The Sabbath debate goes on, but should it?

[Soyeong]

The point of this thread was to show what the Church taught at the beginning. Ignatius of Antioch taught in the early second century, barely a century after Our Lord’s Ascension and mere decades after the death of the last Apostle.

Jesus came as the Messiah of Judaism in fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and he set a sinless example for us to follow of how to practice Judaism by living in sinless obedience to the Torah. In Acts 21:20, they were rejoicing that tens of thousands of Jews wee coming to faith who were also zealous for the Torah, which is in accordance with believing in what Jesus accomplished through the cross in Titus 2:14. This means that Jews who were coming to faith were not ceasing to obey the Torah and that there was a period of time between the resurrection and the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 10 that is estimated to be around 7-15 year during which all Christians were Torah observant Jews, so from the beginning Christianity taught how to practice the form of Judaism that recognized Jesus as its prophesied Messiah.

Ignatius taught blasphemy and rebellion against God, so the fact that he taught in the early second century does not mean that we should follow what he said instead of what God said.

There were Judahizers around that tried to teach that believers had to be circumcised to be saved and keep the whole law. Ignatius rightfully points out this error, and shows that it applies to all works of the flesh, including the Sabbath. These are Ignatius’ words, not mine.

Christ spent his ministry teaching how to obey the Torah by word and by example and Paul's problem with the Judaizers was not that they were teaching Gentiles how to follow Christ, but that they were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved. All throughout the Bible, God called for His people to repent and to return to obedience to the Torah, and Jesus began his ministry with that Gospel message, so it absurd to think that it is error to follow Christ's example of obedience to God. In Galatians 5:19-23, everything that it lists as works of the flesh that are against the Spirit are also against the Torah, while all of the fruits of the Spirit are in accordance with it, so it is incorrect to include the Sabbath as being part of works of the flesh. In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Torah.

For Sabbath keeping to be the true teaching, one would have to contend that the Church became apostate early in her formation, rather than remaining Apostolic. Is that a valid argument? What evidence do we see?

Gentiles started going off track with the expulsion of Jews from Rome and with not wanting to come back under Jewish leadership upon their return. The Psalms express an extremely positive view of God's law, such as with David repeatedly saying that he loved it and delighted in obeying, so all those who consider the Psalms to be Scripture and to therefore express a correct view of God's law also delight in obeying it, as Paul did (Romans 7:22). For example, in Psalms 1:1-2, blessed are those who delight in the Torah of the Lord and who meditate on it day and night, so Gentiles who do not allow these word to shape their view of God's law have departed from the brief that the Psalms are Scripture.

I reviewing history, we do not see Sabbath keeping as the dominant teaching of the Church. It is even admitted by supposed SDA scholars in the book “From Sabbath to Sunday”, in that it quoted no Church teaching from those days. The author of that book merely attempted to discredit the saints such as Justin Martyr, Iraneus, among others. If I had to read the word “hardly” one more time, I would think the Author did not know how to say anything else. That is a scoffers book, not a scholarly work. It did receive an “Imprimater” from the Catholic Church, but that means, “let it be published”. It did not receive a “Nihil Obstat”, which would mean it contained nothing against Church teaching. This merely means that it is worth taking a look at the work without agreeing with its conclusions. That is true as we would not see the fault in logic had we not been able to review the work.

There were groups like the Nazarenes who were followers of Christ who continued to follow his example of obedience to the Torah. Justin Martyr has some very anti-Semitic things to say and did not understand the role of the Jews.

The apostolic teaching is that we keep the law of the Spirit, not the law of the flesh. Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments. He did not say, if you love me, keep the Ten Commandments.
Most don’t realize that Jesus’ commands are more strict than the Ten Commandments, and they are binding on pain of sin. A Christian does not sin willfully. If we do sin, we humble ourselves and confess our sins. Should we not make every effort to study and ask God for the grace to follow Jesus’ commands, instead of arguing over what the Ten Commandments say?

The Torah was given by God and the Spirit is God, so it is the Law of the Spirit, which is why the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey it (Ezekiel 36:26-27). Jesus taught more than just the Ten Commandments, such as with the greatest two commandments, and he was not in disagreement with the Father about which commandments we should follow, but rather in John 15:10, he used a parallel statement to equate his commandment with those of the Father. In Deuteronomy 4:2, it is a sin to add to or subtract from the law, so he did not make it stricter, and to suggest that he did is to suggest that he sinned and is therefore not our Savior. It is by the Torah that we have knowledge of what sin is (Romans 3:20), so when Christians are willfully sinning when they willfully refuse to submit to it by concocting reasons to justify their refusal to obey it rather than confess their sins. In Psalms 119:29, David wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to obey the Torah, so that is the way to ask God for grace to follow Christ's commands.

When Jesus says, unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you, do you believe it? Is that an important command to you, or are you more interested in arguing over the Ten Commandments? Saying that the Eucharist is merely symbolic diminishes its import and makes the word of God of no effect, rather than the source and summit of our faith as it’s suppose to be and was for 1500 years prior to Zwingli.
The modern contention is, “Ignore the Eucharist? Yeah, no problem, just make sure your flesh is in that seat on a Saturday morning.”
Does this not seem absurd to you?

We are what we eat, so we need to become like Christ and he expressed the nature of God through living in obedience to the Torah. Furthermore, in Matthew 19:17 and Luke 10:25-28, Jesus said that obeying God's commandments is the way to enter eternal life, which equates those who do not eat his flesh or drink his blood with those who do not obey God's commandments.

When Jesus said things like that he is the vine or the door, do you think think that he was speaking literally or symbolically? If Jesus was not literally a door that can swing open, then in what way does not diminish its important and make the word of God of no effect?

 

[Soyeong]

And my post was .....


Right @Soyeong so what you seem to say is, that those who venerate sunday more than saturday are the disobedient ones, and those who venerate saturday more than sunday are the obedient ones. Is this your thought?

Sorry if I've misunderstood you. Do you affirm that we should obey God's command to keep the Sabbath holy? I have not previously run across anyone who affirms that while thinking that worshiping God on Sunday is greater than obeying God's command to keep the Sabbath holy. To elevate a tradition of man over a command of God is to place man above God.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Sorry if I've misunderstood you. Do you affirm that we should obey God's command to keep the Sabbath holy? I have not previously run across anyone who affirms that while thinking that worshiping God on Sunday is greater than obeying God's command to keep the Sabbath holy. To elevate a tradition of man over a command of God is to place man above God.

Right on. Engaging in nineteenth-century American Protestant church practices on Saturdays is definitely elevating a tradition of man over the command of God not to work on Saturdays.

 

[PeterDona]

Sorry if I've misunderstood you. Do you affirm that we should obey God's command to keep the Sabbath holy? I have not previously run across anyone who affirms that while thinking that worshiping God on Sunday is greater than obeying God's command to keep the Sabbath holy. To elevate a tradition of man over a command of God is to place man above God.

Our conversation has some liking to an interfaith dialogue. Sabbath keepers basically come from the law of Moses, and this is the lens of their optics. So when you ask me if I affirm the command of exodus 20:8-11, I really do not know whether I should be affirmative or negative. I focus on the new covenant. It really has a very different optical lens.

"the sabbath is not the sunday" (the title of this thread)
yes.
In the new covenant there is not a special day as such. Jesus told his followers to pray "give us this day our super-substantial bread" matthew 6:11, meaning that Jesus hoped and wanted that Mass be held every day. So every day is a holy day. A catholic can also go to Mass on a saturday. And I am aware, that when a priest is ordained in the RCC, he vows to make one mass every day.

Is my answer acceptable and meaningful to you? E.g. do you agree that the sabbath keepers have a law of Moses optical lens?

 

[Soyeong]

Our conversation has some liking to an interfaith dialogue. Sabbath keepers basically come from the law of Moses, and this is the lens of their optics. So when you ask me if I affirm the command of exodus 20:8-11, I really do not know whether I should be affirmative or negative. I focus on the new covenant. It really has a very different optical lens.

"the sabbath is not the sunday" (the title of this thread)
yes.
In the new covenant there is not a special day as such. Jesus told his followers to pray "give us this day our super-substantial bread" matthew 6:11, meaning that Jesus hoped and wanted that Mass be held every day. So every day is a holy day. A catholic can also go to Mass on a saturday. And I am aware, that when a priest is ordained in the RCC, he vows to make one mass every day.

Is my answer acceptable and meaningful to you? E.g. do you agree that the sabbath keepers have a law of Moses optical lens?

I also focus on the New Covenant. Jesus spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Torah by word and vy example and he did not establish the New Covenant for the purpose of undermining anything that he taught, but rather the New Covenant still involves following the Torah (Jeremiah 31:33, Ezekiel 36:26-27), which includes the command to work for six days and to keep the 7th holy, so that is the lends through which we should view the New Covenant. If God had wanted us to keep every day holy, then He would have commanded that instead, though that would have been oxymoronic because a day that is holy is set apart and in order for a day to be set apart there needs to be other days that it is set apart from, so to treat every day the same is to treat none of them as holy. If we did on every day what God wants us to do on the Sabbath, then we would do no work, but God also wants us to work. Having the bread of tomorrow refers to the Messianic Kingdom and is part of the Amidah, not to saying that every day is holy.

 

[Soyeong]

Right on. Engaging in nineteenth-century American Protestant church practices on Saturdays is definitely elevating a tradition of man over the command of God not to work on Saturdays.

Where did I say anything about engaging in nineteenth-century American Protestant church practices?

 

[PeterDona]

so that is the lends through which we should view the New Covenant.

Yes, I see how you as a messianic jew view the new covenant from a sort of "law" perspective.
I would say, that as a catholic I view the new covenant more from a Eucharist perspective.
It is not an either / or. I am not advocating lawlessness, but it is something about how we are transformed from the inside by receiving Christ - through the mouth, every day if possible.

Having the bread of tomorrow refers to the Messianic Kingdom and is part of the Amidah, not to saying that every day is holy.

There are 2 phrases here that I have not heard before. "the bread of tomorrow" and "the amidah". Do I need a presentation?

 

[Soyeong]

Yes, I see how you as a messianic jew view the new covenant from a sort of "law" perspective.
I would say, that as a catholic I view the new covenant more from a Eucharist perspective.
It is not an either / or. I am not advocating lawlessness, but it is something about how we are transformed from the inside by receiving Christ - through the mouth, every day if possible.

God's law is God's word and Christ is God's word made flesh, so us embodying God's word through following his example of obedience to it is the way to receive Him.

There are 2 phrases here that I have not heard before. "the bread of tomorrow" and "the amidah". Do I need a presentation?

The Amidah is a central part of Jewish liturgy that has strong parallels to the Lord's Prayer and I think that "the bread of tomorrow" is more accurate than "daily bread". Here is an article that speaks about it:

The Lord's Prayer and the Amidah: A Comparative Analysis

In this Bible Scholars article, "The Lord's Prayer and the Amidah: A Comparative Analysis", guest author, Rachel D. Levine, writes: "What were the disciples asking in Luke 11 when they said to Jesus, 'Lord, teach us to pray as John also taught his disciples'? Obviously, they had spent a lot of...

www.biblescholars.org

 

[bbbbbbb]

Where did I say anything about engaging in nineteenth-century American Protestant church practices?

Where did I say anything about engaging in nineteenth-century American Protestant church practices?

You wrote, "To elevate a tradition of man over a command of God is to place man above God. " Would you not agree that engaging in nineteenth-century American Protestant church practices is a tradition of man and not a command of God?

 

[Soyeong]

You wrote, "To elevate a tradition of man over a command of God is to place man above God. " Would you not agree that engaging in nineteenth-century American Protestant church practices is a tradition of man and not a command of God?

There is nothing inherently wrong with following traditions regardless of when they were first started and following a tradition is not necessarily elevating it over a command of God. If all @PeterDona were doing was following a tradition of worshipping God on Sundays, then I would have no objection to that, but what I object to is elevating that tradition above obeying God's command.

 

[bbbbbbb]

There is nothing wrong with following traditions regardless of when they were first started and following a tradition is not necessarily elevating it over a command of God. If all @PeterDona were doing was following a tradition of worshipping God on Sundays, then I would have no objection to that, but what I object to is elevating that tradition above obeying God's command.

So, if a Christian was to engage in nineteenth-century American Protestant church practices on any other day than Saturday, would they stand condemned before God, even though they obey His detailed commandments to do no work at all on Saturday, whereas those who willfully choose to disobey God's Sabbath commandments in favor of engaging in nineteenth-century American Protestant church practices on Saturday are to be commended by God?

 

[Soyeong]

So, if a Christian was to engage in nineteenth-century American Protestant church practices on any other day than Saturday, would they stand condemned before God, even though they obey His detailed commandments to do no work at all on Saturday, whereas those who willfully choose to disobey God's Sabbath commandments in favor of engaging in nineteenth-century American Protestant church practices on Saturday are to be commended by God?

In Mark 7:6-9, Jesus criticized the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so the problem is not inherently with choosing to follow traditions from a particular century throughout the week in addition to obeying God's command to keep the Sabbath holy, but with hypocritically setting aside God's command to keep the Sabbath holy in order to establish their own traditions.

 

[bbbbbbb]

In Mark 7:6-9, Jesus criticized the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own traditions, so the problem is not inherently with choosing to follow traditions from a particular century throughout the week in addition to obeying God's command to keep the Sabbath holy, but with hypocritically setting aside God's command to keep the Sabbath holy in order to establish their own traditions.

Thanks. That means that the SDA are condemned because they have hypocritcally set aside God's command to keep the Sabbath holy in order to follow the tradition given by their prophetess, Mrs. White.

 

[Soyeong]

Thanks. That means that the SDA are condemned because they have hypocritcally set aside God's command to keep the Sabbath holy in order to follow the tradition given by their prophetess, Mrs. White.

Your words, not mine.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Your words, not mine.

Indeed they are and, I might add, few truer words were . . .

 

[boughtwithaprice]

What we seem to be losing sight of in this discussion is the true meaning of the Sabbath.

Genesis tells us on the seventh day, God rested and He saw His creation and it was very good.
Solomon tell us in Ecclesiastes that there is nothing new under the sun. Why? Because creation is over, God has rested.
During the six days we work and we build thinking that we are created something new, but on the seventh we stop and reflect. We see that we have just rearranged some chairs around in an already existing home, and worship the creator. That is in the material world, there is no new creation.
Modern man says no this is not true, there are constantly new things being created, that which is modern is better than that which is past. We are constantly changing, we evolve, and since we evolve should not our God evolve too? We cannot be governed by some old men that did not understand modern society. That which was forbidden in the past should be allowed now because we are more mature. Wrong, we know that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. The Torah was written by Moses and would still apply today had it not been fulfilled in Christ.
The New Covenant has some minor changes from the Old Covenant but is spiritually the same.
We no longer circumcise, nor do we need to follow strict dietary laws or ceremonial washings as Our Lord has said, it is not was goes into a man that makes him unclean, rather what comes out of him that makes him unclean.
The same applies in the spiritual. God created once and rested. Jesus died on the cross once and resurrected. He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and charged the Apostles to go and make disciples of all nations. He did not say go and make 40,000 church’s for me. Just as in the Old Covenant the temple was in Jerusalem and salvation was of the Jews. There were no multiple Jerusalems, and Jesus told the woman at the well that she worshipped what she did not understand when she claimed that because Jacob dug a well that it was ok to ignore Jerusalem.
It is the same Sabbath principle that applies to Christianity. God created and then He rested. He created One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and then rested. Under Catholicism, the faithful are free to worship every day or any day of their choosing, but the obligatory day of worship as established through Peter, by the authority vested in him by Jesus Christ Himself is Sunday and any Holy Day of obligation as determined by Christ’s holy Church.
If you study Catholic catechism and moral theology you will see that is fulfills Torah, as Christ taught us that unless our righteousness exceeded the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees we would not enter the kingdom of heaven. If you use your own prejudice as an excuse not to study it, you will be ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
As the Sabbath teaches us, God created once then rested

 

[Soyeong]

What we seem to be losing sight of in this discussion is the true meaning of the Sabbath.

Genesis tells us on the seventh day, God rested and He saw His creation and it was very good.
Solomon tell us in Ecclesiastes that there is nothing new under the sun. Why? Because creation is over, God has rested.

In Hebrews 4:9-11, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, we should follow God's example of resting from His work, and we should strive to enter into that rest so that no one may fall away by the same sort of disobedience. In Ezekiel 20:13, it specifically mentions that they greatly profaned God's Sabbaths.

During the six days we work and we build thinking that we are created something new, but on the seventh we stop and reflect. We see that we have just rearranged some chairs around in an already existing home, and worship the creator. That is in the material world, there is no new creation.
Modern man says no this is not true, there are constantly new things being created, that which is modern is better than that which is past. We are constantly changing, we evolve, and since we evolve should not our God evolve too? We cannot be governed by some old men that did not understand modern society. That which was forbidden in the past should be allowed now because we are more mature. Wrong, we know that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. The Torah was written by Moses and would still apply today had it not been fulfilled in Christ.

NAS Greek Lexicon: pleroo
"to fulfil, i.e. to cause God's will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God's promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfilment"

After Jesus said that he came to fulfill the Torah in Matthew 5:17-20, he then proceeded to fulfill it six times throughout the rest of the chapter by teasing how to correctly obey it, which has nothing to do with causing it to no longer apply today. In Galatians 6:2, bearing one another's burdens fulfills the Law of Christ, but you do not consistently interpret that as causing the Law of Christ to no longer apply today. In Romans 15:18-19, Paul fulfilled the Gospel by brining Gentiles to obedience to it in word and in deed, so again it refers to fully preaching the Gospel, not to causing it to no longer apply today.

The New Covenant has some minor changes from the Old Covenant but is spiritually the same.
We no longer circumcise, nor do we need to follow strict dietary laws or ceremonial washings as Our Lord has said, it is not was goes into a man that makes him unclean, rather what comes out of him that makes him unclean.
The same applies in the spiritual. God created once and rested. Jesus died on the cross once and resurrected.

In Exodus 31:14-17 and Leviticus 24:8, the Mosaic Covenant is eternal, so the only way that the New Covenant can replace it if it does everything that it does plus more. In Hebrews 8:10, the New Covenant still involves following the Torah, plus in Hebrews 8:6 it is based on better promises and has a superior mediator, which is what it means to make something obsolete (Hebrews 8:13).

The way that we choose to live testifies about the eternal nature of who God is, so by doing good works, we are testifying about God's eternal goodness, which is why they bring glory to Him (Matthew 5:13-16). Likewise, in 1 Peter 1:16, we are told to be holy for God is holy, which is a quote from Leviticus where God was giving instructions for how to do that, which includes refraining from eating unclean animals (Leviticus 11:44-45), so by following those instructions we are testifying about God's eternal holiness and the only way that we should no longer follow those instructions is if God is no longer eternally holy. When God remains eternally holy and someone lives in a way that testifies that the God that they follow is not holy by not following those instructions, then they are bearing false witness against God. If the New Covenant were missing instructions for how to be holy as God is holy, then it would not be spiritually the same as the Mosaic Covenant.

Jesus is one with the Father, so he should not be interpreted as teaching rebellion against what He has commanded.

He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and charged the Apostles to go and make disciples of all nations. He did not say go and make 40,000 church’s for me. Just as in the Old Covenant the temple was in Jerusalem and salvation was of the Jews. There were no multiple Jerusalems, and Jesus told the woman at the well that she worshipped what she did not understand when she claimed that because Jacob dug a well that it was ok to ignore Jerusalem.

Do you think that Jesus gave Peter the authority to make whatever changes to God's law that he wanted? For example, if Peter had instructed that we should commit adultery, then should we follow what he instructed or what God instructed?

In Mark 7:6-9, Jesus criticized the Pharisees as being hypocrites for setting aside the commands of God in order to establish their own tradition, so the authority that he gave Peter does not extend to making changes to the commands of God, but rather it is the authority to make rulings about how to correctly obey God's law.

It is the same Sabbath principle that applies to Christianity. God created and then He rested. He created One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and then rested. Under Catholicism, the faithful are free to worship every day or any day of their choosing, but the obligatory day of worship as established through Peter, by the authority vested in him by Jesus Christ Himself is Sunday and any Holy Day of obligation as determined by Christ’s holy Church.

The Israelites worshiped God on every day including obeying God's command to keep the Sabbath holy, so we have always been free to worship God on every day of our choosing, but we do not have the freedom to set aside any of the commands of God. When God has commanded His people to keep the 7th day holy and man says that we should worship God on the 1st day instead of obeying what God has commanded, then the bottom line is that we must obey God rather than man. Peter did not have the authority to countermand God. We can't worship God instead of obeying His instructions for how to worship him.

If you study Catholic catechism and moral theology you will see that is fulfills Torah, as Christ taught us that unless our righteousness exceeded the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees we would not enter the kingdom of heaven. If you use your own prejudice as an excuse not to study it, you will be ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
As the Sabbath teaches us, God created once then rested

In Psalms 119:142, the Torah is truth, so keeping the 7th day holy is one of the ways to come to knowledge of the truth.

 

[BobRyan]

Frankly, I wouldn’t even care about Adventist doctrine except for the fact that in promoting their doctrine, Adventists are promoting a work of EGW’s called The Great Controversy,

1. This is not an Adventist thread - check the OP
2. No Adventists here are quoting Ellen White or the Great Controversy to give their opinion one way or the other.

How is it that you are conflating all the texts given in regard to the Sabbath with "Ellen White"???

For example - which of the Bible texts in this post on this thread , do you consider to be written by Ellen White or a quote from the book "the Great Controversy"??

The bible itself is an even older document and it gives us this information
1. Gen 2:1-3 the Sabbath set apart, sanctified made holy , set apart for holy use , on the 7th day of creation week and so our week is 7 days long, not six days long. No animal sacrifice in the holy seventh day in Eden - it is before sin.
2. Ex 16 - Sabbath still set apart for holy use - no secular activity, ... still no animal sacrifice in the holy seventh day Sabbath
3. Ex 20:8-11 Sabbath to be remembered, kept holy - because of the Gen 2:2-3 act of God "alone" as we see in Ex 20:11.
4. Sabbath "made for mankind" Mark 2:27 when made
5. Gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping Is 56:6-8
6. All mankind to keep Sabbath for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth Is 66:23
7. Gentiles ask for more Gospel preaching to be scheduled for them "on the NEXT Sabbath" Acts 13
8. "Every Sabbath" Acts 18:4 Gospel evangelism to both gentiles and Jews in the synagogues
9. "abbath after Sabbath after Sabbath Gospel evangelism to both gentiles and Jews - Acts 17:1-5

1 Cor 7:19 "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God"
1 John 5:3 "This IS the LOVE of God that we keep His commandments"

Where "The first commandment with a promise - is Honor your father and mother" - Eph 6:2 in that still-valid unit of TEN

Deut 5:22 "God spoke the TEN commandments from the cloud, on the mountain to the people... and He added no more"

James 2 - to break one of them is to break them all

Rev 14:12 "the saints KEEP The Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus"

 

[BobRyan]

The point of this thread was to show what the Church taught at the beginning. Ignatius of Antioch taught in the early second century, barely a century after Our Lord’s Ascension and mere decades after the death of the last Apostle.
There were Judahizers around that tried to teach that believers had to be circumcised to be saved and keep the whole law. Ignatius rightfully points out this error, and shows that it applies to all works of the flesh, including the Sabbath. These are Ignatius’ words, not mine.
For Sabbath keeping to be the true teaching, one would have to contend that the Church became apostate early in her formation, rather than remaining Apostolic. Is that a valid argument? What evidence do we see?
I reviewing history, we do not see Sabbath keeping as the dominant teaching of the Church.

Do you consider the New Testament first century church to be "The Church"?
Is it your purpose to keep the Bible quotes on page 1 of this thread -- that speak to the doctrine on the Sabbath - out of the discussion?

It is even admitted by supposed SDA scholars in the book “From Sabbath to Sunday”, in that it quoted no Church teaching from those days.

You can't be serious about the the book “From Sabbath to Sunday” not quoting any ECFs.. would you like me to quote it for you?,

The author of that book merely attempted to discredit the saints such as Justin Martyr, Iraneus, among others.

This is thread about the book “From Sabbath to Sunday” quoting too much scripture?
The book is looking at the historic record - so historians like Eusebius (260-340 A.D.) are quoted.

Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments.

Heb 8:6-12 says that it is Jesus speaking His commandments from Sinai.

He did not say, if you love me, keep the Ten Commandments.

Paul says they are the ones having "Honor your father and mother' as the FIRST commandment with a promise" Eph 6:2 ... which only works in the case of the TEN.

Even your own "Dies Domini" claims that the TEN are applicable to all mankind. Have you read it??

 

[Soyeong]

Jesus told Peter

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

[18] "Thou art Peter": As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

[18] "Upon this rock": The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, [Matt 7:24-25].

[18] "The gates of hell": That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.

[19] "Loose upon earth": The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted.


Jesus also said:


13 You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. 14 You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.

16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. 17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[17] "To fulfill": By accomplishing all the figures and prophecies; and perfecting all that was imperfect.

[18] "Amen": That is, assuredly of a truth. This Hebrew word, amen, is here retained by the example and authority of all the four Evangelists. It is used by our Lord as a strong asseveration, and affirmation of the truth.

[20] "The scribes and Pharisees": The scribes were the doctors of the law of Moses: the Pharisees were a precise set of men, making profession of a more exact observance of the law: and upon that account greatly esteemed among the people




So Peter was given broad authority. Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon the Earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon the Earth shall be loosed in heaven.
It’s funny that you mention adultery. What does that mean to you? Christ taught us that we cannot even look upon a woman with lust and not be guilty of adultery. The most prominent group of Sabbath keepers that I know, the SDA, allows contraception in direct contradiction to Christ’s command, yet the Church founded by Christ through the rock of Peter declares it intrinsically evil. Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2370. Do you allow contraception, divorce and remarriage against the commands of Christ, or do you agree
that they are intrinsically evil acts?
Moses allowed divorce, but Christ declared it to be adultery aka sin aka intrinsically evil. What do you say? Do you elevate ceremonial worship of God over His divine moral law as the SDA do?
See CCC paragraphs 2382-2386.

In the Gospels, Christ gives us numerous examples where violation of the Sabbath is permissible for the moral good. He also declared the Sabbath the servant of man, in that it was made for him and man was not made for the Sabbath. Christ’s logic tells us that the Sabbath was supposed to serve man, not man to serve the Sabbath. As Christians we bow to Our Lord that fulfilled the principle of the Sabbath which is rest one day in seven, but do not bow to a day over the worship of Our God who loved us and gave Himself for us and chose to rise on the first day of the week, and send the Holy Spirit to start His Church on the first day of the week, Pentecost.
I agree that there is evil in adultery, but there is no evil in the worship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus told Peter

19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.

[18] "Thou art Peter": As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

[18] "Upon this rock": The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, [Matt 7:24-25].

[18] "The gates of hell": That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ.

[19] "Loose upon earth": The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted.


Jesus also said:


13 You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. 14 You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.

16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. 17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[17] "To fulfill": By accomplishing all the figures and prophecies; and perfecting all that was imperfect.

[18] "Amen": That is, assuredly of a truth. This Hebrew word, amen, is here retained by the example and authority of all the four Evangelists. It is used by our Lord as a strong asseveration, and affirmation of the truth.

[20] "The scribes and Pharisees": The scribes were the doctors of the law of Moses: the Pharisees were a precise set of men, making profession of a more exact observance of the law: and upon that account greatly esteemed among the people




So Peter was given broad authority. Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon the Earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon the Earth shall be loosed in heaven.
It’s funny that you mention adultery. What does that mean to you? Christ taught us that we cannot even look upon a woman with lust and not be guilty of adultery. The most prominent group of Sabbath keepers that I know, the SDA, allows contraception in direct contradiction to Christ’s command, yet the Church founded by Christ through the rock of Peter declares it intrinsically evil. Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2370. Do you allow contraception, divorce and remarriage against the commands of Christ, or do you agree
that they are intrinsically evil acts?
Moses allowed divorce, but Christ declared it to be adultery aka sin aka intrinsically evil. What do you say? Do you elevate ceremonial worship of God over His divine moral law as the SDA do?
See CCC paragraphs 2382-2386.

In the Gospels, Christ gives us numerous examples where violation of the Sabbath is permissible for the moral good. He also declared the Sabbath the servant of man, in that it was made for him and man was not made for the Sabbath. Christ’s logic tells us that the Sabbath was supposed to serve man, not man to serve the Sabbath. As Christians we bow to Our Lord that fulfilled the principle of the Sabbath which is rest one day in seven, but do not bow to a day over the worship of Our God who loved us and gave Himself for us and chose to rise on the first day of the week, and send the Holy Spirit to start His Church on the first day of the week, Pentecost.
I agree that there is evil in adultery, but there is no evil in the worship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Binding