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

[Montalban]

Indeed, the priest was. And we do have a priest. His name is Jesus. Moreover the sacrificial system was the point of the priesthood. Do you not agree that Jesus was the Sacrifice for our sins?

IF Paul continued to attend Church, then were there priests?

And now I addressed both.

No, you still are speaking every argument at once. You say Paul went to church, although there weren't any churches, there were synagogues and temples. You want to say Jesus ended the priesthood, but you don't say why Paul went to church, if that were the case.

Where does it say Jesus ended the priesthood?

We have already shown you that the commandment referred back to the day. If God blessed it and sanctified it with Adam there (created the 6th day) do you think Adam didn't notice?

That's a riot! Where does it say Adam kept the Sabbath? It doesn't. The only law given to Adam was everything was for him, except the fruit of one tree.

You appear to not understand the text referenced. Paul went to the place of prayer where there WAS NO SYNAGOGUE in that town. Whenever there was, he went to one. So he didn't change anything.

Paul continued to go to synagogues, even though you believe the priesthood was ended.

Paul didn't modify the synagogue service. The synagogue service first of all was not a command of God, as we already covered.

The vestments of the priests are in the OT, I've already cited this, and Moses says its a commandment from God that the Levites all perform a certain way.

But churches are essentially just Messianic synagogue services. They were a place to read and hear the Scriptures read etc.

Why doesn't your priest wear the vestments then? (If you think just the 'sacrifice' element is abrogated)

The temple was for sacrifices and God Himself showed that it was finished by rending the temple. Jesus is now our High Priest in heaven.

Where does it say Jesus is the high priest in heaven, and if this was so, why, when there was one in a town, Paul still visited them?

So you are right. If God Himself instituted it as part of the new covenant, I would have no problem with it. But there is no text that says He changed Sabbath to Sunday as part of the new covenant.

There's none that says "Don't go to church"
In fact Paul continues (1 Corinthians 11:17ff) the 'sacrifice' with the Lord's Supper... which itself was instigated by Jesus

You might want to read the text in question. Paul never said don't go to church. He went to church whenever there was one.

What church did he attend? Was it the Church of the Holy .... ?



So. Where are we up to.



Moses passed on God's commandment about the priesthood,[1] who did have a function concerning the sacrifice. You believe the sacrifice was over-turned by Jesus; so you at least accept that a commandment of God can be overturned here.



Your argument about Adam is based not on the Bible saying so, but you just appealing that it just must have been so... thus the Bible itself doesn't need to say it explicitly, but you demand for explicit proofs when you question too!



If this is given as true, and Paul clearly continued to visit the Temple, why don't you? Did the priests stop wearing vestments? It was a command from God. IF just the sacrifice part was overturned, why is everything else stopped too - does your priest wear the vestments as commanded by God?



Jesus Himself began a new covenant[2]; the Eucharist, which Paul affirms he continues[3], but you select which commandments you want to obey; the Sabbath, yes, but not the new covenant. You priests don't have vestments, EVEN IF just the sacrificial element was over-turned, where does it say the vestments are too? And why then have ministers (whatever you call them) at all?



Endnotes

[1] Garments of priests as commanded by God

Exodus 28:4
And these are the garments which they shall make; a breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a broidered coat, a mitre, and a girdle: and they shall make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, and his sons, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.

Exodus 39:41
The cloths of service to do service in the holy place, and the holy garments for Aaron the priest, and his sons' garments, to minister in the priest's office.

[2] Jesus instigates a New Covenant

John 6:35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."



41 At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42 They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"



43 "Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."



52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"



53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.


[3] Paul affirms this


1 Corinthians 11

The Lord's Supper
17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 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? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.
And when I come I will give further directions.

 

[BrightCandle]

How'd you know?

But seriously, I don't believe in man-made religion. I believe in God-made religion. You want to believe E White who came along 1,800 years after the events, so be it.

Montalban:

All 28 fundamental beliefs of the SDA church stand alone on Scripture, without one word from EGW being used to support them. The Eastern Orthodox church cannot make that claim, because many of her doctrines are based on tradition. The Jews were much older than the Orthodox church, and were entrusted with "the oracles of God", but inspite of that fact, they were finally rejected as God's true church. This same principle applies to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church, when they both assimilated paganism into their doctrines.

 

[tall73]

IF Paul continued to attend Church, then were there priests?

Montalban, please try to see the Bible apart from your own view of the church. The Priest MINISTERED AT THE TEMPLE not the synagogue. Priests today are a totally different concept. The synagogue was analagous to today's church, and yes Paul attended. The temple was where the sacrifices was done, and while he did in fact go to make a nazarite vow, which involved offerings, it was done as a concession to James and the Judaizers. Hebrews makes it quite clear that not only was the priesthood supplanted by Jesus' priesthood, but that the whole thing was unable to take away sins to start with. It was simply a symbol.

As to Paul not going to church, it was BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SYNAGOGUE IN THAT TOWN. You cannot go to church if there is no church. So he went to the river where there was a place of prayer.

No, you still are speaking every argument at once. You say Paul went to church, although there weren't any churches, there were synagogues and temples. You want to say Jesus ended the priesthood, but you don't say why Paul went to church, if that were the case.

Because the church/synagogue was not the place where the priests were. They were in the temple.

Where does it say Jesus ended the priesthood?

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:

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.

That's a riot! Where does it say Adam kept the Sabbath? It doesn't. The only law given to Adam was everything was for him, except the fruit of one tree.

We have hashed this out already. Where did it say they were told not to murder? How did Cain know it was wrong? Adam was there on the 7th day, he certainly didn't miss God's act.

Paul continued to go to synagogues, even though you believe the priesthood was ended.

You continually confuse synagogues with temples.

The vestments of the priests are in the OT, I've already cited this, and Moses says its a commandment from God that the Levites all perform a certain way.

Why doesn't your priest wear the vestments then? (If you think just the 'sacrifice' element is abrogated)

If Jesus wears a vestment in heaven, I certainly am not one to stop Him. Priests, and the whole earthly temple were simply pointing to Jesus. We have the real deal now.

Where does it say Jesus is the high priest in heaven, and if this was so, why, when there was one in a town, Paul still visited them?

It would do you well to read the book of Hebrews. I have cited it for you above. It also explains that the real temple was always in heaven, the one on earth was always a symbol.

And Paul went to the SYNAGOGUE, not the temple. The temple is where you find priests. Not the synagogue.

There's none that says "Don't go to church"
In fact Paul continues (1 Corinthians 11:17ff) the 'sacrifice' with the Lord's Supper... which itself was instigated by Jesus

So now you are saying that the sacrifice is repeated with the Lord's supper? Then you are at odds with Hebrews again. It says He offered Himself ONCE and then sat down. It contrasted this with the earthly priest who offered again and again the same sacrifices which can never take away sin.

Moreover, Paul never said not to go to church. I think you are again confused. I said he didn't go to church when there was none to go to, but still went to a place of prayer, which was the next best thing.

What church did he attend? Was it the Church of the Holy .... ?

It was the synagogue. Or sometimes someone's home. Or sometimes a common building. Or when they were kicked out of the synagogue a lecture hall. The point was meeting together. The point was not to have a big church, with priests, etc. That was later convention that borrowed the language from the OT to give added legitimacy.

Moreover, as was already stated by another poster, the Bible says that we are all a royal priesthood, with Jesus as our High Priest.

 

[Cliff2]

Montalban:

All 28 fundamental beliefs of the SDA church stand alone on Scripture, without one word from EGW being used to support them. The Eastern Orthodox church cannot make that claim, because many of her doctrines are based on tradition. The Jews were much older than the Orthodox church, and were entrusted with "the oracles of God", but inspite of that fact, they were finally rejected as God's true church. This same principle applies to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church, when they both assimilated paganism into their doctrines.

Very Correct, they can stand alone on the

Bible and the Bible only.​

 

[Nazaroo]

A. I have seen evidence of the questions regarding feasts. Do you have historical evidence of questions about the timing of the Sabbath? That would be interesting.

B. The discussion of the Christians does have a bearing, because they formulated those views (I agree, rationalizations), in opposition to the currently practicing Jews (dialogue with Trypho, etc.). So it is a witness to the Jewish understanding of the Sabbath at the time.

And while they certainly did have a variety of opinions (as my earlier posts documented), they nevertheless seem to have had a universal understanding of what days were what. They simply disagreed on their significance.

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.

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.

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."

A good start would probably be:

Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time by James C. Vanderkam 1998. This is an excellent introduction to the nature and extent of the evidence from Qumran.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban, please try to see the Bible apart from your own view of the church.

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

The Priest MINISTERED AT THE TEMPLE not the synagogue. Priests today are a totally different concept.

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.

The synagogue was analagous to today's church, and yes Paul attended. The temple was where the sacrifices was done, and while he did in fact go to make a nazarite vow, which involved offerings, it was done as a concession to James and the Judaizers. Hebrews makes it quite clear that not only was the priesthood supplanted by Jesus' priesthood, but that the whole thing was unable to take away sins to start with. It was simply a symbol.

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.

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. 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.

As to Paul not going to church, it was BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SYNAGOGUE IN THAT TOWN. You cannot go to church if there is no church. So he went to the river where there was a place of prayer.

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).

Because the church/synagogue was not the place where the priests were. They were in the temple.

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

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?

We have hashed this out already. Where did it say they were told not to murder? How did Cain know it was wrong? Adam was there on the 7th day, he certainly didn't miss God's act.

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.

You continually confuse synagogues with temples.

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

If Jesus wears a vestment in heaven, I certainly am not one to stop Him. Priests, and the whole earthly temple were simply pointing to Jesus. We have the real deal now.

Where's it say Jesus wears them in heaven?

It would do you well to read the book of Hebrews. I have cited it for you above. It also explains that the real temple was always in heaven, the one on earth was always a symbol.

Like the Sabbath being for man?

And Paul went to the SYNAGOGUE, not the temple. The temple is where you find priests. Not the synagogue.

Acts 21:27-28:31

So now you are saying that the sacrifice is repeated with the Lord's supper? Then you are at odds with Hebrews again. It says He offered Himself ONCE and then sat down. It contrasted this with the earthly priest who offered again and again the same sacrifices which can never take away sin.

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!

Moreover, Paul never said not to go to church. I think you are again confused. I said he didn't go to church when there was none to go to, but still went to a place of prayer, which was the next best thing.

See Acts

Moreover, as was already stated by another poster, the Bible says that we are all a royal priesthood, with Jesus as our High Priest.

Where?

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:
All 28 fundamental beliefs of the SDA church stand alone on Scripture,

Where in the Bible does it say that there are 28 fundamental beliefs to believe in?

without one word from EGW being used to support them.

She supplies your interpretation

The Eastern Orthodox church cannot make that claim, because many of her doctrines are based on tradition.

As they should be; the Bible is based on tradition.
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)



“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (II Thessalonians 2:15)

The Jews were much older than the Orthodox church, and were entrusted with "the oracles of God", but inspite of that fact, they were finally rejected as God's true church.

Given that there's no written word regarding the Jews keeping the Sabbath prior to Moses, you believe that they followed this tradition! So you've no reason to question tradition, anyway.

This same principle applies to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church, when they both assimilated paganism into their doctrines.

Really? What paganism has been assimilated by the EOC?

The Bible says that it doesn't contain all that Jesus taught, that not everything taught, was written down
John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Paul says that his authority to teach comes from the lord (1 Thess. 4:2), not the Bible. The Bible is a tool to use to teach, for sure, but it is not the only one. Which is why that apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

Other examples show that he did not use scripture... with specific lessons not even in scripture. Where Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching.

He also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

None of this negates that the Bible is not all inspired by God.

 

[BrightCandle]

Where in the Bible does it say that there are 28 fundamental beliefs to believe in?
She supplies your interpretation
As they should be; the Bible is based on tradition.
Given that there's no written word regarding the Jews keeping the Sabbath prior to Moses, you believe that they followed this tradition! So you've no reason to question tradition, anyway.
Really? What paganism has been assimilated by the EOC?

The number 28 is not the point, the fact the cardinal doctrines of the SDA church stand alone using just Scripture without tradition or any of the writings of EGW, that is the point. The EOC or the RCC cannot make that claim.

You say that EGW supplies the interpretation, here is the proof that that is false. If I were brought before a court of law, and was cross examined by a lawyer regarding the basis of our SDA doctrines I could show the court how that all doctrines can be supported by the 66 books of the Bible, and that all of the doctrines except the heavenly sancturary doctrine (which is supported by the book of Hebrews) have been in existence before the time of EGW, and were held by other Protestant churches (e.g. Sabbath, Second Coming, state of the dead, etc.). While if you were brought before the same court you would have to quote church tradition, the early church fathers, and the Apocrypha as a basis for Sunday keeping, praying to the dead, etc.).

Adam and Eve lived before the Jews, and the kept the Sabbath. There is a Scriptural basis for Sabbath keeping from the Creation of mankind to our time. Why would the Patriarch keep any other day? Sunday has always been associated with Pagan Sun worship throughout the annuals of ancient history.

When I say church tradition, it has to do with doctrines that are contrary to the Scriptures, and which use church tradition as the sole basis for their existence, hence trumping Scripture. For example: Sunday vs Sabbath.

 

[Montalban]

The number 28 is not the point

Why mention it? Why not just 'all of...'? 28 then is not a significant 'fact'.

the fact the cardinal doctrines of the SDA church stand alone using just Scripture without tradition or any of the writings of EGW, that is the point. The EOC or the RCC cannot make that claim.

We don't use the writings of EGW either.
And you do use tradition, as noted re: the Sabbath in Genesis. You've (if you believe as Tall73) assumed that Adam kept it, even though it's not written. You've assumed that priests don't need to wear vestments; despite the commandments of God, etc. You also establish your church based in part on Scripture when Scripture itself does not say "Start a church". What verses of Scripture instructed you to establish your church 1,800 years after the event?

You say that EGW supplies the interpretation, here is the proof that that is false. If I were brought before a court of law, and was cross examined by a lawyer regarding the basis of our SDA doctrines I could show the court how that all doctrines can be supported by the 66 books of the Bible, and that all of the doctrines except the heavenly sanctuary doctrine (which is supported by the book of Hebrews) have been in existence before the time of EGW, and were held by other Protestant churches (e.g. Sabbath, Second Coming, state of the dead, etc.).

Given the fact that 99.99% of Protestant churches make the claim to being based on the Bible, yet all interpret verses differently, then the filter by which your are guided is EGW.

Take the verse about if your eye offends, pluck it out. If you did pluck it out, it would be based on the Bible. If you didn't, because you read it as metaphorical, it would still be based on the Bible. Both are bible-based interpretations, but lead to two different conclusions. So the claim "We believe what the Bible says" isn't as meaningful as you might believe. You've just assumed that your interpretations are 'it'... without consciously realising that they're filtered through the thinking of EGW. Sorry if this challenges long-held assumptions.

While if you were brought before the same court you would have to quote church tradition, the early church fathers, and the Apocrypha as a basis for Sunday keeping, praying to the dead, etc.).

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.

Adam and Eve lived before the Jews, and the kept the Sabbath.

Cite me the verses that said that they did. If you meant Gen 2:2, you should have said so...
Here's what one famous commentator says...
Christ has a right to make such a change (Mark 2:23-28). As Creator, Christ was the original Lord of the Sabbath (John 1:3; Heb. 1:10). It was originally a memorial of creation. A work vastly greater than that of creation has now been accomplished by him, the work of redemption. We would naturally expect just such a change as would make the Sabbath a memorial of that greater work. True, we can give no text authorizing the change in so many words. We have no express law declaring the change. But there are evidences of another kind. We know for a fact that the first day of the week has been observed from apostolic times, and the necessary conclusion is, that it was observed by the apostles and their immediate disciples. This, we may be sure, they never would have done without the permission or the authority of their Lord. After his resurrection, which took place on the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1), e never find Christ meeting with his disciples on the seventh day. But he specially honoured the first day by manifesting himself to them on four separate occasions (Matt. 28:9; Luke 24:34, 18-33; John 20:19-23). Again, on the next first day of the week, Jesus appeared to his disciples (John 20:26). Some have calculated that Christ's ascension took place on the first day of the week. And there can be no doubt that the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost was on that day (Acts 2:1). Thus Christ appears as instituting a new day to be observed by his people as the Sabbath, a day to be henceforth known amongst them as the "Lord's day." The observance of this "Lord's day" as the Sabbath was the general custom of
the primitive churches, and must have had apostolic sanction (comp. Acts 20:3-7; 1 Cor. 16:1, 2) and authority, and so the sanction and authority of Jesus Christ. The words "at her sabbaths" (Lam. 1:7, A.V.) ought probably to be, as in the Revised Version, "at her desolations."
from Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary
http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0003100.html#T0003170
And Tall73 believes that the laws regarding priests was abrogated by Christ!

There is a Scriptural basis for Sabbath keeping from the Creation of mankind to our time. Why would the Patriarch keep any other day? Sunday has always been associated with Pagan Sun worship throughout the annuals of ancient history.

In English, it derives from Sun Day. In Latin-based (and Celtic) languages it's derived on Lord's Day. Don't make the mistake of assuming again what's to be normative; in this case the English name for the day.
Domenica in Italian
Domingo in Portuguese
Dimanche in French
Domhnach in Irish
dom meaning Lord as in dominus domno, and in some English texts Sunday is called Dominicus

A further fault with your reasoning is Saturday derives from Saturn Day, so you worshipping on a pagan day doesn't bother you.

FYI: You make the same mistake here that a lot of people make with regard the word "Easter" deriving from a Germanic pagan name, and therefore believing that Easter is pagan; when it's called Pascha in Greek, as in paschal lamb

When I say church tradition, it has to do with doctrines that are contrary to the Scriptures,

So do I. Our traditions aren't contradicted by Scriptures.

and which use church tradition as the sole basis for their existence, hence trumping Scripture.
For example: Sunday vs Sabbath.

Excepting there's no re-telling of the Sabbath keeping for Saturday as noted by many and sundry posters on this thread; you just assume again.

But again, what vestments do your priests wear as listed by Moses?

Anyway, I asked earlier which things Orthodox believe that are contrary to the Bible, and I've yet to see one mentioned.

 

[MariaRegina]

Great posts Montalban

Way to go.

 

[Montalban]

The EOC or the RCC cannot make that claim.

I don't understand that if you guys accept that Jesus changed the priesthood, why He didn't change the Sabbath?

 

[Normann]

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.

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

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.

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.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[Cliff2]

I don't understand that if you guys accept that Jesus changed the priesthood, why He didn't change the Sabbath?

It may help if you can show me a text that

says Jesus changed the Sabbath.

That would help out a lot.

So far you or anyone else has never given

us a text to say Jesus changed the day or

that any of the Apostles changed the day.



Just a text would go a long way.​

 

[BrightCandle]

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.

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

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.

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.

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

In Exodus 20, where the Ten Commandments are listed you can't get much clearer than that. God wrote that Ten Commandments in such a way that they could be kept in all ages, whether one lived in ancient times or in modern times. For example, the commandments regarding "adultery" or "stealing" can be kept now, by both Jews and Gentiles, so why single out the Sabbath? That doesn't make sense.

If you reject the clear truths of God's Word you could read the Bible for 1,000 years and still not "see the light" because when you have rejected truth, therefore the Bible says a strong delusion comes over you (see II Thess 2: 10-12).

 

[BrightCandle]

I don't understand that if you guys accept that Jesus changed the priesthood, why He didn't change the Sabbath?

Because the Law of God predated the Priesthood. When the first human beings, Adam and Eve, sinned they broke God's Law, for without law there is no sin, for as the Bibe says, "sin is the transgression of the law". The Law of God was written with His own finger in stone. The work of the Priests on earth would end when the final sacrifice was made, and that was when Jesus the Lamb of God died on the cross. The work of the Priesthood now is being done by Jesus who is no our Great Hight Priest who mediates for us in the heavenly sanctuary before the the Father's throne, see the book of Hebrews for more details.

 

[Normann]

It may help if you can show me a text that


says Jesus changed the Sabbath.

That would help out a lot.

So far you or anyone else has never given

us a text to say Jesus changed the day or

that any of the Apostles changed the day.



Just a text would go a long way.
​

Dear Cliff,
You ask others to show a text, yet you show no text that proves without a doubt that Saturday is the Sabbath!

Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?


IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[Cliff2]

Dear Cliff,
You ask others to show a text, yet you show no text that proves without a doubt that Saturday is the Sabbath!

Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?


IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

There are well over 50 texts in the New Testament that mentions the word "Sabbath" and not one of them support a change of the day to the first day of the week.

There are eight first day of the week texts and again not one support a change from the 7th day to the 1st day of the week.

I do not think it is asking too much to give a text that says the Sabbath has been changed.

I know it is not there and so does everyone else and that is why no one has ever came up with such a text.

What everyone needs to do is to be honest about it all and admit that it is only tradition to keep Sunday as the Sabbath.

 

[Normann]

There are well over 50 texts in the New Testament that mentions the word "Sabbath" and not one of them support a change of the day to the first day of the week........

Well Cliff, there are 90 references to the word "sabbath" in the Bible and not a one of them says it is Saturday!

If the Sabbath was so very important, why was not the command given in the N. T.?

Also tongues are mentioned in the N. T.

Cliff, do you speak in tongues?

Mark 16:17
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

 

[Evee]

I don't read long posts either Norman... I also don't write any...lol

 

[BrightCandle]

Well Cliff, there are 90 references to the word "sabbath" in the Bible and not a one of them says it is Saturday!
If the Sabbath was so very important, why was not the command given in the N. T.?
Also tongues are mentioned in the N. T.
Cliff, do you speak in tongues?
Mark 16:17
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

IN THE MASTER'S SERVICE,
Normann

The fact that Saturday is the same day as Sabbath, or the 7th day, is verified by many sources. Copied below is one of them, a quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, the benchmark reference work of Western culture for last 300 years.

Saturday

Encyclopædia Britannica Article

Saturday

seventh day of the week (q.v.).

To cite this page:

MLA style:
" Saturday ." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2005. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 10 Dec. 2005 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9065866>.


Regarding the NT and the Sabbath: Jesus showed that the Sabbath's moral power was still binding by keeping it His whole life of 33 years. If He the author of it, was going to make a change He would have told somebody to write it down in the Gosples, that the Sabbath is now from henceforth the 1st day of the Week. Additionally, Jesus said that not until till heaven and earth shall pass away would one jot or title pass away from the law, and that He did not come to do away with the law (see the Gospels). Even Jesus appeared to Paul personally, at time Jesus could have instructed the greast of the Apostles to write that the Sabbath has been changed now to Sunday. But, He didn't! Norman, why fight against a law that Jesus wrote with His own finger? When you do, you are verily fighting against God himself.