Which Day of the Week is the Sabbath?

[Debi1967]

BUT....

Luk 22:15 And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer.

Luk 22:16 For I say to you that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

Luk 22:17 And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks and said: Take and divide it among you.

Luk 22:18 For I say to you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come.

Luk 22:19 And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.

Luk 22:20 In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

If we take this back and suddenly realize when this took place we realize that he ate pasch with them on a THURSDAY .....

See the only way that he could have been crucified and then resurrected after THREE Days is to have the Lord's supper take place on a Thursday and not a Friday.... And right here we have the Lord himself commanding several places in the Gospel's to do what?

Do this for a commemoration of me.

So now I ask should we move the Sabbath to Thursday because it was the Lord's command and therefore because of this and the day of the week that we know that it landed on? The Lord OUR GOD COMMANDED IT, so therefore why are we not observing that day?

 

[PaleHorse]

BUT....

Luk 22:15 And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer.

Luk 22:16 For I say to you that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

Luk 22:17 And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks and said: Take and divide it among you.

Luk 22:18 For I say to you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come.

Luk 22:19 And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.

Luk 22:20 In like manner, the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.

If we take this back and suddenly realize when this took place we realize that he ate pasch with them on a THURSDAY .....

But Christ doesn't say we should do it on that same day - where did you make that connection? And where is the biblical connection that shows Sabbath should be changed due to the Last Supper?

See the only way that he could have been crucified and then resurrected after THREE Days is to have the Lord's supper take place on a Thursday and not a Friday.... And right here we have the Lord himself commanding several places in the Gospel's to do what?

Do this for a commemoration of me.

So now I ask should we move the Sabbath to Thursday because it was the Lord's command and therefore because of this and the day of the week that we know that it landed on? The Lord OUR GOD COMMANDED IT, so therefore why are we not observing that day?

We aren't observing that day because it is not the Sabbath of the 4th Commandment nor does Christ tell us to observe that day when he taught Eucharist/Communion. Your argument isn't logical nor biblical.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

During the past year many threads have been opened up concerning the Sabbath.

There are a few points that we could probably look at in some detail.

Such as these.

Was the Sabbath kept before the Law was given to the Children of Israel?

Is the Sabbath really Jewish and there for not binding on Christians today?

Saturday is the Sabbath (i.e. the Seventh), Sunday is the Lords Day.

 

[oldsage]

The Passover meal should be celebrated on Passover and the Sabbath celebrated on Sabbath.

Chris

 

[PaleHorse]

... Sunday is the Lords Day.

Not according to the Bible.

 

[PaleHorse]

The Passover meal should be celebrated on Passover and the Sabbath celebrated on Sabbath.

Chris

I can agree with this totally.

 

[Debi1967]

[/size]
But Christ doesn't say we should do it on that same day - where did you make that connection? And where is the biblical connection that shows Sabbath should be changed due to the Last Supper?


We aren't observing that day because it is not the Sabbath of the 4th Commandment nor does Christ tell us to observe that day when he taught Eucharist/Communion. Your argument isn't logical nor biblical.

You argument is not logical either in the fact that it has been shown by me that the original Sabbath was indeed a Sacrament for the Covenant of the moral obligation of the Jews in which God would know his chosen people, the Isrealites. When Christ came and demolished that by making all of us ONE NEW MAN in HIM, Neither Gentile nor Jew and creating a New Covenant with the shedding of His blood, then this was something different.

I have shown Biblically AGAIN for the umprteenth time where the Apostles had the right, because Christ gave it to them through Apostolic Succession to do this and by the use of the word .... Whatsover.... I shall if necessary go and get the defintion of whatsoever for you .... This way you understand that it does not encumber them.

You by defintion also use Tradition in your teachings and the reason that you do is because you rely on the observations of others and their interpretations of what they believe Scripture is to base your beliefs You will listen to the likes of Ellen White and others that are SDA but you will not compare the Teachings that they have come up with aganst the teachings of others to see if their Teachings are validated.At least in the Church we are not required to listen to the ECF's as gospel, but we are encouraged to compare their exegesis of Scripture and where our Teachings come from AGAINST that of others to see if the Authenticity of them is accurate.

AGAIN, you cannot prove to me in the Bible anywhere specifically where it says that the Sabbath was set to be on a Saturday. Just as I cannot prove specifically without the use of Tradition that it was meoved to Sunday through proper exegesis of Scripture.... Now I have shown you Scriptural references to it and you have ignored them all, simply because they do not specifically say SUNDAY, but then this would invalidate your argumnt as well because you would have to show me where in Scripture it specifically said Saturday to begin with and none of you have done that. You would also have to show me specifically where in scripture it says that they could not change anything when in fact they changed many things and these things you accept but you will not accept the change of the Sabbath.

IMHO, and I am sorry to say this but you do not see the application of the Trinity in it's proper context nor do you see the handing over of our Judgement from the Father to the Son. You continually say that it is not changed because we are not observing the Father when in Fact we know that the ONLY MEDIATOR there is to the Father is the Son, Christ. This though does not mean that there is not more than one mediator between us and Christ.... There is only one mediator betweenus and the Father though and that is HIS SON. So again you do not acknowledge in my thinking His rightful and true place. Therefore in my thinking again if He is our Mediator then why are you going straight to the Father without the Mediator or observing the Mediator that was sent for you by the Father? IMHO, I would think logicvally this would be a definite affront to the Father to lower His Son to such a level, because of this.

It is written throughout with tooooooo many Scriptures to name in the New Testament that we are to remember the Sacrifice made on our Behalf by GOD, and to remember that in that Sacrifice because He is RISEN, WE now have the HOPE of Salvation, that without this Gift we would not have had it. WE base our Faith and our belief in this and therefore because of this we Worship and REST from our Labours on the Same day that He did .... Sunday.... This is logical not illogical as you assume it to be.... My Faith and belief is based not only in the Father but in the ONE HE SENT Who is also GOD and that is the Son, My Saviour Christ, and also in the Comforter left in His place, the Holy Spirit and also God.... All three 100% God persons of the ONE BEING that is GOD.... Therefore, If I worship one I am worshipping them all .... The Father ahs told me to me acknowledge and to remember the Sacrifice and that I shall always do .... I do not make Him a liar because I do not fail to recognize the TESTIMONY of the three that agree in ONE....

 

[Cliff2]

Saturday is the Sabbath (i.e. the Seventh), Sunday is the Lords Day.

You are Biblically correct in saying that "Sarurday is the Sabbath"

Now can you show me from the Bible that "Sunday is the Lortds Day"

Once you do this then this thread can be shut down.

 

[Cliff2]

It is written throughout with tooooooo many Scriptures to name in the New Testament that we are to remember the Sacrifice made on our Behalf by GOD, and to remember that in that Sacrifice because He is RISEN, WE now have the HOPE of Salvation, that without this Gift we would not have had it. WE base our Faith and our belief in this and therefore because of this we Worship and REST from our Labours on the Same day that He did .... Sunday.... This is logical not illogical as you assume it to be.... My Faith and belief is based not only in the Father but in the ONE HE SENT Who is also GOD and that is the Son, My Saviour Christ, and also in the Comforter left in His place, the Holy Spirit and also God.... All three 100% God persons of the ONE BEING that is GOD.... Therefore, If I worship one I am worshipping them all .... The Father ahs told me to me acknowledge and to remember the Sacrifice and that I shall always do .... I do not make Him a liar because I do not fail to recognize the TESTIMONY of the three that agree in ONE....(debi)

There is one problem with this conclusion.

You cannot go to the Bible and show me where you can get support for Sunday as being the Sabbath.

Jesus never cganged the Sabbath, the Apostles never changed the Sabbath.

Sunday as the Sabbath is only a man made delusion.

 

[Debi1967]

There is one problem with this conclusion.

You cannot go to the Bible and show me where you can get support for Sunday as being the Sabbath.

Jesus never cganged the Sabbath, the Apostles never changed the Sabbath.

Sunday as the Sabbath is only a man made delusion.

Saturday is the Sabbath and by your own words is a man made delusion because if we had ten days in a week where would it sit? So therefore, your argument is moot .... as you yourself said it would go 1,2,3,4,5,6,Sabbath,8,9,10,1,2,3,Sabbath,5,6,7,8,9,10, Sabbath,2,3 ect ect ect

For shame, cliff if the calendar had been different then the Sabbath would be on different days of the week continuously ..... next argument please .... The calendar is manmade .....

Saturday was the Sabbath of the Jews and brought about by Tradtion exegetically ...

Anything else?

Someone start focussing on Christ here will you and our Worship of the Lord this might be helpful.....

 

[PaleHorse]

You argument is not logical either in the fact that it has been shown by me that the original Sabbath was indeed a Sacrament for the Covenant of the moral obligation of the Jews in which God would know his chosen people, the Isrealites.

Debiwebi, how many times does it need to be covered that the Sabbath was created before there were Jews? Are you saying that Adam and Eve were Jewish? Are you saying that God created the Sabbath but it was not to be observed until Mt. Sinai?

When Christ came and demolished that by making all of us ONE NEW MAN in HIM, Neither Gentile nor Jew and creating a New Covenant with the shedding of His blood, then this was something different.

Apples and oranges argument. You aren't even talking about the Sabbath in this paragraph.

I have shown Biblically AGAIN for the umprteenth time where the Apostles had the right, because Christ gave it to them through Apostolic Succession to do this and by the use of the word .... Whatsover.... I shall if necessary go and get the defintion of whatsoever for you .... This way you understand that it does not encumber them.

Whether they had the right or not does not preclude that they didn't change the Sabbath. Plus, if you read the Bible, you'd see that the Sabbath is to be considered a "delight" - not an encumberment.

You by defintion also use Tradition in your teachings and the reason that you do is because you rely on the observations of others and their interpretations of what they believe Scripture is to base your beliefs You will listen to the likes of Ellen White and others that are SDA but you will not compare the Teachings that they have come up with aganst the teachings of others to see if their Teachings are validated.

Considering that I haven't read much EGW nor did I choose the Adventist church based upon the teachings of others, only what the Bible showed me, this statement is not only inflamatory and belittling but it doesn't express a very high Christian ideal. It is unbased and unwarranted.

At least in the Church we are not required to listen to the ECF's as gospel, but we are encouraged to compare their exegesis of Scripture and where our Teachings come from AGAINST that of others to see if the Authenticity of them is accurate.

In our church we are urged to study scripture to find the truth. Also, when you say "the Church" please include which church you are referring.

AGAIN, you cannot prove to me in the Bible anywhere specifically where it says that the Sabbath was set to be on a Saturday.

Then you aren't reading anyone's posts for this has been conclusively rebutted over and over again. If you want to hold an intelligent conversation please read what others write and use common sense.

Just as I cannot prove specifically without the use of Tradition that it was meoved to Sunday through proper exegesis of Scripture.... Now I have shown you Scriptural references to it and you have ignored them all, simply because they do not specifically say SUNDAY, but then this would invalidate your argumnt as well because you would have to show me where in Scripture it specifically said Saturday to begin with and none of you have done that. You would also have to show me specifically where in scripture it says that they could not change anything when in fact they changed many things and these things you accept but you will not accept the change of the Sabbath.

No I haven't ignored them I simply showed how your interpretation of them is erred based on context and other scriptural evidence.

IMHO, and I am sorry to say this but you do not see the application of the Trinity in it's proper context nor do you see the handing over of our Judgement from the Father to the Son.

Well, I'm glad that you prefaced this statement with "IMHO" for you opinion is unbased as well. I most certainly understand the application of the Trinity - but that is a seperate subject altogether. And in the handing over of our judgment from the Father to the Son, what did Christ say about this as it relates to the moral Law (to include the Sabbath)?
John 15:10 - If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

You continually say that it is not changed because we are not observing the Father when in Fact we know that the ONLY MEDIATOR there is to the Father is the Son, Christ. This though does not mean that there is not more than one mediator between us and Christ....

Of course it does, but that is yet another topic for another thread.

There is only one mediator between us and the Father though and that is HIS SON. So again you do not acknowledge in my thinking His rightful and true place. Therefore in my thinking again if He is our Mediator then why are you going straight to the Father without the Mediator or observing the Mediator that was sent for you by the Father? IMHO, I would think logicvally this would be a definite affront to the Father to lower His Son to such a level, because of this.

Would you stop insulting me with your erred interpretation? I know perfectly well Christ's true and exhalted place...insults do not help an incorrect and illogical argument.

It is written throughout with tooooooo many Scriptures to name in the New Testament that we are to remember the Sacrifice made on our Behalf by GOD,

And how does the Bible tells to do that?

...and to remember that in that Sacrifice because He is RISEN, WE now have the HOPE of Salvation, that without this Gift we would not have had it.

And how does the Bible tell us to do this?

WE base our Faith and our belief in this and therefore because of this we Worship and REST from our Labours on the Same day that He did .... Sunday....

Ummm... Christ died on a Friday and thus rested on a Saturday - the Sabbath.

This is logical not illogical as you assume it to be....

Funny, I seem to still be able to show you illogical as we go through your post.

My Faith and belief is based not only in the Father but in the ONE HE SENT Who is also GOD and that is the Son, My Saviour Christ,

As is mine. And as such I do what Christ told us to do along with following His examples.

...and also in the Comforter left in His place, the Holy Spirit and also God.... All three 100% God persons of the ONE BEING that is GOD....

Why are you giving a Trinity sermon in the middle of a Sabbath thread?

Therefore, If I worship one I am worshipping them all .... The Father ahs told me to me acknowledge and to remember the Sacrifice and that I shall always do .... I do not make Him a liar because I do not fail to recognize the TESTIMONY of the three that agree in ONE....

So why do you observe Sunday then?

 

[PaleHorse]

For shame, cliff if the calendar had been different then the Sabbath would be on different days of the week continuously ..... next argument please .... The calendar is manmade .....

But the week was made by God. (See Genesis 1)

Saturday was the Sabbath of the Jews and brought about by Tradtion exegetically ...

See my first argument in the above post.

Someone start focussing on Christ here will you and our Worship of the Lord this might be helpful.....

The focus is on Christ and observing the day He is Lord of.

 

[Debi1967]

Debiwebi, how many times does it need to be covered that the Sabbath was created before there were Jews? Are you saying that Adam and Eve were Jewish? Are you saying that God created the Sabbath but it was not to be observed until Mt. Sinai?

No I am saying that it was not made a Commandment by God until Mount Sinai and that it was to be used as a SIGN a Covenant between God and His Chosen People....

Apples and oranges argument. You aren't even talking about the Sabbath in this paragraph.

No this is NOT apples and Oranges, this is exactly the point, there was no longer the need of distinction so therefore no longer ther eneed of the Sabbath in the Context that you are referring it too .... Which was to distinguish God's Chosen people and those were the Isrealites, the Jews. Once we all became One New Man then this was no longer needed and the focus became upon the one that made it thus and that is Christ so that we are now called Christians ..... So, therefore, my point still stands and that is not apples and oranges your point is ....mine is completely within context whereas yours depends on the Old Covenant and mine depends on the New....

Whether they had the right or not does not preclude that they didn't change the Sabbath. Plus, if you read the Bible, you'd see that the Sabbath is to be considered a "delight" - not an encumberment.

And this is a violation of the rules to misquote me and to take my words out of context .... I never said that it was an encumberment upon them ..... I said that they were not encumbered at all so that may change the Sabbath from Saturday to sunday and this was a direct thing given unto them by God ... so therefore I never once stated nor implied that they were not JOYFUL in doing so... They of course are Joyful in doing so as we still are to this day. Do not misquote me again to your benefit ....

Considering that I haven't read much EGW nor did I choose the Adventist church based upon the teachings of others, only what the Bible showed me, this statement is not only inflamatory and belittling but it doesn't express a very high Christian ideal. It is unbased and unwarranted.

If you did not research this then how is it that you chose them to begin with? I would certainly hope that you did not go enee meanee minee moe adn then it lasnded on SDA so there you have it you are a Seventh Day Adventist? Are you now seeing where I am coming from, there had to be research into the Doctrines and how they were derived....

In our church we are urged to study scripture to find the truth. Also, when you say "the Church" please include which church you are referring.

So you think that we do not and what do you base this presumption on praytel me considering I have been quite proficient in usuage of Scripture in this thread in it's proper context I amight add and on top of that also knowing the proper word usage and defintion .... Where is it that you think I learned that from? Because I sit back and listen to priests and Bishops read to me from Scripture and tell me what it is saying in the Latin, Greek , Hebrew, and Aramaic... Without also bing encouraged to learn these languages too.... See this is the common misconception that we blindly accept everything that is told to us without study of it ourselves when it is quiote the opposite actually.... I blindly accept nothing. Submittance does not equate to aceptance and this is where people misconstrue our teachings on submittance to the Church....

Now you also wanted to know what I am referring to when I say Church.... Depending on the CONTEXT of which I am writing I am either referring to the Visible Church meaning the institution or I am talking of the Mystical Body of Believers on both Heaven and Earth.... BOTH are the Church because BOTH have and are made up of the Mystical Body and are Hierarchal ....

Well, I'm glad that you prefaced this statement with "IMHO" for you opinion is unbased as well. I most certainly understand the application of the Trinity - but that is a seperate subject altogether. And in the handing over of our judgment from the Father to the Son, what did Christ say about this as it relates to the moral Law (to include the Sabbath)?
John 15:10 - If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Remember what I said about context and how I shall point out when your context is INCORRECT....

Joh 15:1 I am the true vine: and my Father is the husbandman.

Joh 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Joh 15:3 Now you are clean, by reason of the word which I have spoken to you.

Joh 15:4 Abide in me: and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me.

Joh 15:5 I am the vine: you the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.

Joh 15:6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch and shall wither: and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire: and he burneth.

Joh 15:7 If you abide in me and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will: and it shall be done unto you.

Joh 15:8 In this is my Father glorified: that you bring forth very much fruit and become my disciples.

Joh 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you. Abide in my love.



It seems that the next verse when added to the preceding verses now takes on a new meaning does it not?

Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love: as I also have kept my Father's commandments and do abide in his love.

Joh 15:11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be filled.

Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you.

Joh 15:13 Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Joh 15:14 You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you.

It is the first part of that sentence in which the emphasis is put on not the second ..... He has abided in His Father's Commandments and now we have to abide in His .... Christ's

Then you aren't reading anyone's posts for this has been conclusively rebutted over and over again. If you want to hold an intelligent conversation please read what others write and use common sense.

My arguments have not been rebutted at all, quite the contrary all you have done is go over the same old argument over and over again of which I have rebutted over and over again numerous times and you think that by continuing to say th same thing over and over again that is a sufficient argument when indeed it is not because there is no exegesis and no one has conclusively proven anything to support your argument as factual and not tradtional at this point and time ... yet you insist that it is WE that are only using Tradition and this is not true ....

Of course it does, but that is yet another topic for another thread.

Then you show me where it says that we cannot go to CHRIST, through other means of mediation.... not the Father mind you but Christ .... the Son

Ummm... Christ died on a Friday and thus rested on a Saturday - the Sabbath.

Was he resting when he was preaching and saving those that were in Hell and hades for three days? I think not .... He went to hell and hades to save those there and to bring those our of the tombs with Him to Heaven with Him remember so therefore He was not resting and lying there otherwise how is when they rolled the rock away they found him not there?

Why are you giving a Trinity sermon in the middle of a Sabbath thread?

Why well let's see I think I already gave that explanaton to you .... what part of it did you not understand? Maybe the Fact that you are lowering the stature of Christ as God as to make him second rate to the Father when He is equal to Him

 

[PaleHorse]

No I am saying that it was not made a Commandment by God until Mount Sinai and that it was to be used as a SIGN a Covenant between God and His Chosen People....

Then what are you saying - for it sounds like you are talking in circles to me. Also, according to Hebrews 4:1-11 (particularly verses 4 & 9) the Sabbath is still a sign between God and His people (i.e. Christians).

No this is NOT apples and Oranges, this is exactly the point, there was no longer the need of distinction so therefore no longer ther eneed of the Sabbath in the Context that you are referring it too ....

No longer a need for one of God's Commandments? Are you forgetting they Ten Commandments are a whole? Whoa!
And clearly you are forgetting that the Sabbath was created on the 7th day of Creation - BEFORE the Fall, before the need of ANY covenant, before the introduction of "types".

Which was to distinguish God's Chosen people and those were the Isrealites, the Jews.

The Sabbath was made for who? "Man"! Not "Jew", not "Israelite", but ALL of mankind.
Also, you are forgetting Hebrews 4 along with a large number of NT verses.

Once we all became One New Man then this was no longer needed and the focus became upon the one that made it thus and that is Christ so that we are now called Christians ..... So, therefore, my point still stands and that is not apples and oranges your point is ....

Nope, it still apples and oranges for you seem to think that becoming a new man precludes Sabbath observance. You would do well to read Hebrews 4:1-11 again and again if need be.

mine is completely within context whereas yours depends on the Old Covenant and mine depends on the New....

Which covenant? The Abrahamic Covenant? The covenant with the children of Israel? Please be specific.

And this is a violation of the rules to misquote me and to take my words out of context .... I never said that it was an encumberment upon them ..... I said that they were not encumbered at all so that may change the Sabbath from Saturday to sunday and this was a direct thing given unto them by God ...

In your interpretation. However, you must overlook tons of NT verses to arrive at this interpretation.

so therefore I never once stated nor implied that they were not JOYFUL in doing so... They of course are Joyful in doing so as we still are to this day. Do not misquote me again to your benefit ....

The write clearly and you won't be misunderstood.

If you did not research this then how is it that you chose them to begin with? I would certainly hope that you did not go enee meanee minee moe adn then it lasnded on SDA so there you have it you are a Seventh Day Adventist? Are you now seeing where I am coming from, there had to be research into the Doctrines and how they were derived....

I most certainly researched this out else I wouldn't have choosen the Adventist church from among the hundreds (or even thousands) of other belief systems out there.
And don't be angry, your typing gets worse when you're angry.

So you think that we do not and what do you base this presumption on praytel me considering I have been quite proficient in usuage of Scripture in this thread in it's proper context I amight add and on top of that also knowing the proper word usage and defintion ....

As have many people that have cited scripture to support seventh-day Sabbath observance. Tell ya what, please do us both a huge favor, do an in-depth study of one word - sabbatismos. This will settle the argument.

Where is it that you think I learned that from? Because I sit back and listen to priests and Bishops read to me from Scripture and tell me what it is saying in the Latin, Greek , Hebrew, and Aramaic... Without also bing encouraged to learn these languages too.... See this is the common misconception that we blindly accept everything that is told to us without study of it ourselves when it is quiote the opposite actually.... I blindly accept nothing.

I respectfully disagree.

Now you also wanted to know what I am referring to when I say Church.... Depending on the CONTEXT of which I am writing I am either referring to the Visible Church meaning the institution or I am talking of the Mystical Body of Believers on both Heaven and Earth.... BOTH are the Church because BOTH have and are made up of the Mystical Body and are Hierarchal ....

So you weren't referring to a particular denomination or named faith?

Remember what I said about context and how I shall point out when your context is INCORRECT....

Joh 15:1 I am the true vine: and my Father is the husbandman.

Okay, I see nothing about sabbath mentioned here.

Joh 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

Joh 15:3 Now you are clean, by reason of the word which I have spoken to you.

No mention of Sabbath here either.

Joh 15:4 Abide in me: and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me.

Joh 15:5 I am the vine: you the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.

Still, no mention of Sabbath.

Joh 15:6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch and shall wither: and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire: and he burneth.

Joh 15:7 If you abide in me and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will: and it shall be done unto you.

Joh 15:8 In this is my Father glorified: that you bring forth very much fruit and become my disciples.

Still no mention of the Sabbath.

Joh 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you. Abide in my love.

Still no mention of the Sabbath.


It seems that the next verse when added to the preceding verses now takes on a new meaning does it not?

Joh 15:10 If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love: as I also have kept my Father's commandments and do abide in his love.

Right, if you abide in His love you will keep His commandments. Please show me Christ's commandment to keep Sunday holy. It doesn't exist and you know that.

Joh 15:11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be filled.

Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you.

Yes, and there is also the obedience part of salvation as well.

Joh 15:13 Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Joh 15:14 You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you.

It is the first part of that sentence in which the emphasis is put on not the second ..... He has abided in His Father's Commandments and now we have to abide in His .... Christ's

My arguments have not been rebutted at all, quite the contrary all you have done is go over the same old argument over and over again of which I have rebutted over and over again numerous times

And we have rebutted you time and time again - so what is your point? You are trying to spiritualize a Commandment of God away!

and you think that by continuing to say th same thing over and over again that is a sufficient argument when indeed it is not because there is no exegesis and no one has conclusively proven anything to support your argument as factual and not tradtional at this point and time ...

Then you are blind, I'm sorry but there isn't any other way to say it at this point. Hundreds of verses have been posted to show you this exact thing - but you choose to ignore them.

yet you insist that it is WE that are only using Tradition and this is not true ....

Yes, it is. Your own post-apostolic writings confirm it.

Then you show me where it says that we cannot go to CHRIST, through other means of mediation.... not the Father mind you but Christ .... the Son

Yes, ONLY the Son....not a priest, not Mary, only the Son.

Was he resting when he was preaching and saving those that were in Hell and hades for three days? I think not .... He went to hell and hades to save those there and to bring those our of the tombs with Him to Heaven with Him remember so therefore He was not resting and lying there otherwise how is when they rolled the rock away they found him not there?

Hades only means the grave, and that is where Christ went. Not some mythical place of Greecian mythology. If you read the scriptures we find that hell-fire isn't even created until the end. There is no hell right now - but that is a seperate argument.

Why well let's see I think I already gave that explanaton to you .... what part of it did you not understand? Maybe the Fact that you are lowering the stature of Christ as God as to make him second rate to the Father when He is equal to Him

Who is the Creator of this world? Who was it that walked with Abraham and Moses? It was CHRIST! It was He that created the actual Sabbath we are to enjoy - and He did it on the seventh-day of creation. He then told us to remember that day because He made it holy and blessed it. You are confused.

Happy Sabbath.

 

[Debi1967]

Then what are you saying - for it sounds like you are talking in circles to me. Also, according to Hebrews 4:1-11 (particularly verses 4 & 9) the Sabbath is still a sign between God and His people (i.e. Christians).

Quit please using Hebrews with me when in fact you do not even know the real reason that the letter to the Hebrews was written as it was a REBUKE of them and to them that Held the letter of the Law .... not the other way around .... So therefore when you read Hebrews in it's full context you find that it is to the Isrealites alone and not to the Gentiles of the time .... It was rebuking them for still holding to the traditions of old and not accepting the New Covenant .... Therefore your exegesis is incorrect.....

II. DOCTRINAL CONTENTS



The central thought of the entire Epistle is the doctrine of the Person of Christ and His Divine mediatorial office. In regard to the Person of the Saviour the author expresses himself as clearly concerning the true Divine nature of Christ as concerning Christ's human nature, and his Christology has been justly called Johannine. Christ, raised above Moses, above the angels, and above all created beings, is the brightness of the glory of the Father, the express image of His Divine nature, the eternal and unchangeable, true Son of God, Who upholdeth all things by the word of His power (i, 1-4). He desired, however, to take on a human nature and to become in all things like unto us human beings, sin alone excepted, in order to pay man's debt of sin by His passion and death (ii, 9-18; iv, 15, etc.). By suffering death He gained for Himself the eternal glory which He now also enjoys in His most holy humanity on His throne at the right hand of the Father (i, 3; ii, 9; viii, 1; xii, 2, etc.). There He now exercises forever His priestly office of mediator as our Advocate with the Father (vii, 24 sq.).

This doctrine of the priestly office of Christ forms the chief subject-matter of the Christological argument and the highest proof of the pre-eminence of the New Covenant over the Old. The person of the High-priest after the order of Melchisedech, His sacrifice, and its effects are opposed, in an exhaustive comparison, to the Old Testament institutions. The Epistle lays special emphasis on the spiritual power and effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice, which have brought to Israel, as to all mankind, atonement and salvation that are complete and sufficient for all time, and which have given to us a share in the eternal inheritance of the Messianic promises (i, 3; ix, 9-15, etc.). In the admonitory conclusions from these doctrines at the end we find a clear reference to the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Christian altar, of which those are not permitted to partake who still wish to serve the Tabernacle and to follow the Mosaic Law (xiii, 9 sq.). In the Christological expositions of the letter other doctrines are treated more or less fully. Special emphasis is laid on the setting aside of the Old Covenant, its incompleteness and weakness, its typical and preparatory relation to the time of the Messianic salvation that is realized in the New Covenant (vii, 18 sq.; viii, 15; x, 1, etc.). In the same manner the letter refers at times to the four last things, the resurrection, the judgment, eternal punishment, and heavenly bliss (vi, 2, 7 sq.; ix, 27, etc.). If we compare the doctrinal content of this letter with that of the other epistles of St. Paul, a difference in the manner of treatment, it is true, is noticeable in some respects. At the same time, there appears a marked agreement in the views, even in regard to characteristic points of Pauline doctrine (cf. J. Belser, "Einleitung" 2nd ed., 571-73). The explanation of the differences lies in the special character of the letter and in the circumstances of its composition.

V. READERS TO WHOM IT WAS ADDRESSED



According to the superscription, the letter is addressed to "Hebrews". The contents of the letter define more exactly this general designation. Not all Israelites are meant, but only those who have accepted the faith in Christ. Furthermore, the letter could hardly have been addressed to all Jewish Christians in general. It presupposes a particular community, with which both the writer of the letter and his companion Timothy have had close relations (xiii, 18-24), which has preserved its faith in severe persecutions, and has distinguished itself by works of charity (x, 32-35), which is situated in a definite locality, whither the author hopes soon to come (xiii, 19, 23).

VIII. IMPORTANCE

The chief importance of the Epistle is in its content of theological teaching. It is, in complete agreement with the other letters of St. Paul, a glorious testimony to the faith of the Apostolic time; above all it testifies to the true Divinity of Jesus Christ, to His heavenly priesthood, and the atoning power of His death.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07181a.htm

 

[Debi1967]

Then you are blind, I'm sorry but there isn't any other way to say it at this point. Hundreds of verses have been posted to show you this exact thing - but you choose to ignore them.

You have shown me Levitical Law nothing more

Right, if you abide in His love you will keep His commandments. Please show me Christ's commandment to keep Sunday holy. It doesn't exist and you know that.

And it does not exist that he said to keep the OLD COVENANT SABBATH EITHER... this you have not shown either so therefore again stalmate and again you cannot once show me where it says that he says it .... He says to keep the Sabbath yes but then rebukes those that keep it and why is that? You cannot show me that either in true fashion.... the sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath and hence you now know why he said this to the pharisees.... The pharisees those priests that upheld the levitical law ..... oops

because this is who he told this to at the time is it not .... See if you wish you can make your theology sound correct but when put back into the proper context of all of the bible and it's true application sorry but then it is definitely with error....

Who is the Creator of this world? Who was it that walked with Abraham and Moses? It was CHRIST! It was He that created the actual Sabbath we are to enjoy - and He did it on the seventh-day of creation. He then told us to remember that day because He made it holy and blessed it. You are confused.

No you are confused are you not? who is the Creator of this world again?
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

Gen 1:26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.

Gen 1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.


Sorry you are confused again it was the completeness of the TRINITY that did this...

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.

Joh 1:4 In him was life: and the life was the light of men.

Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.

He is the Light of this World and the Way by which we see the Light.....

Hades only means the grave, and that is where Christ went. Not some mythical place of Greecian mythology. If you read the scriptures we find that hell-fire isn't even created until the end. There is no hell right now - but that is a seperate argument.

There is no hell right now then you must be reading a different Bible than I am .....

Scripture

Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17 - John the Baptist said the Lord will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. This unquenchable fire is the state of eternal separation from God, which the Church has called "hell" for 2,000 years. Some Protestant communities no longer acknowledge the reality of hell.



Matt. 25:41 - Jesus says, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Matt. 25:46 - Jesus says, "they will go away into eternal punishment" which is in reference to this eternal fire.

Mark 9:47-48 - Jesus refers to hell as where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. It lasts forever.

2 Thess. 1:6-9 - the angels will come with flaming fire and the disobedient will suffer punishment of eternal destruction. It is important to note that "destruction" does not mean "annihilation," as some Protestant denominations teach. It means eternal exclusion from the presence of God.

Jude 6-7 - the rebelling angels, and Sodom and Gomorrah, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Rev. 14:11 - the worshipers of the beast suffer and the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever.

Rev. 20:10 - they're tormented in the lake of fire and brimstone day and night forever and ever.

Isaiah 33:14 - "Who of us can dwell in the everlasting fire?" This is a reference to hell which is forever.

Isaiah 66:24 - their worm shall not die and their fire shall not be quenched. We cannot fathom the pain of this eternal separation from God. Jer. 15:14 - in my anger a fire is kindled which shall burn forever. Hell is the proper compliment to the eternal bliss of heaven.

Mat 25:41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.

Mat 25:42 For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink.

Mat 25:43 I was a stranger and you took me not in: naked and you covered me not: sick and in prison and you did not visit me.

Mat 25:44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to thee?

Mat 25:45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen: I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

Mat 25:46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it: and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them. And they were judged, every one according to their works.

It is interesting to note that Satan has already been judged and cast into the lake of fire in the prior Scripture to this so therefore this is not talking about Satan or his angels but those that are actually in Hell now ....

Rev 20:9 And there cane down fire from God out of heaven and devoured them: and the devil, who seduced them, was cast into the pool of fire and brimstone, where both the beast

Rev 20:10 And the false prophet shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

So therefore verse 13 is talking about those that are already in Hell and it most certainly does exist NOW! Otherwise there would be no need for Him to pull them from there to judge them would there .... As I told you Revlation is indeed an interesting book and must be looked at with the utmost of care to interpretted correctly.

Yes, it is. Your own post-apostolic writings confirm it.

Again taking my words out of context and misconstuing them again violating the rules I see please read them if you are not aquainted with them .... that is not what I said this time you correct the miscontruing of this comment ....

Yes, ONLY the Son....not a priest, not Mary, only the Son.

Wrong again .... and miscontruing my words for I did not say what you are implying here and you well know it ... also I can show with adequate Biblical proof that even we are mediators, so therefore your argument is invalid

I respectfully disagree.

I know that you respectfully disagree with me but the reasons that you do have nothing to do with the argument at hand they simply have to do with the fact that you will not accept anything that I say as being valid not on it's merits but BECAUSE I AM CATHOLIC. and that palehorse is IMHO the truth ..... You have been told that anything that comes from me is directly contradictory to Scripture and YOU BLINDLY Accept that as truth .....

 

[spirit1st]

People,still want to live by the old testament,thinking they will have salvation!
2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
2Co 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

 

[Cliff2]

People,still want to live by the old testament,thinking they will have salvation!
2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
Gal 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
2Co 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

How were people saved from Old Testament times?

 

[BrightCandle]

Debiwebi:

It would make the topic at hand a lot easier to follow it you would shorten your posts and cover one topic at a time. To long of posts and complex arguments confuses the issue. It is not that complex.

Neither PaleHorse, nor Cliff2, nor myself, reject what you or any other Catholic has to say just because they are Catholic. In fact, I often quote from or research topics using the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Catholic Catechism. We are just looking at the facts of history and the plain teachings of the Bible. I do have to commend the Catholic church in that they are more consistent than most Protestant denominations in that Catholics admit that the Seventh day is the Sabbath, but that they worship on Sunday in honor of the resurrection of Christ on the first day of the week (Sunday). Where SDAs have a problem is that there is no command from Jesus or the Apostles to do so. What it comes down to is this: Do you as a Christian base your faith on tradition and commandments of men, or on the Commandments of God?

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

You are Biblically correct in saying that "Sarurday is the Sabbath"

Now can you show me from the Bible that "Sunday is the Lortds Day"

Once you do this then this thread can be shut down.

The Church came together for the Eucharistic Celebration on the first day of the week from very early on, well before the Canon New Testament was determined by the Church. That fact is mentioned in Acts 20:7. But please, don't shut the thread down. This is an excellent opportunity to expose the error of those who didn't realize the day of worship was changed or why.

Your brother in Christ.