What Day Of The Week Is The Sabbath?

[ThreeAM]

Well, first of all, God gives freely and without blame, so He doesn't wait around for us to get perfect or holy enough before He blesses us. Indeed, He blessed me with love and joy and peace well before He even started dealing with my drug addiction.

What you are speaking of justication and sanctification. You were justified by Christ just as you were...a drug addict. Sanctificaton is a life long process where Christians slowly become more Christ like, your recovery from addiction is a part of the process of your sanctification. Who knows what other changes God has in store for you in the future...maybe the 7th day sabbath?

Congratulations on the drug issue

 

[tall73]

Well, first of all, God gives freely and without blame, so He doesn't wait around for us to get perfect or holy enough before He blesses us. Indeed, He blessed me with love and joy and peace well before He even started dealing with my drug addiction.

Indeed, God is gracious, He knows that we are but dust.

Yet, the truth is that He does bring us to places where He expects growth.

Second, it's not like the christians who disagree with you have simply decided to not give a damn about God's will, they just disagree with you on what God's will is.

This is the key point in the whole discussion. I agree that all are trying to do God's will. That is why the discussion should be about the specifics, and what that will is.

I disagree, for example, because the whole sabbath thing doesn't fit with the Jesus I've met. I also disagree that there are several laws, and that Jesus abolished only some of them.

And yet in the council of Acts 15 for instance that is exactly what we see.

Moreover, in Paul's letters he gives TONS of imperatives. There are stll musts. But the power is not ours, it is Gods.

I also think adventist logic i flawed sometimes when people first argue that sabbathkeeping is a must, and then go right over to talking about how much of a blessing it is, and that it's only there for our good.

All of God's "musts" are for our good. And when we walk with Him as John did , "His commands are not burdensome."

And finally, and most importanly, I don't think the law(s) given to the Jews were meant for us at all. I'm doing perfectly well without them, and my experience is that God's love in me makes me surpass the demands of the law (though I won't be jugded according to it anyway), and makes me actually WANT to do the things it demands, except keeping the sabbath, of course. I've never ever felt some sort of inward drive to set aside one day, and I've certainly not felt it esp. between fri. 6PM and sat. 6PM (or whatever the time it's supposed to be). Which doesn't surprise me, since I don't believe the "law in our hearts" is the same as the mosaic law(s).

And yet you said God began working in you before He even addressed your drug addiction. In other words, God brought different things to your attention as you could handle them.

In the same way Jesus told the disciples that there were things that He could tell them but they were not yet ready for them. The Spirit would reveal it to them.

In other words, the sum total of your experience is not necessarily the sum total of God. In fact, it will not be.

Now, that in itself does not prove anything. One can't say that because you don't feel it now you will. That is silly. But what we can say is that because you don't feel it now doesn't mean you won't.

God reveals things to us in His time.

Therefore we need to look beyond just personal experience to what God already revealed. Why did the early church keep the day? Was it just habit? Was it because the Sabbath still had validity? Those are the things to look at, and not all answers are in ourselves.

Either way, you can't judge me for not keeping the sabbath, and I can't judge you for keeping it.

It is not our role to judge. And sharing our view is not judging.

 

[FallingWaters]

The Sabbath is from sundown on Friday til sundown on Saturday, but since I am not Jewish, nor am I bound to keep Jewish laws, I do not keep the Sabbath.

Colossians 2:16-17 "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ."

Acts 21:24-25- "...you yourself [saved Jews] also walk orderly and keep the law. 25But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

Galatians 5:4- "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

I am, however, a Christian, and I do celebrate the Lord's Day which is Sunday.

 

[tall73]

by the way, I hope all of you who's sabbath is today are having a blessed time!

I preach twice just about every Sabbath, and I always get a blessing out of preaching! I just hope those listening do!

 

[tall73]

Perhaps Holo has found the rest in Christ and every day is his Sabbath. I'm sure not going to judge him!



fwiw w.l.

I don't judge him either. But I simply ask that he would recognize that God unfolds His will to us over time. And I am quite thankful He does. When God brings some new duty to light, I am convicted, and with He gives me strength .But the thought of learning eveyrthing at once is a scary one. God is patient with us.

So my point is that we should never think that our current understanding based only on the internal witness of the Spirit, is always the final point God is going to make in our lives.

God can always speak more to us, and we can always learn more from His word and from His acts in history.

 

[tall73]

What you are speaking of justication and sanctification. You were justified by Christ just as you were...a drug addict. Sanctificaton is a life long process where Christians slowly become more Christ like, your recovery from addiction is a part of the process of your sanctification. Who knows what other changes God has in store for you in the future...maybe the 7th day sabbath?

Congratulations on the drug issue

Ah, just came out of my flurry of posting!

Exactly.

God reveals more to me day by day. And I am sure glad of three things.

a. I am not what I was.

b. God didn't expect me to be what I am all at once.

c. It is God who changes the heart and transforms the mind.

(As a totally separate point, our church has a program that we are doing for drug, sex and other addictions. Anyone know of good CHRISTIAN resources on substance abuse? We are using some now, but can always use more. I have found some really good material on the sexual addiction end already.)

 

[holo]

Please keep what I say in context. Thank you.

Now then, what I said is that God does not bless us for being disobedient. Do you think God blesses people for being disobedient? The Bible certainly doesn't disclose such a thought.

You asked "does God bless us for being disobedient", which is a stupid question asked to make a point. I take it that the point was to say "God does not bless us if we are disobedient". I may have read you wrong, but that's the only possible reason I can think of for asking such a rethorical, leading question. It's not like you thought I actually believe God rewards disobedience.

Do they disagree with me, or do they disagree with God's word?

They disagree with you. People read and view and interpret the bible differently than you do. For example, some may not see it as infallible, some will interpret it to mean that we must physically wash each other's feet, and so forth. People have always disagreed. It's natural, and IMO it's even healthy. Be careful not to equal your interpretations and opinions to God's. The bible may be infallible, but you're not.

It has already been shown that it is according to the will of God that we keep the Sabbath day holy, but that it is according to the traditions of men that we don't. So then, should we listen to God or men?

Again, that would be your interpretation of things. It hasn't "been shown". Your interpretations have been shown. They may be right. I can "show" you with bible verses that we're NOT under law, and we could start a verse war, but it wouldn't be good for much. We're both convinced, and we're allowed to be convinced of different things. My heart and conscience is just as pure as yours.

It's interesting that you would say this, since it was Jesus custom to keep the Sabbath day holy!

Of course it was. He was a Jew. By the way, it is my belief (but this isn't critical to my faith) that Jesus did in fact break the law, for example when He was out of the house on the sabbath, and when He chose NOT to stone the adulterous woman, and so forth. I think Jesus had a higher understanding of both the law and justice, which many still lack today, like adventists for example. That's my opinion.

Then you disagree with the NT which makes it very clear that there is a dichotomy of law.

No, I don't think the NT makes that clear at all.

Notice how the following verse states that because one law was transgressed, another law was added. Hence, two separate laws:

"What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come." Gal. 3:19

What law could this one which was added be referring to? Certainly not the moral law (1Jn. 3:4), since that was the one that had to be transgressed in order for the one that was added to be put into effect.

I think the law was added to the PROMISE, not to another law. I think that fits nicely with the idea, also put forth in the NT, that the law was given "so that sin may abound", and also the idea that I, as a believer, am heir to Abraham, who didn't have the law. I believe the law was to be in effect up until Jesus.

Hence, the law that was added because of transgressions, and was done away with at the cross was the law of sacrifices and offerings for sin--the ceremonial law. Not the moral law--ten commandments.

Does the NT say somewhere that it was the law of sacrifices and offerings that was done away with?

So you are wrong.

No, actually, YOU are wrong

I don't see how the logic of this is flawed. Those who obey God will be blessed for doing so. And God wants us to obey Him because He has our best interest in mind in giving us such commandments to obey. Therefore, it is for our own good that we obey God; and yet God will bless us for being obedient to Him.

My point is that a lot of adventists don't seem to be consequential in their argumentation. It's not a big deal, really, it's just a common christian thing to do - if mere bible verses don't do the trick, find logical and healthy reasons instead. Anyway, I'm still not sure if I should keep the sabbath first and foremost for moral reasons, or for my own sake.

So do you think the ten commandments which were given to the Jews were not meant for us too? Does this mean that it is OK for us to break them, but that it isn't OK for them to break them?

Yes, I think the the ten commandments and the rest of the law(s) were given to the Jews and the Jews only. Not only that, I believe the ten commandments are the "backbone" of a different covenant than that of Jesus, entirely. To me, it's like, say, German laws. German laws may be all fine and dandy, but I'm Nowegian, so it doesn't matter. Now, as a good Norwegian under Norwegian law, I would never kill anyone, and it so happens that German law also demands I don't kill people. And if a German friend visits, I may follow German rules and customs when he's around, for his sake.

My point is that even though I don't consider myself to be under the law, I find no reason to lie or steal etc, and I certainly can't defend doing so. But my motivation is love and respect for others (which I believe is what the bible calls the "law of Christ" - the kind of love that dies for its neighbour), not commandments. If anyone needs a commandment in order not to steal, they have my pity.

I don't mean to be disrespectful in saying this, but you really need to put more thought into what you want to say before you say it.

Actually, I've never suggested that it's ok to be immoral just because I'm not under Jewish law. That was your assumption

But I thought that you said the law wasn't meant for you, so why then are you keeping it?

I'm not keeping it per se, that is, I'm not observing it. But I happen to live up to it, and even live much better than the law demands. The law says, "you SHALL love God", for example. It's impossible to demand love. You can't simply decide to love God. But rather, I love Him because He loved me first. I love because Jesus loves me. Not because a law tells me to. And the law demands I don't steal. Love demands I share all I have.

I'd rather live in Spirit and love, instead of flesh and the letter, if you know what I mean.

So what is the law that is in our hearts then?

Love, I believe. The most important thing in the world. What God wants more than anything. What God IS more than anything. The same force that made Jesus die for us. God may be holy and righteous and moral and all that, but it's His love that saves us all, and Jesus also berated the pharisees for focusing on the law instead of what God actually wanted.

The law said, "stone the woman!"
But God said "I love her. I want to forgive her."

I'm not trying to. Although, God will.

Do you believe God will condemn me for not keeping a sabbath I'm 100% purely convinced that I'm not supposed or obliged to keep? Will He judge me for going AGAINST my honest conviction and pure conscience? Because that's what I'll have to do if I'm to observe the sabbath. Observe the sabbath if you will, I will rest and be free and praise the Lord and dedicate each and every day to Him.

If He's the kind of person to judge me based on such things, and get technical about it, well, at least I'm right once a week

 

[tall73]

The Sabbath is from sundown on Friday til sundown on Saturday, but since I am not Jewish, nor am I bound to keep Jewish laws, I do not keep the Sabbath.

Colossians 2:16-17 "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ."

Acts 21:24-25- "...you yourself [saved Jews] also walk orderly and keep the law. 25But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.”

Galatians 5:4- "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace."

I am, however, a Christian, and I do celebrate the Lord's Day which is Sunday.

The first two texts were already discussed at greath length. Please address the points made there and we can then get into more details.

The last text assumes that the Sabbath is kept for salvation, which is not true. For your convenience I will re-post the pertinent information, and enlarge upon earlier comments:


----------------------
Colossians and Galatians, as well as Romans 14 since I wrote them up together, and it is easier than retyping!

There three texts by Paul that are usually cited as indicating the termination of the weekly Sabbath.

Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

The general interpreatation of this text by non-sabbatarians is that the Sabbath is listed among those things done away with.

However, the actual reading of the text is not about what day to worship or whether to keep a day. The text is speaking about people judging the members of the church there in questions of food, manner of observing festivals and of observing of the Sabbath.

In fact the problem was with asceticism, or rituals imposed on people, something similar to what Jesus rebuked in the Pharisees. Note the context:

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

There were some in the church blending human philosophy and regulations with Christ. Christ however is sufficient according to Paul, which is the burden of the rest of the chapter. The particular legalistic requirements are outlined :

Col 2:17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
Col 2:18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind,
Col 2:19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
Col 2:20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations--
Col 2:21 "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch"
Col 2:22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)--according to human precepts and teachings?
Col 2:23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

Rules on worship of angels, food etc., boiling down to doing certain works for salvation were pressed upon the church. These regulations which Paul says boil down to "do not handle, do not taste, do not touch" are not the spiritual principles which really bring holiness.

The issue was not with whether the Sabbath should be kept, but that we should not judge in the manner in which it is kept. The Sabbath is a blessing, pointing back to creation, and the ultimate rest in heaven. It is not a legalistic means of salvation.


The next text cited is Romans 14.

Rom 14:1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions.
Rom 14:2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
Rom 14:3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.
Rom 14:4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
Rom 14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
Rom 14:6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
Rom 14:7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.
Rom 14:8 If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.
Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Rom 14:10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;
Rom 14:11 for it is written, "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."
Rom 14:12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.

The Sabbath is not specifically mentioned here. Some see in the reference to holy days the days of fasting common among the Christians (see the Didache for instance), or some other day.

Some say that the Sabbath is indicated because it also mentions food laws. However, the food laws mentioned are not those of the OT, as the OT law did not say to eat only vegetables. The issue may have been either with meat sacrificed to idols, as Paul addresses elsewhere, or perhaps even to some other imposed legalistic system of unknown origin.

So neither the food laws or the Sabbath in the OT are mentioned and the food requirements are clearly not those of the OT. It is likely that Paul is simply dealing with some local dispute over individual worship practices. And his tone is in line with this.

He leaves it up to individual decision by conscience.

If Paul had here been eliminating the Sabbath we could expect him to give a much more detailed refutation, as he did with circumcision. Certainly he would be accussed at every turn of eliminating Sabbath keeping if he was doing so, but we do not see this same controversy that is associated with circumcision.

The final text is Galatians

Gal 4:10 You observe days and months and seasons and years!
Gal 4:11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

Here we see a formula somewhat similar to that found in the Ot days, months, seasons, etc.

However, there is again a problem with associating these days with the OT days. There is no doubt that the Galatians had turned back to legalism, including strictly observing aspects of the OT law in order to be saved. But the context of these verses call into question what days exactly these were:


Gal 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods.
Gal 4:9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?
Gal 4:10 You observe days and months and seasons and years!
Gal 4:11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

It seems that the Galatians were returning to the elementary principles of the world which they had known in the days of paganism, perhaps mixing this with Judaism into a new legalistic religion.

In any case the problem in Galatia was that they were observing the law for salvation, when salvation is by faith. Keeping any day to be saved is fruitless.


Acts 15

Here is my take on the council.

a. The council primarily settled that salvation is by faith for Jew and Gentile. The statement of the judaizers was that the gentiles had to be circumcises and obey all of the law of Moses to be saved. The council clearly rejected this.


Act 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us,
Act 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith.
Act 15:10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?
Act 15:11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."


b. God indicated, by pouring out His Spirit on the gentiles, that they did not have to become Jews to become Christian. In Judaism a convert would be circumcised etc. But God called the Gentiles AS Gentiles.

c. The question was not "what do we do with the Jewish laws" but "what do we do with the gentiles." Ie, the law was NOT done away with. In fact, it is pretty clear that all assumed that the Jews would still keep the law--all of it.

Notice for instance Acts 21, in which James clearly understood this:


Act 21:19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified God. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed. They are all zealous for the law,
Act 21:21 and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs.
Act 21:22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.

First this text tells us that the Jews in Jerusalem who became followers of Jesus were zealous for the law. They did not abandon it at all. Moreover, Paul does not say "yeah it is true, I tell Jews not to do these things”, but instead goes ahead with their plan to restore his name. He was not convincing Jews in the diaspora to abandon the law.

In later times the question of what to do with the gentiles was reversed by the church. What do Jews have to give up to be Christian? This was a departure from the original understanding. The gentiles were grafted into the vine, not the other way around. This is obvious in the Acts account.

d. The gentiles were given several restrictions, but even these were based on the Torah law. In fact the council seems to have simply applied the law to the geniles as it would to the "stranger" or "foreigner:" among them. OldSage pointed out the reference to Leviticus 17 and 18. The laws that were required of these foreigners within the law of Moses were required of the gentiles. Therefoere the decision was to UPHOLD the law, not overthrow the law of Moses. In effect they said that the gentiles only had to do those parts that applied to gentiles. Notice the references:

Eating blood:

LEV 17:10 " `Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood--I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. 11 For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. 12 Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."


Sexual immorality:

LEV 18:6 " `No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
LEV 18:7 " `Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
LEV 18:8 " `Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.
LEV 18:9 " `Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
LEV 18:10 " `Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.
LEV 18:11 " `Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
LEV 18:12 " `Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.
LEV 18:13 " `Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.
LEV 18:14 " `Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
LEV 18:15 " `Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.
LEV 18:16 " `Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.
LEV 18:17 " `Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
LEV 18:18 " `Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
LEV 18:19 " `Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
LEV 18:20 " `Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.
LEV 18:21 " `Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
LEV 18:22 " `Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
LEV 18:23 " `Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
LEV 18:24 " `Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.


Idols

Lev 17:3 If any one of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or kills it outside the camp,
Lev 17:4 and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a gift to the LORD in front of the tabernacle of the LORD, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man. He has shed blood, and that man shall be cut off from among his people.
Lev 17:5 This is to the end that the people of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they sacrifice in the open field, that they may bring them to the LORD, to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the LORD.
Lev 17:6 And the priest shall throw the blood on the altar of the LORD at the entrance of the tent of meeting and burn the fat for a pleasing aroma to the LORD.
Lev 17:7 So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they harlot. This shall be a statute forever for them throughout their generations.
Lev 17:8 "And you shall say to them, Any one of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who offers a burnt offering or sacrifice
Lev 17:9 and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it to the LORD, that man shall be cut off from his people.



e. The ten commandments were never on the table. To say otherwise would mean that the gentiles were given only a few aws and allowed to break all but one of the commandments. Any reading of Paul's letters to the gentiles shows that he would not approve of this. He not only referenced portions of the ten commandments, but also mentioned other requirements not listed here.

f. The Sabbath was not on the table. This should be obvious from the above. But as an additional note, the Sabbath was also required of foreigners among the Israelites. And mention is made, in announcing the decision of Moses being preached in the synagogue on every Sabbath. The Sabbath was a reality for the church at that time. In fact, when Paul wanted to hunt Christians he went first to the synagogues. The Christians in Jerusalem could hardly be “zealous for the law” if they were breaking one of the ten commandments. Moreover we see evidence in history that Christians attended synagogue next to the Jews until they were eventually expelled. The majority of Christians kept the Sabbath for at least 400 years, and some still do today, such as the Coptic church.

g. The decision seemed to gain near universal approval. Why? Because it UPHELD the law, and even the Judaizers who heard Moses preached every week had to acknowledge that the law provided rules for the Israelite AND the stranger among them.


Alternative interpretations:

These are some of the interpretations I have dismissed for my own part, but others find compelling:

Pagan practices. This view holds that the gentiles really don't have to obey ANY law, but that these essentials were bound on them because they particularly safe-guarded them from practices of the day in pagan worship (drinking blood, ritual sexual activity, food sacrificed to idols etc.).

Strengths:
1. Generally explains why some laws might be retained.
2. Fits what we know of at least some of the gentile populations (Corinth especially), in that they were enticed to sexual immorality ,etc.
3. Other?

Weaknesses:
1. No mention is made in the text of the issue of pagan practices. The issue was whether the gentiles should have to keep the whole law of Moses.
2. Why would Paul, etc. approve of binding regulations on people from the law of Moses if in fact they were not under any law? This would be a compromise of his principles.
3. Were there not other pressing gentile issues that could be addressed?
4. antinomian. Even Paul said that the law was upheld, and Jesus said that He did not come to do away with the law.
5. This view sees the requirements as temporary ,but there is no indication from the council that they were.

Compromise. This view likewise holds that no law is binding on the gentiles. However, in order to not offend the Jews some things were required.

Strengths:
1. The council mentions that only a few essentials should be required.
2. The Jews really were offended by gentile practices.
3. Other?

Weaknesses:
1. Antinomian, see above.
2. Makes the apostles seem more like politicians than those standing up for truth. Again, Paul would not put up with "judaizing lite"
3. The Jews would be offended by any number of additional items.
4. Again, sees as a temporary compromise, but the council doesn't seem to indicate that this is temporary. It calls the requirements "essentials" not "accomodations."

 

[holo]

Who knows what other changes God has in store for you in the future...maybe the 7th day sabbath?

I doubt it. But then again, God has surprised me before. If sabbath observance should indeed come, it will be pretty far down the list in any case

 

[tall73]

Yes, I think the the ten commandments and the rest of the law(s) were given to the Jews and the Jews only. Not only that, I believe the ten commandments are the "backbone" of a different covenant than that of Jesus, entirely. To me, it's like, say, German laws. German laws may be all fine and dandy, but I'm Nowegian, so it doesn't matter. Now, as a good Norwegian under Norwegian law, I would never kill anyone, and it so happens that German law also demands I don't kill people. And if a German friend visits, I may follow German rules and customs when he's around, for his sake.

And here is where a "verse war" as you call it comes into play. A few things.

a. I agree that perhaps Woobadooba did not give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are doing what you sincerely believe.

b. But on the other hand I think Woobadooba's point is that you continually speak of the law on the heart, the inner witness of the Spirit, Paul's writings, the old covenant, etc. but then you refuse the idea that the Scriptures...where you got those phrases from....have any validity in our discussion, or could possibly bring something to your attention that the Spirit didn't. Or it least it comes across that way.

The point is not a verse war. The point is to consider all the evidence.

If you want to show that the ten commandments have nothing to do with the new covenant, then respond to my post on the new covenant, cite the passages, give the details. if you say you just dont want to disagree on Scripture, and all views are equally valid, that is in my opinion a dodge. All views are not valid. There is a reality. We may disagree who has it, if any of us do. But there is a reality.

My point is that even though I don't consider myself to be under the law, I find no reason to lie or steal etc, and I certainly can't defend doing so. But my motivation is love and respect for others (which I believe is what the bible calls the "law of Christ" - the kind of love that dies for its neighbour), not commandments. If anyone needs a commandment in order not to steal, they have my pity.

Actually, I've never suggested that it's ok to be immoral just because I'm not under Jewish law. That was your assumption

No, and we are glad that Christ lives in you.

We are simply suggesting that not everything in the Christian life is brought in at once. And that if there are particulars on a subject, it doesn't hurt to look at them.

I'm not keeping it per se, that is, I'm not observing it. But I happen to live up to it, and even live much better than the law demands.

then you are keeping them.


This dichotomy of belief and action is not a convention of the bible. What you are talking about is what God said would happen, that Christ does in you what the law could not being WEAKENED BY THE FLESH (by sin), that is live out God's righteous requirements.

That is keeping it. But in a way the carnal man never could. It is jesus keeping them in you.

Moreover, the new covenant is not in some ways new. It was given in the OT. And salvation was ALWAYS by faith (Romans 4 and 10 make this clear). Obedience was always to be from the heart.

The law was a baseline, a cold, heartless standard, which was always meant to be surpassed.

 

[holo]

Tall73,
thank you very much for your respect and gentleness.

And yet in the council of Acts 15 for instance that is exactly what we see.

Moreover, in Paul's letters he gives TONS of imperatives. There are stll musts. But the power is not ours, it is Gods.

Musts for what? Do you consider things like the whole hair/head covering thing to be musts?

All of God's "musts" are for our good. And when we walk with Him as John did , "His commands are not burdensome."

The commandments may be good, but they turned out to bring us death, as sin took advantage of them. Without the commandment, sin is dead. Therefore, to be free from sin, one must be free from the law.

And yet you said God began working in you before He even addressed your drug addiction. In other words, God brought different things to your attention as you could handle them.

Yes, and in fact, my experience is that God has moved med FURTHER away from legalism in any form (I'm not using the word legalism in a purely negative manner here). But again, as your attitude also shows, one must be careful basing doctrines purely on emotions and such (and IMO one must be equally careful when basing it on scripture, since scripture is subject to our interpretation).

Why did the early church keep the day? Was it just habit?

I don't know that they did, but it wouldn't surprise me. Im sure they kept a whole lot of habits and customs from their days as judaists. Religious customs are deeply rooted, therefore I'm sure Peter, too, felt guilty about eating "unclean" animals for a long while after God told him it was ok. Customs and feelings don't always follow truth.

Was it because the Sabbath still had validity? Those are the things to look at, and not all answers are in ourselves.

Well, actually, I wouldn't look too much at that either, because I don't think the earliest church was perfect, or so good as to be imitated. Studied and learned from, yes, but not imitated. After all, they did argue and get crazy ideas, just as we do

It is not our role to judge. And sharing our view is not judging.

Agreed. It's all in the tone, I guess.

 

[tall73]

Tall73,
thank you very much for your respect and gentleness.

You are very welcome. I wish to see how close we actually are on this, in the big picture of walking in the Spirit, if not on the Sabbath.

Musts for what? Do you consider things like the whole hair/head covering thing to be musts?

a. they were in the NT, so we can't assume they were just the old law!

b. That in itself is an interesting discussion on law.

c. i would not put them anywhere near the moral law, either as you see it without the Sabbath, or I see it with. But I think the head covering issue still contained important principles which endure, yes.

The commandments may be good, but they turned out to bring us death, as sin took advantage of them. Without the commandment, sin is dead. Therefore, to be free from sin, one must be free from the law.

a. yes, sin took advantage of them.

b. Paul made it painfully clear that the law was not the problem. The law was spiritual, he was unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. Christ did not come to remove the law, which sin took advantage of. To do so Christ would be changing the principles of His nature. Instead Christ came to take away the SIN which caused the problem in the first place. That is why he said that God did what the law could not do, weakened by the sinful nature...He met God's righteous requirements, so that we keep the laws demands fully, by the Spirit.

So let's look at the equation.

law + sin = death.

Now of those two, which did Jesus come to do away with? The law or sin? To me it is clearly sin. Where sin is gone the law no longer condemns. That is why Paul says there IS NO CONDEMNATION!

Jesus became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God.

Or as Paul puts it in another place, once the Spirit is in your there is no law against the things you will do...(the fruits) as they are all good.

So in this regard the law again is seen to be.

a. a revelation of God's will.
b. limited in power
c. revelatory ,but not saving.
d. NOT THE PROBLEM. Sin is the problem.

It is like this. We owe a debt. The law demands we pay it. Now we can either cancel all debts, or we can just pay the debt. i think God paid the debt.

Yes, and in fact, my experience is that God has moved med FURTHER away from legalism in any form (I'm not using the word legalism in a purely negative manner here). But again, as your attitude also shows, one must be careful basing doctrines purely on emotions and such (and IMO one must be equally careful when basing it on scripture, since scripture is subject to our interpretation).

Yes, I see my own life in past trends. I went from all rules, to seeing God's grace. Then eventually I managed to turn that into legalism agian, and then had to learn what life in the Spirit is. God is interested in us avoiding the extreme that is most dangerous to us at the time, and correctives are always forthcoming.

And as you said, it can't be all head knowledge either. I am convinced though that God is not going to constantly contradict Himself in the two.

I don't know that they did, but it wouldn't surprise me. Im sure they kept a whole lot of habits and customs from their days as judaists. Religious customs are deeply rooted, therefore I'm sure Peter, too, felt guilty about eating "unclean" animals for a long while after God told him it was ok. Customs and feelings don't always follow truth.

We know they kept many by habit...Peter going away from eating with gentiles after the Cornelius event for instance. . And that is why these issues are complicated. Which ones were kept as habits? Which ones as enduring truth? And how were they decided? But that doesn't mean the details are not important.

Well, actually, I wouldn't look too much at that either, because I don't think the earliest church was perfect, or so good as to be imitated. Studied and learned from, yes, but not imitated. After all, they did argue and get crazy ideas, just as we do

Yes they did

But the apostles were undeniably given the promise of being led into all truth. Now....at what point in the NT they had it...lol.

Agreed. It's all in the tone, I guess.

Definitely so.

 

[holo]

b. But on the other hand I think Woobadooba's point is that you continually speak of the law on the heart, the inner witness of the Spirit, Paul's writings, the old covenant, etc. but then you refuse the idea that the Scriptures...where you got those phrases from....have any validity in our discussion, or could possibly bring something to your attention that the Spirit didn't. Or it least it comes across that way.

I'm happy to inform you that you're mistaken about me

I'm not saying scriptures don't have any validity, it's just that once a discussion turns into a flinging of verses to prove a point, things usually just get ugly and unprodictive. I also don't think that's a good way to use the bible. And besides, the bible can be used to defend most anything, and if simply showing a different verse meant all that much of a difference, I guess we wouldn't be having all these dominations in the first place...

The point is not a verse war. The point is to consider all the evidence.

Yes, but my "evidence" will first and foremost always be my own testimony and experience. I believe because of what I've experienced. I was told all my life that Jesus could give me rest, but I had no idea what it meant until it actually happened. I also used to believe a whole lot of stuff just "because the bible says so", and a lot of it turned out to be wrong. I'm the kind of guy who won't accept a teaching merely because the bible seems to say so, because real truth comes by revelation IMO.

If you want to show that the ten commandments have nothing to do with the new covenant, then respond to my post on the new covenant, cite the passages, give the details. if you say you just dont want to disagree on Scripture, and all views are equally valid, that is in my opinion a dodge. All views are not valid. There is a reality. We may disagree who has it, if any of us do. But there is a reality.

That's true. I'm just not that into "proving" anything. I don't think I could change your mind anyway. But I do believe I have valid biblical backup for my views. It's not critical to me that you share them, but I'd like people to understand them and respect them. I can read the bible with a pretty simple mindset, so when it speaks of the law, for example, I see no reason to think that it speaks of one of several. I think it's all pretty simple, basically, and that God is reasonable in many ways.

then you are keeping them.

Yeah, I probably am. I'm probably keeping Swiss laws too. But hey, so what, really?

This dichotomy of belief and action is not a convention of the bible. What you are talking about is what God said would happen, that Christ does in you what the law could not being WEAKENED BY THE FLESH (by sin), that is live out God's righteous requirements.[/QUOTE]I belive the law doesn't actually show us God's righteous requirements. I think His standard is way beyond and above the law. It's not like I'm trying to escape the law, by the way. I see the law as a pretty low standard.

Moreover, the new covenant is not in some ways new. It was given in the OT. And salvation was ALWAYS by faith (Romans 4 and 10 make this clear). Obedience was always to be from the heart.

I agree. But where some choose to accentuate stuff like "God doesn't change" and so forth, I accentuate "new covenant", "righetousness apart from the law", "according to the Spirit, not the letter" and so forth.

In any case, basically the only thing an adventist can accuse me of, is failing to observe the sabbath. Now, you seem to be pretty reasonable about it all, but I promise you, not all are. Some have made the sabbath THE most important thing (ususally those who also are bent on attacking the RCC, it seems), and that kind of scares me.

I should probably make it clear (if it isn't already), that the question for me isn't so much about what the bible says and doesn't say (which is always a matter of dispute), but rather the nature of God. To me, the question is, does God really demand I set aside this day and do so and so, and if He does, MUST it be sundown friday to sundown saturday, and if so, WHY!? To me, it's a matter of God's will. What does He want? What is important to Him?

 

[Sophia7]

Of course it was. He was a Jew. By the way, it is my belief (but this isn't critical to my faith) that Jesus did in fact break the law, for example when He was out of the house on the sabbath, and when He chose NOT to stone the adulterous woman, and so forth. I think Jesus had a higher understanding of both the law and justice, which many still lack today, like adventists for example. That's my opinion. . . .

Love, I believe. The most important thing in the world. What God wants more than anything. What God IS more than anything. The same force that made Jesus die for us. God may be holy and righteous and moral and all that, but it's His love that saves us all, and Jesus also berated the pharisees for focusing on the law instead of what God actually wanted.

The law said, "stone the woman!"
But God said "I love her. I want to forgive her."

What you are not getting is that fact that the way the Pharisees kept the Sabbath wasn't how they were supposed to keep it. Jesus didn't break the Sabbath; He just didn't observe it the way the Pharisees thought He should. By the time of Jesus, the Jewish religious leaders had added so many traditions to the keeping of the Sabbath that they had obscured its true meaning. They went far beyond what God ever intended in restricting people's Sabbath activities. They had laws that dictated how far a person could walk on Sabbath. They had laws that said that if you buried food ahead of time at intervals, you could consider those places homes and thus walk farther. They had laws about connecting houses with planks so that they could consider them one house and carry food between them. They had laws about sewing handkerchiefs to their clothing so that they wouldn't have to carry them. And they did none of it out of love for God.

Jesus had many opportunities to answer the Pharisees' accusations against Him, such as when He healed on the Sabbath. And in none of those instances did Jesus tell them that they shouldn't keep the Sabbath. Rather, He told them that they had the wrong idea about the purpose of the Sabbath. He told them that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:12). He told them that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). God ordained the Sabbath as a blessing for man--a day set apart to rest from our work and to focus completely on our relationship with Him, to remember His work of creation and His work of redemption. Jesus pointed people back to the true purpose. Why would Jesus have put so much effort into reeducating the Pharisees if He were planning to abrogate the Sabbath commandment or to change the day of the week?

Jesus is Lord of everything, even of the Sabbath. He would not have claimed the title "Lord of the Sabbath" if the Sabbath were no longer important. He claimed that title because He made the Sabbath, and He gave it to us, and He knew its true purpose. He wants us to remember it--not the way the religious leaders did, with a bunch of impossible rules and regulations that gave them a pretense of righteousness, but as a day to experience joy in the Lord because of the true righteousness that He has given us. He wants us to have the attitude toward the Sabbath that Isaiah presents so beautifully:

Isaiah 58:13 "If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath
and from doing as you please on my holy day,
if you call the Sabbath a delight
and the LORD's holy day honorable,
and if you honor it by not going your own way
and not doing as you please or speaking idle words,
14 then you will find your joy in the LORD. . . .

What Jesus taught was that the Sabbath is not a burden but a time to find joy in the Lord. If we keep the Sabbath as He wants us to, through the power of the Spirit and not as a legalistic way of trying to earn salvation, it is a great blessing to us. If we keep the Sabbath as an expression of our love for God and our love for others, it fits completely with Jesus' summary of the greatest commandments, which we still keep but in a new way, by the Spirit, because of the grace that God has given us.

On the subject of the woman caught in adultery, you are also missing something important. Even under Jewish theocratic rule, not everyone who committed adultery was stoned. What about David, for example? David was forgiven because he repented. Likewise, the woman who was brought before Jesus was repentant. Jesus knew her heart and forgave her. Moreover, under Roman law, the Jews were not even allowed to execute anyone. That's why the Pharisees thought this such a great way to trap Jesus. If Jesus told them to stone her, they could accuse Him of breaking Roman law and use it against Him in their plot to kill Him. If Jesus told them not to stone her, they could accuse Him of breaking the law of Moses. What they failed to understand was that forgiveness was allowed even under the law of Moses.

Therefore, Jesus wasn't breaking any of God's laws by what He did in regard to this or the Sabbath.

 

[tall73]

I'm happy to inform you that you're mistaken about me

I'm not saying scriptures don't have any validity, it's just that once a discussion turns into a flinging of verses to prove a point, things usually just get ugly and unprodictive. I also don't think that's a good way to use the bible. And besides, the bible can be used to defend most anything, and if simply showing a different verse meant all that much of a difference, I guess we wouldn't be having all these dominations in the first place...

Yes, but my "evidence" will first and foremost always be my own testimony and experience. I believe because of what I've experienced. I was told all my life that Jesus could give me rest, but I had no idea what it meant until it actually happened. I also used to believe a whole lot of stuff just "because the bible says so", and a lot of it turned out to be wrong. I'm the kind of guy who won't accept a teaching merely because the bible seems to say so, because real truth comes by revelation IMO.

a. Glad to hear I was wrong!

b. I agree that we cannot assume every Scriptural interpretation to be right. And experience plays a large role. But it is in the details that we can at times find those misconceptions we have had. If even the OT affirms that the NT was not written just for them but for those in NT times, then I can be sure the application of all of them extend to our day. If my view on a particular application changes, fine.But it is at times the very discussion of those views that I realize I have been mistaken. I think God has spoken to me that way as well as through other means.

That's true. I'm just not that into "proving" anything. I don't think I could change your mind anyway.

I have already changed my mind more than once on this board! Ya never know.

But I do believe I have valid biblical backup for my views. It's not critical to me that you share them, but I'd like people to understand them and respect them. I can read the bible with a pretty simple mindset, so when it speaks of the law, for example, I see no reason to think that it speaks of one of several. I think it's all pretty simple, basically, and that God is reasonable in many ways.

And that is the thing. I want to understand them too, even we wind up on a different page. And to me the details are part of that.

Yeah, I probably am. I'm probably keeping Swiss laws too. But hey, so what, really?

I belive the law doesn't actually show us God's righteous requirements. I think His standard is way beyond and above the law. It's not like I'm trying to escape the law, by the way. I see the law as a pretty low standard.

Actually I do too. Paul's whole point was that the Spirit goes way beyond. But before we coudn't even come close. Even though Paul dedicated his whole life to the law previously.

I agree. But where some choose to accentuate stuff like "God doesn't change" and so forth, I accentuate "new covenant", "righetousness apart from the law", "according to the Spirit, not the letter" and so forth.

And that is fine. Because, as you said, you are an example of the change that the new covenant embodies. My point is simply that God never intended the cold laws of stone to be the real deal. They were a stop gap in ever increasing wickedness, to remind people how short they fall. The y were not the solution.

In any case, basically the only thing an adventist can accuse me of, is failing to observe the sabbath. Now, you seem to be pretty reasonable about it all, but I promise you, not all are. Some have made the sabbath THE most important thing (ususally those who also are bent on attacking the RCC, it seems), and that kind of scares me.

Yes, again it is an issue of perspective. You look at it as one difference. They look at it as the one thing left undone

In other words, why major in the things of agreement, when the thing that needs discussing is the area we don't yet agree on.

And on both sides we tend to lose the common ground picture because of it, with one thinking that one side is legalist ,and the other saying the other one is antinomian.

I should probably make it clear (if it isn't already), that the question for me isn't so much about what the bible says and doesn't say (which is always a matter of dispute), but rather the nature of God. To me, the question is, does God really demand I set aside this day and do so and so, and if He does, MUST it be sundown friday to sundown saturday, and if so, WHY!? To me, it's a matter of God's will. What does He want? What is important to Him?

The issue is the same for both sides...what does God want. But for us it is not something you can consider apart from the biblical evidence because biblical evidence represents a large body of agreed upon common experience of God's working in history that goes beyond just what God has done for us personally. And in that it is invaluable.
.

 

[FEZZILLA]

Again, Ellen refers to Sunday keepers has hellbound beast people,

"The enemies of God's law, from the ministers down to the least among them, have a new conception of truth and duty. Too late they see that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the seal of God. Too late they see the true nature of their spurious sabbath and the sandy foundation upon which they have been building. They find that they have been fighting against God. Religious teachers have led souls to perdition while professing to guide them to Paradise....
The wicked cannot look upon them. And when the blessing is pronounced on those who have honored God by keeping His Sabbath holy, there is a mighty shout of victory" (Great Controversy, chapter 40).

E.White like every other writing be SDA authors I've read, believes that Sunday (the Lord's Day) is "the Mark of the Beast." Well, I guess Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, the Apostle John (Rev.1:10), and every saintly ancient Christian up to the present now will burn with the unforgivable mark of the beast.
If this all is true then E.White ia a true Prophetess. But in order to be a real Prophetess one must not ever contradict scripture. Lets see, Ellen and Co. believe the mark of salvation is keeping the seventh day Sabbath. Once again, from scripture, which overrides Ellen's self-appointed authority:

"...Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit" (Eph.1:13).

"And do not greive the Holy Spirit of God, with whon you were sealed for the day of redemption" (Eph.

What do the Gnostics believe on this seal issue regarding the Sabbath?

"...If you do not observe the Sabbath day as a Sabbath day, you will not see the Father" (Gospel of Thomas, saying 27). Ellen agrees with Jews and Gnostics over her own Christian belief,...humm?


Did Ellen uphold Biblical morality?

Ellen blames parents for the horror of young people who touch. She says people who touch all end up "puny and dwarfed." Why? How are the parents to blame for this problem? Ellen says, "In very many cases the parents are thre real sinners. They have abused their married privileges, and by indulgence have strengthened their animal passion." For one, we are not "animals" at all in any sense!! She is indirectly teaching evolution! We are humans made in the image and likeness of God! Secondly, Ellen claimed to be speaking the mind of God when she addressed "sexual perversion" within marriage. Ellen herself was well known to reject her husband's sexual advances. She believed that sexual enjoyment was a terrible evil that should be shuned in marriage.

"The marriage covenant covers sins of the darkest hue, " She wrote. "Men and women professing godliness debase their own bodies through indulgences of the corrupt passions, and thus lower themselves beneath the brute creation...Many do die prematurely, their lives sacrificed in the inglorious work of excessive indulgence of the animal passions. Yet because they are married, they think they commit no sin."

No man or woman could truly respect each other in marriage if one or the other denied sex (for the rare exception of having a child)! They would tire of each other and cheat and divorce!! They would find someone else "to arouse and intensify his hellish passions."
Furthermore, Ellen says of married women,

"If she posses true love and wisdom, she will seek to divert his mind from the gratification of lustful passions to high and spiritual themes by dwelling upon interesting spiritual subjects."
(All E.White quotations borrowed from Ruth A. Tucker, "Another Gospel").

E.White was an overly strict puritian. Does the NT agree with?

"But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wifr, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's bidy does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (Rom.7:1-5).

Again Paul writes,

"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (Rom.7:9).

E.White's view of morality is morally flawed with sin. She cannot be a Prophetess if she causes one to sin morally!! And since there is so much immorality in the SDA little church I'll rest my case;...she encouraged adultery!

But, to further it, I'll pick at Ellen's orders to abstain from certain foods. Her diet plan (I personally have nothing against it, but..) is supposedly a healthier and more spiritual way to eat.

"They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thinksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth" (1Tim.4:3).

 

[holo]

They had laws that said that if you buried food ahead of time at intervals, you could consider those places homes and thus walk farther. They had laws about connecting houses with planks so that they could consider them one house and carry food between them. They had laws about sewing handkerchiefs to their clothing so that they wouldn't have to carry them.

True, but the scriptures themselves spell out that you're not supposed to go anywhere on the sabbath. I don't know if adventists see that as "commandments of men" or God's commandments.

Jesus had many opportunities to answer the Pharisees' accusations against Him, such as when He healed on the Sabbath. And in none of those instances did Jesus tell them that they shouldn't keep the Sabbath.

Of course not. He was, as He said Himself, sent to Israel. He obviously didn't encourage anyone to break the law, but rather He showed how righteous you'd have to be to make it to heaven, and that God desires mercy, not sacrifice.

God ordained the Sabbath as a blessing for man--a day set apart to rest from our work and to focus completely on our relationship with Him, to remember His work of creation and His work of redemption. Jesus pointed people back to the true purpose. Why would Jesus have put so much effort into reeducating the Pharisees if He were planning to abrogate the Sabbath commandment or to change the day of the week?

That's just the thing, though. He didn't change the law. I don't think He changed any part of it at all. If one is to keep the law, one better keep the law. If one wants to be under it, one better do as it says. Jesus certainly didn't lower the standard - He raised it! People were like "hey, we keep the law" and He was like "oh yeah? THIS is righteousness - love your enemy!" and so forth.

What Jesus taught was that the Sabbath is not a burden but a time to find joy in the Lord. If we keep the Sabbath as He wants us to, through the power of the Spirit and not as a legalistic way of trying to earn salvation, it is a great blessing to us. If we keep the Sabbath as an expression of our love for God and our love for others, it fits completely with Jesus' summary of the greatest commandments, which we still keep but in a new way, by the Spirit, because of the grace that God has given us.

Well, I just don't see why I should set apart any one day to worship or rest or show my gratitude for God. What better than to do it 24/7?

Likewise, the woman who was brought before Jesus was repentant.

As far as I know, the bible doesn't actually say she repented.

Jesus knew her heart and forgave her.

Like He has forgiven everyone, everywhere, for everything.

What they failed to understand was that forgiveness was allowed even under the law of Moses.

Was it? Does the law allow forgiveness?

Therefore, Jesus wasn't breaking any of God's laws by what He did in regard to this or the Sabbath.[/QUOTE]Ah. But what about when He touched dead people and lepers?

 

[FEZZILLA]

At http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24908 you'll see a wager from SDA pastors daring Sunday keepers to edify their salvation. I wrote the Pastor but I was refused because I didn't provide the Biblical sentence that says: 'Sunday is the Sabbath."
So once again the SDA Sabbath strawman wins again!

Both Marcussen & his mentor, Bacchiocchi, both say that "Sunday is the Mark of the Beast," but provide no Biblical text for such a harsh allegation.
And still further, Bacchiocchi pretends to know his history. All you SDA's need to know that ALL the early Christians suffered severe persecution by Jews and Romans, as a means of exterminating them (like the Marxist do today). [*Note: SDA Universities, as I know, teach that Hitler was a Christian. Man! This is a lie I've had to work hard to beat out of SDA's heads! Hitler was a "Nazi." Naziism was highly derived from the Norse pagan religion. Naziism was the Occult forced into law]

Roman historian Tacitus, Dissertation 3 Annals, Book 15,

"Nero, in order to stifle the rumor [as if he had himself set fire to Rome], ascribed it to those people who were hated for their wicked practices, and called by the vulgar Christians; these he punished exquisitely. The author of this name was Christ, who in the reigh of Tiberius was brought to punishment by Pontius Pilate, the procurator. For the present, this pernicious superstition was in part suppressed; but it broke out again, not only over Judah, whence this mischeif first sprang, but in the city of Rome also, whither do run from every quarter and make a noise, all the flagrant and shameful enormities. At first, therefore, those were seized who confessed; afterwards a vast multitude were detected by them, and were convicted, not so much as really guilty of setting the city on fire, but as hating all mankind; nay, they made a mock of them, as they perished, and destroyed them by putting them into the skins of wild beast, and setting dogs upon them to tear them to pieces; some were nailed to crosses, and others flamed to death; they were also used in the nighttime instead of torches for illumination...."

Romans hated Jews and Christians! They hated Christ because he was a Jew. I could go on and on quoting from Roman historians and show you that Christianity and pagan Rome had nothing in common; neither in rituals or core beliefs! So don't think for one second that Rome were the ones that kept Sunday! Their beliefs were not nothing like SDA's are brainwashed to be. In fact, the god Saturine was more popular to Rome than the Sun-god!

Back to Ignatius,

"After the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and cheif of all the days (of the week). Looking forward to this, the Prophet declared. 'To the end, for the eighth day; on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ.' "
(Ante-Nicene fathers)

If Sunday observance is so bad, why does Ignatius uphold it has Holy? And why don't the SDA church open their church doors just one day a year to celebrate Christ' resurrection on Easter Sunday?

Keeping the Sabbath was law in Judah. If any Christian etc. broke that law they were stoned.
To say that American Christians or Christians from India or Africa have to keep the seventh day Sabbath to be saved is to practice the heresy of denationalization--which has always been unChristian!!

SDA's deny the Supernatural soul. This is a naturalistic stance from paganism!

"Even now the reaper draws his wages, even now he harvests the crop for eternal life, so that the sower and the reaper may be glad together" (John 4:36).

"...and the spirit returns to God who gave it" (Ecc.12:7).

The soul is not just simple oxygen and electricity. It all works in harmony together, but, nonetheless, God's breath is still Supernatural.

About hell, Jesus says, "Their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenced" (Mk.9:48).

All I ask from you SDA's is to confess that E.White is not scripture and the Canon is closed (Rev.22:18-19).

"Your faith has saved you; go in peace" (Lk. 7:50).

"My food," Said Jesus, "Is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work."

He redeemed creation and man on Sunday!! What do you SDA's not understand about this?

 

[ThreeAM]

I should probably make it clear (if it isn't already), that the question for me isn't so much about what the bible says and doesn't say (which is always a matter of dispute), but rather the nature of God. To me, the question is, does God really demand I set aside this day and do so and so, and if He does, MUST it be sundown friday to sundown saturday, and if so, WHY!? To me, it's a matter of God's will. What does He want? What is important to Him?

Do you think God is fair and just?

 

[tulc]

I preach twice just about every Sabbath, and I always get a blessing out of preaching! I just hope those listening do!

Well if you preach like you post you don't have anything to worry about!
tulc(sipping cold, old coffee...and loving it!)