• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath? (2)

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
BrightCandle said:
Because the Law of God predated the Priesthood.
So you accept that some laws are temporary, and the person to over-turn these is Jesus?

Didn't Abraham make sacrifices to God before the law? Didn't the peoples at the time of Noah, Sodom etc show that one could displease God with false worship?
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,698
6,115
Visit site
✟1,054,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Montalban said:
I can't because we continue with those traditions, we don't just look to the Sabbath, and deal only with that as an issue; we're more than a single-issue church

Be honest now, even the Orthodox church who calls us a cult knows we have more than one heterodox teaching. So we are not a one issue church. And we don't just preach on those issues either. All of these are simply ways to dismiss the real argument by talking about our church. It does nothing to address the real issue, and it especially doesn't account for Old Sage being a non-SDA.

In your church, they are, that's the point. Moses was instructed by God on how the priests should behave, and what they should wear. You've not made any case at all for why you priests/ministers, or whatever you want to call them have abrogated those commandments; at best you've made a 'just-so' statement about the abolishing of the priesthood, which is odd, as you're now recognising that the priesthood continues today.

Actually I posted the Scriptures from Hebrews that say it is. And since your church in fact agrees that the OT priesthood is gone, your argument means little. I said that the priesthood continues in your church. But it is not the BIBLICAL priesthood, which was done away with anyway.

So, if that aspect is removed, which you've not made a case for; other than to state repeatedly that Jesus just abolished that (ignoring his 'new covenant), where does it say that all the other aspects of the priesthood laid down are done away with.

If the priesthood was a symbol of the true, and Jesus is the High Priest, which Hebrews in fact says ,then we need no priesthood. I have perfectly accounted for His new covenant. It is spelled out in Hebrews 8, and the implications in Hebrews 9-10. You haven't even read enough to know that it says Jesus is our High Priest. It seems that you are basing your concept of the new covenant on a misconception.

That's the very nature of the problem I'm raising. You can't say
Jesus did away with the priesthood at the same time as noting Paul continued with the church services, and that there's a priesthood today.

I said you have a priesthood. But they are clearly not the OT priesthood. They are not descended from Aaron, nor do they do the feasts, offer goats etc. So if you want me to argue your side of it, sorry. I see no basis for your priesthood at all. It is a sham. Jesus is our High Priest, and Peter said that all of us are a holy priesthood. So the Orthodox church, and Catholic for that matter, if they call only a select few priests are distorting the Bible. That is up to you to explain, not me.

Where's the verses of the Bible establishing the new priesthood? And in fact if there are any, you've immediately accepted that commandments given by God to Moses have been modified.

Again, your argument not mine. I cited for you already the texts that show that Jesus is our High Priest and the old was replaced with the new. If you don't accept it, that is for you to explain.

Exactly, he continued with church services. You say that the services are different. This alone suggests that the 'sacrifice of Jesus' did away with old commandments; excepting that Paul continued to go to church (when one was there).

The church services, or synagogue services were not at the temple. They had nothing to do with the priests, and the sacrificial services which were done away with. This has been covered extensively. And Paul went to the synagogue before, and he went to it after. What changed?

Why not call your churches 'temples' and have garb as commanded by God?

The question is better asked of you. It is your idea. We see that the Bible ended the Aaronic priesthood and introduced the priesthood of Jesus, after the order of Melchizadek.

It says that Jesus is our high priest, who clears the way into the holy of holies, and His priesthood is superior to the old one
Does it? Where? If so, why'd Paul continue to go to church?

In all seriousness, have you ever read the book of Hebrews? Can you ask this question even half-way seriously when I just put in the texts in the my last post.

Here they are again. I have bolded the parts that specifically speak to your question:

HEB 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet was without sin. 16 Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

HEB 7:26 Such a high priest meets our need--one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

HEB 8:1 The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.

HEB 8:3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." 6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

HEB 9:11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

HEB 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

HEB 9:23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

HEB 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

HEB 10:5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;

HEB 10:6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.

HEB 10:7 Then I said, `Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll--
I have come to do your will, O God.' "

HEB 10:8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

HEB 10:11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

I think Hebrews is pretty clear that Jesus is our High Priest, and that the old sanctuary was

a. a pattern of the real
b. not able to remove sin
c. set aside to make room for the second.



Cain knew it was wrong (it's aking to Romans II - where it was written on his heart). His example shows it's wrong. There's no example of anyone prior to Moses keeping the Sabbath.
Indeed, Cain knew it was wrong to kill. But you just said that we didn't have anywhere that it said they were given the commands other than the tree. Obviously the evidence doesn't fit this. And Adam was in fact there when God gave it. And He referenced that giving in the commandment.

That may well be; as I get rabbais and priests mixed up. (see above)

Indeed.

Where's it say Jesus wears them in heaven?

I didn't say He did. I said if He wants to it won't bother me. The point is you asked why our priests don't wear them. Because we don't have priests besides our High Priest Jesus, which Hebrews affirms.

Like the Sabbath being for man?

Who exactly do you think the rest of the laws were for? Your whole analysis has been refuted by me, Irenaeus, Nazaroo, Jesus Himself, and many others over the years. Again, you seem to want to make Jesus a law breaker just so you have an argument on the Sabbath. Yet you continually ignore the passages that say that David and the priests were innocent, that God desires mercy, not sacrifice, the texts where Jesus says He is Lord of the Sabbath, etc

Acts 21:27-28:31

The very text I already mentioned. It is hardly a good example for your case, because he did it as a concession to the legalists.

Odd then that Paul notes that people continued to meet as commanded (in the quote I gave), and your 'citation above' is just you saying go read the book of Hebrews!

Hebrews does in fact make it clear that the temple old covenant regulations would be done away with. And in fact they were at the destruction of the temple. But even before this they lost their meaning as the true Sacrifice was already made. And you do in fact need to read Hebrews if you don't know that Jesus is your High Priest.

Now, were there some going to the temple still? Yes, even the author of Hebrews states the sacrifices were still being made. But he said that the covenant basis was gone. Moreover they were keeping the Sabbath 400 years later. Were they offering sacrifices? No.

What you need to find is a statement that the Sabbath was replaced by Sunday. I can find statements in the Bible that say that the priestly service, the old covenant, etc. were done away with. But you cannot cite one that shows that Sabbath was replaced by Sunday. And neither is it sufficient to say that it was part of the Old Covenant. It was given at creation, before the sacrificial laws, and before the old covenant existed.



Peter applies the covenant promises to the church, in this case gentiles who were once not a people.

1PE 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.



And if you were asking who posted it, the comment was by Nazaroo.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,698
6,115
Visit site
✟1,054,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Montalban said:
She supplies your interpretation

We have already clearly outlined that she did not form our doctrine. If you wish to make such statments, then back it up.

We received the Sabbath from the Seventh-day Baptists through Joseph Bates, a retired sea captain and millerite second-tier leader.

We received the state of the dead largely through the Christian Connectionists background of JAMES WHITE and others. Ellen White was a Methodist and accepted Hell fire, etc during the early part of her life.

We received the Sanctuary teaching from Hiram Edson, and indirectly from William Miller.

Of these only one is a unique Adventist contribution, and it was not initiated by EGW. So if you wish to dispute it you will need to provide some substantiating facts. Otherwise you simply speak from ignorance in order to discredit us.

Likewise, I expect Bright Candle to back up his statements about pagan material.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,698
6,115
Visit site
✟1,054,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nazaroo said:
Yes, I was quite impressed by your listing of various early fathers on the sabbath etc. However, I am sure you'll agree this is only one narrow portion of the evidence that should be sifted on the matter of various Jewish factional and competing traditions, as well as the question of the flexibility and morphology of days and calendars.

Thanks first of all. I agree they simply address the Jews being spoken to. But they are a witness to that.

For instance, the entire body of evidence from Qumran has been neglected in these discussions, yet along with the Talmud it is the primary evidence of Jewish practices at the time of Jesus.

Indeed, but I have never seen any evidence of questions about the weekly cycle in these discussion from the Talmud.

I don't have any interesting direct references to the 'motion' of days (e.g. the Sabbath) of the week, but it is certainly possible within the scope of Jewish tradition, given its subordination to even intermittent occasions like circumcision! Most Rabbinical interpretations of the Law are 'Jew-centric' in the sense that national identity overrides and overrules even basic ethical and moral behaviour. "Blood is thicker than morality."

It is certainly possible. But even during the change of the Julian to the Gregorian, which was referenced earlier it was seen that the weekly cycle was not disrupted at all. This was documented by Palehorse and my wife during the first 1k replies of this topic. If there is no evidence of a change, why would I be paranoid that there was a change. All of the discussion of differences seem to be on the feasts which were often calculated by the lunar calendar as you have mentioned. But the days of the week, I think it goes without saying, have never been calculated by lunar observance. They have had no reason to change.

It comes down to this. If you are the one arguing that the weekly cycle was in dispute, then it is up to you to show that it was. If so, then that is certainly something to look at.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,698
6,115
Visit site
✟1,054,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Montalban said:
None of what we do is against the Bible. The fact that the Bible wasn't around for 300 years of the church meant that the church for a long time lived by tradition alone; until we compiled the bible. We created the Bible.

The Scriptures were God breathed according to Paul, and inspired by God according to Peter. I think it safe to say that neither you, nor your church, nor Peter, nor the apostles created the Bible. God inspired them. The church was entrusted with them, and they compiled them. That is hardly creating.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,698
6,115
Visit site
✟1,054,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Montalban said:
I don't understand that if you guys accept that Jesus changed the priesthood, why He didn't change the Sabbath?

You will have to ask Him that. But the Bible clearly says he did change the priesthood and is the true High Priest. It never says that He changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Nor did your church apparently which were keeping both 400 years later.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,698
6,115
Visit site
✟1,054,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Normann said:
When using the term SDA it is my short-cut to include all Gentiles that claim Saturday is the Sabbath and that we are to keep a Sabbath on the 7th day of the week.

That is good to know in order to see what your motives are. But it doesn't make it any more accurate.

As for the long posts I don't read them as it takes away from my Bible reading.

Normann, how can you have a discussion and ignore pertinent facts? If you don't want to discuss the topic or don't want to consider all the evidence, then don't .


I infact don't pay much attention to replies that try to show me the "SDA" belief from the Bible because I have read it myself over and over and have studied the word of God for more than 50 years.

So you want a one way conversation where you don't have to deal with evidence. That does explain some of your statements.

The law to keep a set day per week never existed. Read carefully the commandment and you will find none of those that claim to keep the 7th day Sabbath; really keep it as the scripture of the O. T. instructed.

Your whole argument is to ignore the very words that the 7th day was the Sabbath. And as to keeping it as the OT instructed, sure. Just not as the pharisees distorted it.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,698
6,115
Visit site
✟1,054,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Evee said:
I don't read long posts either Norman... I also don't write any...lol :)

Then how would you know that Montalban's posts were in fact good?

I don't have a problem with people not reading or making long posts, as long as they don't comment on them without reading them.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,698
6,115
Visit site
✟1,054,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Montalban said:
So you accept that some laws are temporary, and the person to over-turn these is Jesus?

Didn't Abraham make sacrifices to God before the law? Didn't the peoples at the time of Noah, Sodom etc show that one could displease God with false worship?

Sure, now if you can place Abraham and Noah before the 7th day of creation your set.
 
Upvote 0

Nazaroo

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)
Dec 5, 2005
2,626
68
clinging to Jesus sandalstrap
✟18,230.00
Faith
Christian
It is certainly possible. But even during the change of the Julian to the Gregorian, which was referenced earlier it was seen that the weekly cycle was not disrupted at all. This was documented by Palehorse and my wife during the first 1k replies of this topic. If there is no evidence of a change, why would I be paranoid that there was a change. All of the discussion of differences seem to be on the feasts which were often calculated by the lunar calendar as you have mentioned. But the days of the week, I think it goes without saying, have never been calculated by lunar observance. They have had no reason to change.

It comes down to this. If you are the one arguing that the weekly cycle was in dispute, then it is up to you to show that it was. If so, then that is certainly something to look at.

Thank you again for your reasonable replies. Here, I have no dispute or paranoia regarding the Julian/Gregorian alterations. It seems quite reasonable to me that in the latter days the 'sabbath' was immovable as far as keeping track of it goes, in the narrow geographical region we discussed.

Thus I am quite willing to concede that quite possibly, the current 'sabbath' could be traced back with reasonable probability to the era of Jesus and the 2nd Temple establishment practice, that is, counting the days would hypothetically result in a large number factorizable by 'seven'.

This doesn't resolve five important problems I have with the blanket assertion that we have the right 'sabbath'.

(1) Moses' original calendar, made up of 12 months of 30 days, for a year of 360 days was based upon the Egyptian calendar, which in turn was adjusted yearly by the insertion of 5 'days of the gods' to round it to 365 approximating the Solar Orbit of the Earth. The sabbaths throughout the Middle East were often 'adjusted' and weekly cycles reset by referring to the 'First of the Year' or 'First of the Month' for key months. There is in fact evidence for this in the OT, as well as in Egyptian intercalculation records. It is highly likely that the early Israelites followed ordinary Egyptian calendar practises, as evidenced by their choice of 30-day months and the Egyptian Solar year. Moses was trained in the mathematics and astronomy of Egypt, and it was more than adequate for his time.

(2) It is highly likely that the Essenes and other groups celebrated the sabbath on a different day of the week, enabling them to attend their own services as well as those of the Temple. This would be a very effective 'recruiting' practice, making them stand out from the Pharisees as well. According to Josephus, nearly a third of the Jews were 'Essene party' even when living normal integrated lives in Jewish Palestine. This exactly parallels the behaviour of the post-Christian Jewish believers, attending both Christian and Establishment Jewish services on different days, for another 400 years afterward.

(3) The current Greenwich Meantime arrangement is hopelessly flawed. As you are probably aware, the time zones are arbitrary, and even contradictory to the ancient Jewish practice recorded in the Talmud of waiting for the sunrise and using runners and signals to mark the start and stop of the sabbath and other days. At any one time of course, each time zone is assigned, not only an hour, but a DATE. and this date contradicts the natural interpretation of the date that would be assigned to nearby timezones in the Middle East. Even if we were to adopt a system similar to the Greenwich Meantime, the lines and dates would have to be assigned quite differently.

(4) As to the disruption of the sabbath, there actually is in fact evidence, in the form of isolated Jewish communities along the North African shore which can trace their arrival back to the Babylonian Exile, and which celebrate the sabbath on different days than Jews adopting standardized conventions presented by central Rabbinical authorities in Israel. Similarly, going Eastward, one runs into the glaring error of the modern assignment of days to the actual practices of isolated Jewish communities that can trace their roots back to the Exile and earlier.

(5) You haven't resolved the Arctic Circle issue.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
tall73 said:
Sure, now if you can place Abraham and Noah before the 7th day of creation your (sic) set.
What's the connection?

You've no evidence Adam kept the Sabbath, only an assumption.

The only connection I see is you make assumptions when you want.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
tall73 said:
You will have to ask Him that. But the Bible clearly says he did change the priesthood and is the true High Priest. It never says that He changed the Sabbath to Sunday.
Where does it say this? You just saying "Go read Hebrews" doesn't cut it.
tall73 said:
Nor did your church apparently which were keeping both 400 years later.
We still have services on Saturday, always have. But the "Lord's Day" is Sunday
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
tall73 said:
We have already clearly outlined that she did not form our doctrine. If you wish to make such statments, then back it up.
I already did, in the rest of my response to BrightCandle; an analogy about how one can take a verse from the Bible and interpret it a number of ways, and all can claim to be following the Bible.
tall73 said:
We received the Sabbath from the Seventh-day Baptists through Joseph Bates, a retired sea captain and millerite second-tier leader.
Sounds so much better
tall73 said:
We received the state of the dead largely through the Christian Connectionists background of JAMES WHITE and others. Ellen White was a Methodist and accepted Hell fire, etc during the early part of her life.
Then she got it wrong.
tall73 said:
We received the Sanctuary teaching from Hiram Edson, and indirectly from William Miller.

Of these only one is a unique Adventist contribution, and it was not initiated by EGW. So if you wish to dispute it you will need to provide some substantiating facts. Otherwise you simply speak from ignorance in order to discredit us.

Likewise, I expect Bright Candle to back up his statements about pagan material.
You're repeating the party-line, I can dig it!
"In official publications the SDA church continues to defend Ellen White legends, and maintain there was no difference in the degree of inspiration she received from that received by Bible writers "
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s18.html

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is evangelical Christian denomination based on the teachings of the Bible and also those of Ellen G. White.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church

Ellen G. White, along with her husband James White, were the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
http://www.ondoctrine.com/10sevadv.htm

AFFIRMATIONS
We believe that Scripture is the divinely revealed word of God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
We believe that the canon of Scripture is composed only of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.
We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
We believe that Scripture is the Word of God in human language.
We believe that Scripture teaches that the gift of prophecy will be manifest in the Christian church after New Testament times.
We believe that the ministry and writings of Ellen White were a manifestation of the gift of prophecy.
We believe that Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that her writings, the product of that inspiration, are applicable and authoritative, especially to Seventh-day Adventists.
We believe that the purposes of the Ellen White writings include guidance in understanding the teaching of Scripture and application of these teachings, with prophetic urgency, to the spiritual and moral life.

We believe that the acceptance of the prophetic gift of Ellen White is important to the nurture and unity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
We believe that Ellen White's use of literary sources and assistants finds parallels in some of the writings of the Bible.
Exhibit One. From The Adventist Review, December 23, 1982.
http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/issues/scripsda.html
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,698
6,115
Visit site
✟1,054,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nazaroo said:
Thank you again for your reasonable replies. Here, I have no dispute or paranoia regarding the Julian/Gregorian alterations. It seems quite reasonable to me that in the latter days the 'sabbath' was immovable as far as keeping track of it goes, in the narrow geographical region we discussed.

Thus I am quite willing to concede that quite possibly, the current 'sabbath' could be traced back with reasonable probability to the era of Jesus and the 2nd Temple establishment practice, that is, counting the days would hypothetically result in a large number factorizable by 'seven'.

Fair enough. That is progress.

This doesn't resolve five important problems I have with the blanket assertion that we have the right 'sabbath'.

(1) Moses' original calendar, made up of 12 months of 30 days, for a year of 360 days was based upon the Egyptian calendar, which in turn was adjusted yearly by the insertion of 5 'days of the gods' to round it to 365 approximating the Solar Orbit of the Earth. The sabbaths throughout the Middle East were often 'adjusted' and weekly cycles reset by referring to the 'First of the Year' or 'First of the Month' for key months. There is in fact evidence for this in the OT, as well as in Egyptian intercalculation records. It is highly likely that the early Israelites followed ordinary Egyptian calendar practises, as evidenced by their choice of 30-day months and the Egyptian Solar year. Moses was trained in the mathematics and astronomy of Egypt, and it was more than adequate for his time.

Alright, please show evidence that the weekly Sabbath was reset in the Bible.
(2) It is highly likely that the Essenes and other groups celebrated the sabbath on a different day of the week, enabling them to attend their own services as well as those of the Temple. This would be a very effective 'recruiting' practice, making them stand out from the Pharisees as well. According to Josephus, nearly a third of the Jews were 'Essene party' even when living normal integrated lives in Jewish Palestine. This exactly parallels the behaviour of the post-Christian Jewish believers, attending both Christian and Establishment Jewish services on different days, for another 400 years afterward.

Great, now show that evidence, and second of all, show why Jesus made no effort to clarify. If you simply say that it was not an issue to Him, then please clarify how you know this. What the essenes do, especially if it is a recruiting tool, is not really a basis to determine the correct day.

(3) The current Greenwich Meantime arrangement is hopelessly flawed. As you are probably aware, the time zones are arbitrary, and even contradictory to the ancient Jewish practice recorded in the Talmud of waiting for the sunrise and using runners and signals to mark the start and stop of the sabbath and other days. At any one time of course, each time zone is assigned, not only an hour, but a DATE. and this date contradicts the natural interpretation of the date that would be assigned to nearby timezones in the Middle East. Even if we were to adopt a system similar to the Greenwich Meantime, the lines and dates would have to be assigned quite differently.

Now this one could perhaps be an issue. Please show which regions this would be an issue in. But then that also doesn't help your original assertion that the Christians changed it to the true day. Especially when they really didn't seem to even pretend that their first day WAS the right day. They kep the Sabbath right before the resurrection.

In any case, this is dealing with modern issues which could then be keyed to the middle east. So it does not change the obligation at all.

(4) As to the disruption of the sabbath, there actually is in fact evidence, in the form of isolated Jewish communities along the North African shore which can trace their arrival back to the Babylonian Exile, and which celebrate the sabbath on different days than Jews adopting standardized conventions presented by central Rabbinical authorities in Israel. [/quote[

Ok, again, let's see it. Again it would raise the question of why Jesus didn't settle the issue if the day was wrong in His time. And if He took the time to reform the day it might be good to show why this wasn't important.

Similarly, going Eastward, one runs into the glaring error of the modern assignment of days to the actual practices of isolated Jewish communities that can trace their roots back to the Exile and earlier.

Er, I don't actually get you here. Please rephrase, I am afraid I am confused.
(5) You haven't resolved the Arctic Circle issue.

Indeed not. However, you are suggesting we define the rule by the exception.

Even if you have a problematic application for a few, does that in fact warrant changing everything for those who have no such problem applying it literally? In other words, even if concession is necessary, why make concessions where they are NOT necessary?

Good questions though. The arctic question particularly.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,698
6,115
Visit site
✟1,054,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Montalban said:
What's the connection?

You've no evidence Adam kept the Sabbath, only an assumption.

The only connection I see is you make assumptions when you want.

Nope, no assumptions in this case. It doesn't matter whether Adam kept it. God did. And the meaning was established then. The meaning was to commemorate creation. It was not tied to the sacrifices.

Now the question was why we would keep the Sabbath if not the temple. Because the Sabbath was not related to the temple. And the temple was stated to have run its course as a symbol. The temple was all about sacrifice, as you rightly pointed out. And Cain, Noah, Abraham, etc. all made sacrifice. But the Sabbath was something separate from sacrifices, and came before them.

The meaning of the Sabbath was established wholly apart from this sacrificial system and pointed to something else. So there is no reason to throw it out with the temple. Nor is there any reason to replace it with the resurrection.

In fact the early Christians did not. They kept Sabbath for Sabbath and Sunday for Sunday.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,698
6,115
Visit site
✟1,054,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Montalban said:
tall73 said:
You will have to ask Him that. But the Bible clearly says he did change the priesthood and is the true High Priest. It never says that He changed the Sabbath to Sunday.

Where does it say this? You just saying "Go read Hebrews" doesn't cut it.

Montalban, are you asking where it says that Jesus is the true High Priest again?

Is the third time the charm? I never said ONLY to read Hebrews (though you clearly didn't do that). I posted the texts twice already. Anyone who reads this can see it. If you can't it is because you don't want to.

But I will pick just one clear sample for you this time so you cannot possibly miss it.

HEB 8:1 The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest
, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.

HEB 8:3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5
They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." 6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

We still have services on Saturday, always have. But the "Lord's Day" is Sunday.
So what is your problem with the Sabbath then? I never said you couldn't keep Sunday in honor of the resurrection. Feel free. But replacing the Sabbath with it is not a viable option. If you are now saying that didn't happen fine. If you are though saying that the solemnity as some would say was transferred from one day to another, then that you must demonstrate.

 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,698
6,115
Visit site
✟1,054,571.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
[
Montalban said:
I already did, in the rest of my response to BrightCandle; an analogy about how one can take a verse from the Bible and interpret it a number of ways, and all can claim to be following the Bible.

Sorry that does not in fact show that she formed any doctrine of our church. That says that people read the Bible differently. So until you show proof, there is nothing from you but talk.

Sounds so much better

Well it does when you consider that your church kept it for 400 years after Jesus. Should we not claim that either?


Then she got it wrong.

And even assuming your view on the doctrine is correct, this shows that we got the doctrine from her how?

More talk, show the proof.

You're repeating the party-line, I can dig it!

But can you show that she in fact founded a doctrine? If not, then you are repeating claims by some hack web site with no proof.

"In official publications the SDA church continues to defend Ellen White legends, and maintain there was no difference in the degree of inspiration she received from that received by Bible writers "
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s18.html

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is evangelical Christian denomination based on the teachings of the Bible and also those of Ellen G. White.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church

Ellen G. White, along with her husband James White, were the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
http://www.ondoctrine.com/10sevadv.htm

Don't we hear all the time that we distort the doctrines of Catholics and Orthodox? Obviously the best place to show what someone believes is their critics.

We now affirm then that you drink blood as cannibals, worship Mary ,etc. Afterall, I can certainly find an article on the net that says it.

But what you can't find is actual proof that EGW formulated the doctrine of our church.

But even if you did, I have an out clause. I don't personally base my belief on EGW. Nor do I have to. Nor am I lost if I don't. Nor do I claim that others have to or they are lost. Nor do I claim that EGW is the rule of faith. She said herself she wasn't. Nor do I take the party line on doctrine. Which you would see if you visited the SDA forum at times. I disagree with several points of doctrine from the established view. But I agree on the major points. So I stay with them

But you have no such out. Your church must be right in your view. Ok. So follow your church. And hope they really are right.


AFFIRMATIONS
We believe that Scripture is the divinely revealed word of God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
We believe that the canon of Scripture is composed only of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.
We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
We believe that Scripture is the Word of God in human language.
We believe that Scripture teaches that the gift of prophecy will be manifest in the Christian church after New Testament times.
We believe that the ministry and writings of Ellen White were a manifestation of the gift of prophecy.
We believe that Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that her writings, the product of that inspiration, are applicable and authoritative, especially to Seventh-day Adventists.
We believe that the purposes of the Ellen White writings include guidance in understanding the teaching of Scripture and application of these teachings, with prophetic urgency, to the spiritual and moral life.
We believe that the acceptance of the prophetic gift of Ellen White is important to the nurture and unity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
We believe that Ellen White's use of literary sources and assistants finds parallels in some of the writings of the Bible.
Exhibit One. From The Adventist Review, December 23, 1982.
http://www.egwtext.whiteestate.org/issues/scripsda.html




Sorry, I am not worried about what Adventists say about EGW. The question is what she says about herself.


The Lord desires you to study your Bibles. He has not given any additional light to take the place of His Word. This light is to bring confused minds to His Word, which, if eaten and digested, is as the lifeblood of the soul. Then good works will be seen as light shining in darkness. (Letter 130, 1901.)


Here is an example of her speaking about a man, Dr. Waggoner, who disagreed with something on her regarding the book of Galatians. Notice she in no way demands that the group adhere to her version. In fact most of the leaders of the church WANTED her to settle it that way. But she would not. She said they must show from the Scriptures that he is wrong if they wish to correct him.


I entreat you to exercise the spirit of Christians. Do not let strong feelings of prejudice arise, for we should be prepared to investigate the Scriptures with unbiased minds, with reverence and candor. It becomes us to pray over matters of difference in views of Scripture. Personal feelings should not be allowed to influence our words or our judgment. It will grieve the Spirit of God if you close your understanding to the light which God sends you.
Dr. Waggoner has spoken to us in a straightforward manner. There is precious light in what he has said. Some things presented in reference to the law in Galatians, if I fully understand his position, do not harmonize with the understanding I have had of this subject; but truth will lose nothing by investigation, therefore I plead for Christ's sake that you come to the living Oracles, and with prayer and humiliation seek God. Everyone should feel that he has the privilege of searching the Scriptures for himself, and he should do this with earnest prayer that God will give him a right understanding of His word, that he may know from positive evidence that he does know what is truth.

I would have humility of mind, and be willing to be instructed as a child. The Lord has been pleased to give me great light, yet I know that He leads other minds, and opens to them the mysteries of His Word, and I want to receive every ray of light that God shall send me, though it should come through the humblest of His servants.
Of one thing I am certain, as Christians you have no right to entertain feelings of enmity, unkindness, and prejudice toward Dr. Waggoner, who has presented his views in a plain, straightforward manner, as a Christian should. If he is in error, you should, in a calm, rational,
164
Christlike manner, seek to show him from the Word of God where he is out of harmony with its teachings. If you cannot do this you have no right as Christians to pick flaws, to criticize, to work in the dark, to prejudice minds with your objections. This is Satan's way of working.
Some interpretations of Scripture given by Dr. Waggoner I do not regard as correct. But I believe him to be perfectly honest in his views, and I would respect his feelings and treat him as a Christian gentleman. I have no reason to think that he is not as much esteemed of God as are any of my brethren, and I shall regard him as a Christian brother, so long as there is no evidence that he is unworthy. The fact that he honestly holds some views of Scripture differing from yours or mine is no reason why we should treat him as an offender, or as a dangerous man, and make him the subject of unjust criticism.
We should not raise a voice of censure against him or his teachings unless we can present weighty reasons for so doing and show him that he is in error.
Minneapolis, Minnesota, November 1888 - Ms 15, 1888

It would greatly benefit our schools if regular meetings were held frequently in which all the teachers could unite in the study of the word of God. They should search the Scriptures as did the noble Bereans. They should subordinate all preconceived opinions, and taking the Bible as their lesson book, comparing scripture with scripture, they should learn what to teach their students, and how to train them for acceptable service.
The teacher's success will depend largely upon the spirit which is brought into the work. A profession of faith does not make men Christians; but if teachers will open their hearts to the study of the word, they will be able to aid their students to a clearer understanding. Let not the spirit of controversy come in, but let each seek earnestly for the light and knowledge that he needs. Counsels to Parents, Teachers and Students (1913), page 432


A statement on the nature of unity as relating to Scripture. She does not say we should all unify behind her writings. She instead says that different views will exist, but we are to have the Spirit of Christ. And if you did any serious study on the Adventist church you would find that there were a number of interpretations on many biblical issues. They did not submit their biblical understanding to anyone.
One man may be conversant with the Scriptures, and some particular portion of the Scripture may be especially appreciated by him; another sees another portion as very important, and thus one may present one point, and another, another point, and both may be of highest value. This is all in the order of God. But if a man makes a mistake in his interpretation of some portion of the Scripture, shall this cause diversity and disunion? God forbid. We cannot then take a position that the unity of the church consists in viewing every text of Scripture in the very same light. The church may pass resolution upon resolution to put down all disagreement of opinions, but we cannot force the mind and will, and thus root out disagreement. These resolutions may conceal the discord, but they cannot quench it and establish perfect agreement. Nothing can perfect unity in the church but the spirit of Christlike forbearance. Satan can sow discord; Christ alone can harmonize the disagreeing elements. Then let every soul sit down in Christ's school and learn of Christ, who declares Himself to be meek and lowly of heart. Christ says that if we learn of Him, worries will cease and we shall find rest to our souls. {11MR 266.1}


But even if you don't accept her own words about her writings, it doesn't matter. Because she also encouraged that her writings NOT be used as a test of joining the church. While the church has not always honored this the facts are that there are many people in the church who do not accept EGW at all. Some claim she suffered head trauma. Some claim she was just a false prophet, well meaning but decieved. But they still are in the church because they believe our doctrines are the closest to the Bible.

And finally, even if you wish to believe that all Adventists slavishly follow EGW, it still does not do anything for your argument on the Sabbath. Because we are not the only group that hold to it, nor are the biblical arguments changed.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
tall73 said:
Montalban, are you asking where it says that Jesus is the true High Priest again?
Indeed, because I didn't see you mention Jesus overturning it, you mentioned Paul did.

Which again leads to the problem that you are happy that Paul overturns the priesthood, but not that the Sabbath; which you call 'development.

You are correct, we do seem to be going around in circles as you justify one action one way, and the same action another

In effect we have you arguing
Sabbath was overturned by 'the church' some time after Jesus, this is bad.
Priesthood was overturned by Paul some time after Jesus, this is good... which is odd too, because the Bible is clear that the priesthood continued (see below)

Hebrews 8 is indeed getting rid of the practice of Saturday worship, because as you so well put it the priests performed sacrifice on that day, and now with the 'new' covenant, they have the "Lord's Day" for this, which is Sunday... as shown by
Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.
We know also that they passed the plate around on Sunday (1 Corinthians 16:2), and that we also know from Paul that this 'breaking of bread' was not a 'meal', but a part of the new covenant.
1 Cor 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in?



He is saying that when the believers come together normally to eat together it is NOT the same as the Lord's Supper. The Lord's Supper is different. Which is also reflected in Ignatius' work...

Epistle to the Ephesians

20:2 especially if the Lord should reveal aught to me. Assemble yourselves together in common, every one of you severally, man by man, in grace, in one faith and one Jesus Christ, who after the flesh was of David's race, who is Son of Man and Son of God, to the end that ye may obey the bishop and presbytery without distraction of mind; breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote that we should not die but live for ever in Jesus Christ.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html


The priesthood was continued by the Apostles...

St. Ignatius, taught by St. Peter himself, and writing before the Bible was compiled wrote...

Epistle to the Ephesians

CHAPTER 5

5:1 For if I in a short time had such converse with your bishop, which was not after the manner of men but in the Spirit, how much more do I congratulate you who are closely joined with him as the Church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that all things may be harmonious in unity.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-lightfoot.html

This reflects the Epistle;

Titus 1:7 Since a bishop is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless–not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
"Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid"
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2123_357530

Each church headed by a bishop is catholic.


The 'new' Sabbath of the new covenant was praciteced by the Apostles, by the new priests. But you want to say that Jesus did away with one (based on what an Apostle said), and not the other (based on it not being mentioned by Jesus). So you selectively choose what it is you want to follow, as far as I can see.


tall73 said:
So what is your problem with the Sabbath then? I never said you couldn't keep Sunday in honor of the resurrection. Feel free. But replacing the Sabbath with it is not a viable option. If you are now saying that didn't happen fine. If you are though saying that the solemnity as some would say was transferred from one day to another, then that you must demonstrate.
The Sabbath is replaced by "The Lord's Day" as the prime day of worshipping God. That is in fact why you picked up that Ignatius mentions Saturday. Which is odd then that you didn't pick up on where he said that Sunday is the day of the new covenant.

IGNATIUS to the Magnesians
CHAPTER 9 9:1 If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny -- a mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this cause we endure patiently, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher

...

10:1 Therefore let us not be insensible to His goodness. For if He should imitate us according to our deeds, we are lost. For this cause, seeing that we are become His disciples, let us learn to live as beseemeth Christianity. For whoso is called by another name besides this, is not of God.

10:2 Therefore put away the vile leaven which hath waxed stale and sour, and betake yourselves to the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him,
that none among you grow putrid, seeing that by your savour ye shall be proved.
10:3 It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity, wherein every tongue believed and was gathered together unto God.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-magnesians-lightfoot.html





The Epistle of Barnabas, written sometime after the year 80 says...

Barnabas 15:8
Finally He saith to them; Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot away with. Ye see what is His meaning ; it is not your present Sabbaths that are acceptable [unto Me], but the Sabbath which I have made, in the which, when I have set all things at rest, I will make the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another world.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-lightfoot.html



So, if you want to 'keep the Sabbath' but remember the "Lord's Day" on Sunday, I have no problem with it. But we are not Jews. The blood of the new Covenant is for Sunday.
 
Upvote 0

Montalban

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
35,424
1,509
58
Sydney, NSW
✟42,787.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
As Tall73 is impressed by masive cut and paste:
Here are the words of Protestant luminaries Martin Luther and John Calvin
who both wrote against people who worship only on a Saturday...

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Endtimes/Sabbath3.html
Luther Against the Sabbatarians Martin Luther
Against the Sabbatarians: Letter to a Good Friend
1538

Introduction
"The term 'Sabbatarians' has been used to refer to a number of movements,
occurring in various epochs of church history, which have as their common
denominator an insistence on a return by Christians to the essentials of
Jewish Sabbath observance. Usually they are also characterized by an
intense eschatological expectation, together with an inclination toward
literalism in the interpretation of both the Old and the New Testaments."
"In view of Luther's emphasis on Christian freedom, based on a clear
distinction between law and gospel, it was predictable that he would
vigorously oppose the Sabbatarian position. What gives special point to
Luther's treatise is his assumption that Jewish agitation and efforts at
proselytization lay at the root of the movement."


Against the Sabbatarians: Letter to a Good Friend

In the first part of his letter Luther proves that Jews are wrong in their
expectations and that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah. We have
selected those parts from Part Two which deal with the Ten Commandments in
general and the commandment concerning the Sabbath in particular.
Part Two

...Finally, we also want to discuss the Ten Commandments. For perhaps the
Jews will also call the Ten Commandments the law of Moses, since they were
given on Mount Sinai in the presence of none but the Jews or children of
Abraham, etc. You must reply: If the Ten Commandments are to be regarded
as Moses' law, then Moses came far too late, and he also addressed himself
to far too few people, because the Ten Commandments had spread over the
whole world not only before Moses but even before Abraham and all the
patriarchs. For even if a Moses had never appeared and Abraham had never
been born, the Ten Commandments would have had to rule in all men from the
very beginning, as they indeed did and still do.
For all creatures rightly regard God as God and honor his name, as do also
the angels in heaven. Thus we and all human beings are obligated to hear
his word, to honor father and mother, to refrain from killing, from
adultery, from stealing, from bearing false witness, from coveting one's
neighbor's house or anything else that is his. All the heathen bear
witness to this in their writings, laws, and governments, as can be
clearly seen; but nothing is said therein of circumcision or the laws
Moses gave to the Jews for the land of Canaan.
Moses did precede all other legislators, however, in revealing in his
history the genesis of all creatures and the coming of death into the whole
world through Adam's fall or sin. And later when he wants to set up a
special law and nation apart from all others, as he has been commanded to
do, he first introduces God himself; he is the universal God of all the
nations, who gives the universal Ten Commandments—which prior to this had
been implanted at creation in the hearts of all men—to this particular
people orally as well. In his day Moses fitted them nicely into his laws
in a more orderly and excellent manner than could have been done by anyone
else. Circumcision and the law of Moses, however, were not implanted in
men's hearts; they were first imposed by Abraham and Moses on their
people...

...Similarly, the third commandment concerning the Sabbath, of which the
Jews make so much, is per se a commandment that applies to the whole world;
but the form in which Moses frames it and adapts it to his people was
imposed only on the Jews, just as with regard to the first commandment
none but the Jews must believe and confess that the common God of all the
world led them out of Egypt. For the true meaning of the third commandment
is that we on that day should teach and hear the word of God, thereby
sanctifying both the day and ourselves. And in accord with this, ever
after to the present day, Moses and the prophets are read and preached on
the Sabbath day among the Jews. Wherever God's word is preached it follows
naturally that one must necessarily celebrate at the same hour or time and
be quiet, and without any other preoccupation only speak and hear what God
declares, what he teaches and tells us.
Therefore everything depends completely on this, that we sanctify the day.
This is more important than celebrating it. For God does not say: You
shall celebrate the holy day or make it a Sabbath—that will take care of
itself. No, you shall sanctify the holy day or Sabbath. He is far more
concerned about the sanctifying than about the celebrating of it. And
where one or the other might be or must be neglected, it would be far
better to neglect the celebrating than the sanctifying, since the
commandment places the greater emphasis on the sanctifying and does not
institute the Sabbath for its own sake, but for the sake of its being
sanctified. The Jews, however, lay greater emphasis on the celebrating than
on the sanctifying (which God and Moses do not do) because of the
additions they have made.
Moses' mention of the seventh day, and of how God created the world in six
days, which is why they are to do no work—all this is a temporal
adaptation with which Moses suits this commandment to his people,
especially at that time. We find nothing written about this previously,
either by Abraham or at the time of the old fathers. This is a temporary
addendum and adaptation intended solely for this people which was brought
out of Egypt. Nor was it to endure forever, any more than was the whole
law of Moses. But the sanctifying—that is, the teaching and preaching of
God's word, which is the true, genuine, and sole meaning of this
commandment—has been from the beginning and pertains to all the world
forever. Therefore the seventh day does not concern us Gentiles, nor did
it concern the Jews beyond the advent of the Messiah, although by the very
nature of things one must, as already said, rest, celebrate, and keep the
Sabbath on whatever day or at whatever hour God's word is preached. For
God's word cannot be heard or taught when one is preoccupied with
something else or when one is not quiet.
Therefore Isaiah, too, declares in chapter 66 [:23] that the seventh day,
or, as I call it, Moses' adaptation of it, will cease at the time of the
Messiah when true sanctification and the word of God will appear richly.
He says that there will be one Sabbath after another and one new moon
after another, that is, that all will be sheer Sabbath, and there will no
longer be any particular seventh day with six days in between. For the
sanctifying or the word of God will enjoy full scope daily and abundantly,
and every day will be a Sabbath...

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Endtimes/Sabbath2.html
Calvin Refutes Sabbath-keeping John Calvin
Institutes of the Christian Religion
Translated by Henry Beveridge


Volume 2.
Chapter 8. Exposition of the Moral Law. Fourth Commandment.
Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour and
do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God.
In it thou shalt not do any work, &c.
28. The purport of the commandment is, that being dead to our own
affections and works, we meditate on the kingdom of God, and in order to
such meditation, have recourse to the means which he has appointed. But as
this commandment stands in peculiar circumstances apart from the others,
the mode of exposition must be somewhat different. Early Christian writers
are wont to call it typical, as containing the external observance of a
day which was abolished with the other types on the advent of Christ. This
is indeed true; but it leaves the half of the matter untouched. Wherefore,
we must look deeper for our exposition, and attend to three cases in which
it appears to me that the observance of this commandment consists. First,
under the rest of the seventh days the divine Lawgiver meant to furnish the
people of Israel with a type of the spiritual rest by which believers were
to cease from their own works, and allow God to work in them. Secondly he
meant that there should be a stated day on which they should assemble to
hear the Law, and perform religious rites, or which, at least, they should
specially employ in meditating on his works, and be thereby trained to
piety. Thirdly, he meant that servants, and those who lived under the
authority of others, should be indulged with a day of rest, and thus have
some intermission from labour.
29. We are taught in many passages that this adumbration of spiritual rest
held a primary place in the Sabbath. Indeed, there is no commandment the
observance of which the Almighty more strictly enforces. When he would
intimate by the Prophets that religion was entirely subverted, he
complains that his sabbaths were polluted, violated, not kept, not
hallowed; as if, after it was neglected, there remained nothing in which
he could be honoured. The observance of it he eulogises in the highest
terms, and hence, among other divine privileges, the faithful set an
extraordinary value on the revelation of the Sabbath. In Nehemiah, the
Levites, in the public assembly, thus speak: "Thou madest known unto them
thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by
the hand of Moses thy servant." You see the singular honour which it holds
among all the precepts of the Law. All this tends to celebrate the dignity
of the mystery, which is most admirably expressed by Moses and Ezekiel.
Thus in Exodus: "Verily my sabbaths shall ye keep: for it is a sign
between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am
the Lord that does sanctify you. Ye shall keep my sabbath therefore; for
it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to
death: for whosoever does any work therein, that soul shall be cut off
from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is
the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever does any work in the
sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of
Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their
generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the
children of Israel for ever," (Exodus 31:13—17.) Ezekiel is still more
full, but the sum of what he says amounts to this: that the sabbath is a
sign by which Israel might know that God is their sanctifier. If our
sanctification consists in the mortification of our own will, the analogy
between the external sign and the thing signified is most appropriate. We
must rest entirely, in order that God may work in us; we must resign our
own will, yield up our heart, and abandon all the lusts of the flesh. In
short, we must desist from all the acts of our own mind, that God working
in us, we may rest in him, as the Apostle also teaches. (Heb. 3:13;
4:3,9.)
 
Upvote 0