The history of how Sunday worship came about

[tall73]

All the saints keep it before Exodus 16 and all the saints "do no take God's name in vain" before Exodus 16.

An obvious Bible detail that Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations no BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate freely admit.

Sorry, I don't believe things because Moody does. Since we see no text of any human keeping it before Exodus 16 I will file that under not so obvious.

And you don't believe things because Moody does either, or you wouldn't be keeping the Seventh-day Sabbath, or holding the Adventist IJ, etc.

So we will both have to live with disagreeing with Moody.

There you shoot your own argument in the foot. It would be hard to find a single Bible scholar or reader of this thread that seriously thought it was "ok to take God's name in vain" before Exodus 20 - NO MATTER that the command is not there before Exodus 16.

That is because taking God's name in vain is obviously wrong to anyone who worships God.

Where as a memorial given to Israel with sacrifices as a sign would not be obvious to those who lived before it was given.

That is the difference between a memorial and a moral law.

Or between a sign and the commands by which one who does them will live, per Ezekiel 20.

By contrast Exodus 20:11 is pointing directly to Gen 2:1-3 when it comes to the Sabbath. Again ... "the easy part"

I think both are pointing back to Sinai when God gave the command to man, to the people who were the first to have it explained in Exodus 16.

I am showing that.. this is "the easy part" of the topic and you stuck drawing out objections to the part of the discussion that the anti-seventh-day-Sabbath scholars know to be incorrect in your suggestions. So it is not like it is "just SDAs" or "just Sabbath keeping Christians" that see the problem with what you suggest.

No, the easy part is realizing there are more than two views, and have been from quite early on as I already posted. Folks far closer than Moody to the times thought that no one kept the Sabbath before the time of Moses.

By the way, the easy part for most folks is seeing that the Sabbath is included in Colossians 2 which is why few read past the point where it is posted. Just the die-hard debaters care after that.

Which IS the point when showing that "This is the EASY part of the discussion"

You have already been shown that there are views besides yours or Moody, going back to shortly after the apostles, but somehow think we will be impressed because Moody plus some Baptist, etc. thought so.

Nose counting theology will never work for Adventists, who are out of line with orthodox teaching on a number of subjects.

 

[tall73]

It does help for those that accept that Is 14 and Ez 28 are doing that very thing. Since we "see it" in Is 66 and also we see the two paths for Israel that are not "decided" until the 490 years of Dan 9 are complete. Details you keep skimming over.

So spell out those paths Bob.

I have not objected to them being there. In fact, I discussed my view early on in the last thread.

 

[tall73]

It is more than "a little odd" that you are quoting a reference to the lake of fire second death event that the saints DO SEE - and then complaining that "Ellen White" said something you differ with when you are pointing to the very part where she agrees with Is 66:24 in her description of that event???

The timing in Isaiah 66 is after all flesh are assembling in the new earth. So she thinks there will be dead bodies then? Doesn't look like it.

Isa 66:23 From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the LORD.
Isa 66:24 “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

Of course, I don't think this is part of John's scenario as spelled out, and I don't think you do either.

 

[klutedavid]

So do you believe all you have to do to be saved is call on the name of the Lord and that's it?

That is exactly what the scripture states in many places.

Joel 2:32
And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Acts 2:21
And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Romans 10:13
For “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Romans 10:11-12
For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him.

So IMG your interpretation may be at fault.

How many times have we read in a news article that someone killed someone else because the "lord" told them to. If that person died during their ravage murder will they be saved because they called on the Lord?

Your guess is as good as mine. We don't know, so that is a pointless argument. Not an argument from the scripture.

So is there more to being saved than calling on the name of the Lord according to the Bible?

That is your interpretation talking now. You are going to directly contradict God's statement now.

Jesus was asked this exact question and His answer was this:

Mathew 19 :17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself

Jesus quoted directly from the Ten Commandments. So does the verse in Acts 2:21 trump what Jesus says or does it build on it? Wait there is more! If you keep reading in Mathew Jesus has more to say.

20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

This rich man might of been another disciple of Jesus but he choose His riches over following Jesus. Will this man be in Heaven? Jesus gave him the opportunity to follow Him, but he turned down Jesus because he put His will above our Savior's.

The rich young man in the text (Matthew 19), did not call on the name of the Lord. What is your argument here?

Here is the statement God made through the apostles again.

Romans 10:13
For “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

The bible is filled with many chapters on how we are saved. It's not a line here or there, the whole book is a map how to follow Jesus and make His will our will. The problem is most believe in Jesus, say they love Jesus but when it comes to really putting God's will above their own, they can't seem to let go and allow God's will to lead their life. That's why Jesus said:

Mathew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Still contradicting what God has spoken.

The text (Matthew 7:21) states that some will offer their works in place of that belief in Jesus for salvation.

Jesus specifically says, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness".

The will of the Father is mentioned by Jesus.

John 6:40
For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

Are you saying that if we sin or have no works, then God's grace is insufficient to save?
No, God's grace is 100% sufficient to save. The part I think a lot of people get confused with is how we are judged versus how we are saved. We are all sinners in need of a Savior, but we will be judge on our actions according to scriptures. Romans 2:6, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 4:5, 1 Peter 1:17, Revelation 20:12, Psalms 62:12, Colossians 3:25, 1 Corinthians 3:8, Proverbs 11:31

You need to clarify what you are saying here?

Is it Jesus saves because you called upon him, i.e., saved by grace.

Or is it calling on Jesus and living a sinless life and good works, will save you.

It is one of the two but which one.

Joel 2:32
And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

I wonder which one it is?

You need to decide whether you will accept what God has said or what your church has said.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

That is exactly what the scripture states in many places.

Joel 2:32
And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Acts 2:21
And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Romans 10:13
For “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Romans 10:11-12
For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him.

So IMG your interpretation may be at fault.Your guess is as good as mine. We don't know, so that is a pointless argument. Not an argument from the scripture.That is your interpretation talking now. You are going to directly contradict God's statement now.The rich young man in the text (Matthew 19), did not call on the name of the Lord. What is your argument here?

Here is the statement God made through the apostles again.

Romans 10:13
For “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”Still contradicting what God has spoken.

The text (Matthew 7:21) states that some will offer their works in place of that belief in Jesus for salvation.

Jesus specifically says, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness".

The will of the Father is mentioned by Jesus.

John 6:40
For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” You need to clarify what you are saying here?

Is it Jesus saves because you called upon him, i.e., saved by grace.

Or is it calling on Jesus and living a sinless life and good works, will save you.

It is one of the two but which one.

Joel 2:32
And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

I wonder which one it is?

You need to decide whether you will accept what God has said or what your church has said.

Maybe you didn't read my post you are replying to because I never once quoted anything from my church, everything was direct quotes from scripture. I find this interesting though coming from someone who advocates a tradition of the church over what God has commanded us regarding which day is His holy day. Exodus 20:8-11

From the mouth of our Savior:
Mathew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Maybe there is some misunderstanding regarding the scripture you quoted. Maybe Jesus will save by just calling out His name for some, but I think for those who were shown the scriptures and know we should keep God's commandments but refuse to, than Jesus might have some words on judgement day. Jesus is the one will decide in His just judgement. Keeping God's commandments is not burdensome for me and I do it because I love Him and He asked.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Sorry, I don't believe things because Moody does. Since we see no text of any human keeping it before Exodus 16 I will file that under not so obvious.

And you don't believe things because Moody does either, or you wouldn't be keeping the Seventh-day Sabbath, or holding the Adventist IJ, etc.

So we will both have to live with disagreeing with Moody.



That is because taking God's name in vain is obviously wrong to anyone who worships God.

Where as a memorial given to Israel with sacrifices as a sign would not be obvious to those who lived before it was given.

That is the difference between a memorial and a moral law.

Or between a sign and the commands by which one who does them will live, per Ezekiel 20.



I think both are pointing back to Sinai when God gave the command to man, to the people who were the first to have it explained in Exodus 16.




No, the easy part is realizing there are more than two views, and have been from quite early on as I already posted. Folks far closer than Moody to the times thought that no one kept the Sabbath before the time of Moses.

By the way, the easy part for most folks is seeing that the Sabbath is included in Colossians 2 which is why few read past the point where it is posted. Just the die-hard debaters care after that.



You have already been shown that there are views besides yours or Moody, going back to shortly after the apostles, but somehow think we will be impressed because Moody plus some Baptist, etc. thought so.

Nose counting theology will never work for Adventists, who are out of line with orthodox teaching on a number of subjects.

You realize God wrote His moral laws in a unit of TEN, not nine? It's a very strange interpretation to me that you consider nine of the ten to be moral, but the one commandment God wrote "REMEMBER" and is the day God deemed His holy day not. This thinking undermines our Savior because His perfect will written on stone has Ten commandments. If He planned on making one ceremonial, it would have never been written on stone by His own finger and stored with the other nine, in the upmost holy of holy in His Temple and the one Jesus taught about in the NT. You are free to believe as you wish obviously. Do you think SDA's are not going to be saved?

 

[tall73]

You realize God wrote His moral laws in a unit of TEN, not nine?

No, I do not see it that way. Because there are many moral laws other than the ten, with laws regarding:

- Oaths
- Sexual sins (homosexuality, inappropriate behavior with animals, incest, etc.)
- Responsibility and liability (if your animal gores someone, and you knew it had before, injuring someone in a fight, failing to cover a pit, animal grazing in neighbor's field)
- kidnapping
- self defense in a break-in
- no sorcery, necromancy, etc.
- not oppressing foreigners, orphans, widows, poor
-loans and interest
- respect for rulers
- Need to be proactively helpful (if you see your neighbor's animal wander away)
- bribes
etc.

The ten commandments were the tablets of the testimony. Within that God placed a sign with Israel. But the ten commandments do not represent all moral law. And one of the ten commandments is a memorial sign.

The sign in the heart of the covenant document was a reminder of God's sovereignty, and authority to make the covenant with them as their Creator, Redeemer, and the one who makes them Holy.

Do you think SDA's are not going to be saved?

I think many will be saved.

 

[BobRyan]

The timing in Isaiah 66 is after all flesh are assembling in the new earth.

Is it?

I know of no denomination claiming that the lake of fire event of Rev 20 happens after the New Earth is created .

 

[BobRyan]

So spell out those paths Bob.
I have not objected to them being there. In fact, I discussed my view early on in the last thread.

indeed you already said --

tall73 said: ↑

And as I have said previously, I would not be surprised at all if we meet on the Sabbath and the new moon in the new earth.

So I am not sure what the point is once we get there - except to show that such a "continued Sabbath for all eternity after the cross" does a lot of damage to the suggestion that the Bible Sabbath got deleted at the cross. (Which is a key point for this thread)

 

[SabbathBlessings]

No, I do not see it that way. Because there are many moral laws other than the ten, with laws regarding:

- Oaths
- Sexual sins (homosexuality, inappropriate behavior with animals, incest, etc.)
- Responsibility and liability (if your animal gores someone, and you knew it had before, injuring someone in a fight, failing to cover a pit, animal grazing in neighbor's field)
- kidnapping
- self defense in a break-in
- no sorcery, necromancy, etc.
- not oppressing foreigners, orphans, widows, poor
-loans and interest
- respect for rulers
- Need to be proactively helpful (if you see your neighbor's animal wander away)
- bribes
etc.

The ten commandments were the tablets of the testimony. Within that God placed a sign with Israel. But the ten commandments do not represent all moral law. And one of the ten commandments is a memorial sign.

The sign in the heart of the covenant document was a reminder of God's sovereignty, and authority to make the covenant with them as their Creator, Redeemer, and the one who makes them Holy.

Maybe you no longer see the significance of having scripture written by our Savior, the only scripture that is personally written by God and spoken by God and stored in the most holy of holy in God's Temple, but I do. All Ten Commandments apply yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Sabbath is not going anywhere Isaiah 66:23 but we were already told this by the 170+ Sabbath scriptures provided in the Bible.

Do you believe in the yearly Sabbath Feasts found in Leviticus? Do you consider these Sabbath(s) moral or ceremonial?

I think many will be saved.

I agree, not all SDA's will be saved but I believe many will. Just curious do you spend time writing to non-believers about Jesus?

 

[BobRyan]

All the saints keep it before Exodus 16 and all the saints "do no take God's name in vain" before Exodus 16.

An obvious Bible detail that Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations no BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate freely admit. Which merely shows that this is "the easy part" of the topic.

If you had the Bible verse stating that we would not be having the conversation.

There you shoot your own argument in the foot. It would be hard to find a single Bible scholar or reader of this thread that seriously thought it was "ok to take God's name in vain" before Exodus 16 - NO MATTER that the command is not there before Exodus 20. You are not paying attention to the details. Not even the easy part.

By contrast in the case of the Sabbath commandment Exodus 20:11 is pointing directly to Gen 2:1-3 when it comes to the Sabbath. Again ... "the easy part"

Sorry, I don't believe things because Moody does.

Again skipping over the details? The post above does not say "believe this because D.L. Moody does" rather it says that in the special case where BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate - agree on some key Bible details - that is a glaringly obvious indicator that this is "the easy part" of the discussion for Christians since both sides of the debate admit to them.

Everyone has free will and you are of course free to get stuck at the easy part if you wish. I would never argue that what both sides freely admit should determine if you have free will to object at any point that you wish.

Since we see no text of any human keeping it before Exodus 16 I will file that under not so obvious.

And we have no text of a human being told not to take God's name in vain before Ex 20 -- I guess you might consider getting stuck there as well.

We also have no text stating that any human being ate breakfast with his family before Exodus 16... another one to think about I guess.

 

[BobRyan]

There you shoot your own argument in the foot. It would be hard to find a single Bible scholar or reader of this thread that seriously thought it was "ok to take God's name in vain" before Exodus 20 - NO MATTER that the command is not there before Exodus 16.

That is because taking God's name in vain is obviously wrong to anyone who worships God.

As Tall73 said.

And as God said
Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the LORD (YHWH) blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2:1-3
And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights. 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 on it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Is 56:
6 “Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
To attend to His service and to love the name of the Lord,
To be His servants, every one who keeps the Sabbath so as not to profane it,
And holds firmly to My covenant;

Mark 2:27 "Sabbath made FOR MANKIND" not "just the Jews"
Is 66:23 for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".

Some would argue that it is "obvious" that mankind should honor what is said to be for mankind and that not profaning what God has sanctified is "the right choice"

Again - "the easy part" of the discussion when we take a few seconds to notice that Bible scholarship on BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate - admit to these Bible facts.

 

[BobRyan]

Where as a memorial given to Israel with sacrifices

No sacrifices in Gen 2:1-3
No sacrifices in Ex 20:8-11
No sacrifices in Lev 23:3

No sacrifices in the New Earth when Sabbath is kept by all mankind

A Bible fact NOT lost on the Bible scholars in almost all major Christian denominations on BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate.

And - of course "New Covenant given to Israel and Judah" in Jer 31:31-34 - and "unchanged" in New Testament Heb 8:6-12.

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

pretty much - irrefutable

 

[BobRyan]

By contrast Exodus 20:11 is pointing directly to Gen 2:1-3 when it comes to the Sabbath. Again ... "the easy part"

I think both are pointing back to Sinai when God gave the command to man, to the people who were the first to have it explained in Exodus 16.

Kind of "odd" to speculate that on day 7 of Creation week in Gen 2:1-3 God is "pointing back" to Israel in the wilderness in Ex 16.

But as I said before - the fact that this is 'the easy part" as seen by the agreement among Bible scholars on BOTH side of the Sabbath debate - need not limit you from taking any side path option that you may wish at any given point in time.

 

[BobRyan]

I am showing that.. this is "the easy part" of the topic and you stuck drawing out objections to the part of the discussion that the anti-seventh-day-Sabbath scholars know to be incorrect in your suggestions. So it is not like it is "just SDAs" or "just Sabbath keeping Christians" that see the problem with what you suggest.

No, the easy part is realizing there are more than two views,

Possibly a million "one offs" no doubt.

But as it turns out -- when it comes to Bible scholars in almost ALL major Christian denominations all agreeing on a few really obvious Bible details about the Sabbath subject... well that is pretty hard for even the most opposing enthusiast to ignore.

Finding examples where groups on different sides of the Sabbath topic DIFFER is a very trivial task.

Noticing that on certain obvious Bible details - there is this huge level of agreement across both sides is ALSO pretty easy -- as it turns out.

Concluding that this is a glaringly obvious indicator that the Bible details where both agree are the easiest ones to recognize is not as difficult as you seem to suggest. But you are free to chart your own course there as you wish.

 

[tall73]

Is it?

I know of no denomination claiming that the lake of fire event of Rev 20 happens after the New Earth is created .

Nor do I. But that is the order expressed in Isaiah. As I already mentioned I don't think it is speaking of the same scenario as John and Peter.

“For as the new heavens and the new earth
Which I will make shall remain before Me,” says the Lord,
“So shall your descendants and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass
That from one New Moon to another,
And from one Sabbath to another,
All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the Lord.
24 “And they shall go forth and look
Upon the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

 

[tall73]

indeed you already said --

so I am not sure what the point is once we get there - except to show that such a "continued Sabbath for all eternity after the cross" does a lot of damage to the suggestion that the Bible Sabbath got deleted at the cross. (Which is a key point for this thread)

The point is that text is not talking at all about the New Heaven and New earth as John and Peter describe them.

And as to the rest, you already know my view, and I am sick today, so not going to take the time to explain it again.

 

[tall73]

Maybe you no longer see the significance of having scripture written by our Savior, the only scripture that is personally written by God and spoken by God and stored in the most holy of holy in God's Temple, but I do. All Ten Commandments apply yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Sabbath is not going anywhere Isaiah 66:23 but we were already told this by the 170+ Sabbath scriptures provided in the Bible.

All Scripture is God breathed. The ten commandments are certainly important, and as I have said a number of times none of the commands were removed. However, the question is what Gentiles are required to keep.

Do you believe in the yearly Sabbath Feasts found in Leviticus? Do you consider these Sabbath(s) moral or ceremonial?

I believe God gave them to the Jewish people as everlasting statutes, because it says that. They are clearly ceremonial.

I agree, not all SDA's will be saved but I believe many will. Just curious do you spend time writing to non-believers about Jesus?

Writing not too often. In person studies and such, sure. In fact I only tend to get into these discussions from time to time, partly because they are time consuming.

 

[tall73]

Again skipping over the details? The post above does not say "believe this because D.L. Moody does" rather it says that in the special case where BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate - agree on some key Bible details - that is a glaringly obvious indicator that this is "the easy part" of the discussion for Christians since both sides of the debate admit to them.

There are no details to address when you keep telling me about agreement between two groups, both of which I disagree with.

You know well there are more than two views, and the view I referenced goes back to early times.

 

[tall73]

No sacrifices in Gen 2:1-3
No sacrifices in Ex 20:8-11
No sacrifices in Lev 23:3

The sacrifices for all the appointed times were spelled out in Numbers 28-29, so we would not expect to find them in Lev. 23, etc. It still had them.