in your own quote of me ---

Where is the "news" in what you have posted?

Sorry Bob, no one agrees with you. Not the Westminster Confession or the Baptist Confession,

I find your logic "illusive" just then.

The irrefutable facts above that you simply choose to "ignore" do not vanish once you ignore them. were we simply not supposed to notice???

Your interpretation is downright illusive.

I am very satisfied with the result that I get to post those obvious details and all you can respond with is some form of "i don't see". It is fine you have free will - but the rest of us can see clearly.

 

[BobRyan]

The Westminster confession recognizes a change in the fourth commandment.

Indeed they claim it still applies as from Eden for all mankind - only now "bent" to point to week-day-1. So far that is not your claim - in fact you deny everything it says about "binding in Eden" and binding on all mankind, and part of the moral law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant... You deny all of it so far.

And all you have left is that the group I call "Sunday scholarship"... "keeps sunday" as if I was not saying they are the Sunday Bible scholars admitting to Bible details so obvious that BOTH sides admit to them.

You keep repeating the point essentially that with the INFO I have posted it is "BOTH side" and not "just one side" -- just as I have claimed "as if" that somehow makes your point and not mine.

At each step I find your logic illusive.

 

[BobRyan]

The Westminster Confession does not support the literal ten commandments of Exodus. .

yeah -- like that is working out for you well so far....

This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six our duty to man.

(You make this too easy for me)

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

Westminster Confession of Faith
Westminister Confession of Faith Chapter 19

Westminister Confession of Faith Chapter 19
Of the Law of God

1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him, and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six our duty to man.
3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances; partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth diverse instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.
4. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
5. 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.
6. 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 requires to be done.

 

[klutedavid]

I find your logic "illusive" just then.



As highlighted above you are wrong 3 times. I am not wrong at all

your own quote shows that

1. it began in Eden "from the beginning of the world"
2. It applies to all mankind: "in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages"
3. It was bent .. "changed" - " was changed into the first day of the week"


As pointed out in section 19 and section 21 - it refutes your every claim on this topic. It says it is a positive moral and perpetual commandmentment binding on all mankind. you have flatly denied the very basics on that point. I keep saying they are so exceptionally and glaringly obvious that both sides agree. Were we simply "not supposed to notice".

And as we all know I call this "a sunday source" not a "bible Sabbath" source even in your own quote of me ---

Where is the "news" in what you have posted?



I find your logic "illusive" just then.

The irrefutable facts above that you simply choose to "ignore" do not vanish once you ignore them. were we simply not supposed to notice???



I am very satisfied with the result that I get to post those obvious details and all you can respond with is some form of "i don't see". It is fine you have free will - but the rest of us can see clearly.

Partial quotations is what your church is all about Bob. I saw what you wrote and you always cherry pick from sources. A careful selection of verses to give a somewhat illusive portrait of what a Confession really states.

Both Confessions gladly admit that the Sabbath changed to Sunday. You cannot say that either Confession agrees with you in the full context of either Confession.

You accuse others of being illusive and I do think you protest too loudly.

 

[klutedavid]

yeah -- like that is working out for you well so far....

This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six our duty to man.

(You make this too easy for me)

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

Westminster Confession of Faith
Westminister Confession of Faith Chapter 19

Westminister Confession of Faith Chapter 19
Of the Law of God

1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him, and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six our duty to man.
3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances; partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth diverse instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.
4. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
5. 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.
6. 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 requires to be done.

Partial quotation where is chapter 21 Bob, you forgot the resurrection.

 

[klutedavid]

yeah -- like that is working out for you well so far....

This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six our duty to man.

(You make this too easy for me)

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

Westminster Confession of Faith
Westminister Confession of Faith Chapter 19

Westminister Confession of Faith Chapter 19
Of the Law of God

1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him, and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six our duty to man.
3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances; partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth diverse instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.
4. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
5. 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.
6. 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 requires to be done.

You omitted the following.

Chapter 21 Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath day

VII. As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath.

So you have been refuted again and again. Even the Westminster Confession admits the Sabbath was altered.

You missed the Lord's Day and I'm not sure how you missed that one.

 

[BobRyan]

The Westminster Confession does not support the literal ten commandments of Exodus. .

yeah -- like that is working out for you well so far....

This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six our duty to man.

(You make this too easy for me)

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

Westminster Confession of Faith
Westminister Confession of Faith Chapter 19

Westminister Confession of Faith Chapter 19
Of the Law of God

1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him, and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six our duty to man.
3. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances; partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth diverse instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.
4. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
5. 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.
6. 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 requires to be done.

You omitted the following.

Chapter 21 Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath day

Agreed I omitted Chapter 21 from Chapter 19... because 21 is not in 19. I think we all saw that clearly.

VII. As it is of the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which in Scripture is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath.

Thanks for posting the list of facts in the Westminster that you oppose in all your arguments.
1. A positive moral perpetual commandment, binding on all mankind. (it is in the Moral law of God under New Covenant)
2. Begins in Eden - for Adam and Eve "from the beginning of the World"
3. CHANGED - (bent) to point to weekday 1 so then they claim to keep the Sabbath commandment still - only for them it is a "bent" Sabbath. Changed.

All of these points opposed by you

So you have been refuted again and again. Even the Westminster Confession admits the Sabbath was altered.


I keep arguing that this is a SUNDAY source admitting to basic Bible details agreed to by BOTH sides.

Your response that "this is not ONE side it is BOTH sides" in your efforts to point to their having some differences with the Bible Sabbath group -- is merely highlighting my same point that this is not just ONE side of the debate -- but in fact BOTH sides agreeing to some key Bible details, easy Bible details... that you oppose in your own posts.

What is confusing to many of us here -- is why you think that is helping your argument.

 

[BobRyan]

I say this is a "SUNDAY" source and an example of BOTH sides agreeing on certain key Bible details... 'the easy part'

Your response is to highlight my own point that this is not ONE side of the debate agreeing on key details but BOTH sides... though they oppose each other it is a case where BOTH agree on certain key Bible details.

Both Confessions gladly admit that the Sabbath changed to Sunday. You cannot say that either Confession agrees with you in the full context of either Confession. .

How is it that you think that highlighting the very point I am making - is helping your argument???

The two "opposing sides" still manage to agree on certain bible details that are soooooo incredibly obvious neither side could miss it!!