Why do SDA preach

[LoveGodsWord]

I bet (figuratively speaking) if I asked a Rabbi if SDA keep the Mosaic Law, he would tell me they do not.

True Brian but that would be because Jewish Rabbi's still live in the shadows laws of the old covenant for remission of sins and circumcision that points to the new covenant promise of a new heart through faith and do not accept that these laws all pointed to Jesus as the promised Messiah and Christ as the Savior of the world.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

This is not my discussion your having with someone else but I thought I would ask a few questions as I am finding what your posting hard to follow. So it is more for my clarification really. You posted...

Acts 20:9-11........"And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. And there were many lamps in the upper room where we were gathered together."

To me Acts of the Apostles 20:9-11 simply says what it says and that is that on the first day of the week when the disciples gathered together to break bread (they did this every day according to Acts of the Apostles 2:46-47) Paul began talking to them intending to depart the next day (second day of the week - Monday our time). So why do you think that Acts of the Apostles 20:9-11 says God's 4th commandment is now abolished and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a holy day of rest? I always struggle with the reasoning of many who try and promote this text to support Sunday worship.

Many Sabbatarians actually argue that this meeting took place on the Sabbath, then say it was the Lord's supper, not a common meal. Some over-zealous, but under-learned Sabbath keepers, will state the actual Greek words used in Acts 20:7 & 1 Cor 16:1 actually refer to the weekly Sabbath, not the first day of the week. They say "first day of the week", is a mistranslation. The only ones who say this are those who have no knowledge of Greek. All translations of the Bible say "first" of the week. We know of no Bible of any kind that says "seventh" day of the week. (Note: Seventh-day Adventists don't usually make this argument.)

Ok I have never heard of that argument and do not believe it is biblical. It says first day of the week and they were meeting together for a meal because Paul was departing the next day (second day of the week). So the scriptures are pretty clear to me. I still do not see this as a proof text to claim that God's 4th commandment of the 10 commandments that give us a knowledge of what sin is in the new covenant when broken *James 2:10-11; Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4 is now abolished and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a holy day of rest? Is that not reading into the scriptures what the scriptures do not say and do not teach?

Lets then dig deeper on this since YOU brought it up. When closely reading Acts 21:4, 28:4, 28:14, and 20:6 you will see that Paul's habit was to stay 7 days. This meant Paul arrived and left on the first day of the week.
Now hold on because that means he was with the disciples for two Sundays but only one Sabbath.

Why do you think that would be a problem if Paul as his manner was rested on the Sabbath *Acts of the Apostles 17:2 according to Gods' 4th commandment? Of course he would not be departing on the Sabbath right. Sorry for the questions, I am finding it hard to follow your logic here.

If I was a Sabbatarian, or a 7th Day adherent, I would surely make sure I spent two Sabbaths and only one Sunday! In this way Paul stretched his time with the disciples to maximize the number of worship services together.

Why would you need to meet with the disciples for two Sabbaths when the disciples were meeting together every day of the week *Acts of the Apostles 2:46-47? Sorry this argument does not make much sense to me so I am interested to hear your view so I understand your argument.

The record of history is that Christians met together before day break Sunday morning. Here, is a Biblical text that says exactly that! Paul arrived the Sunday before and left the following Sunday morning at 6AM. Acts 20: 6 + 11 proves, counting backwards, that Paul arrived 7 days before Sunday... or one week earlier on Sunday. Go figure my friend.

According to the scriptures the record of History is that Jesus and all the apostles and disciples after the death and resurrection of Jesus met together every day of the week. That of course does not make every day of the week a holy day of rest now does it? The records of biblical history also show Jesus and the Apostles and disciples after the death and resurrection continued keeping God' "seventh day" Sabbath according to Gods' 4th commandment of the 10 commandments that give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken *Romans 3:20 as shown through the scriptures here linked.

Hope this is helpful to the discussion.

 

[ozso]

True Brian but that would be because Jewish Rabbi's still live in the shadows laws of the old covenant for remission of sins and circumcision that points to the new covenant promise of a new heart through faith and do not accept that these laws all pointed to Jesus as the promised Messiah and Christ and Savior of the world.

Well the thing is most Christians have the same interpretation of how the Law pertains to them, but they include the whole Law in that, not just parts of it. The Law is a 100% thing. Scripturally there's no such thing as partial or piecemeal Law keeping. Scripture is very clear on that.

 

[ozso]

Well beside the dietary laws Brian which we still believe are applicable not everything in the old testament scriptures are shadow laws. According to the scriptures in Hebrews it is the Mosaic "shadow laws" for remission of sins under the old covenant that are fulfilled in Christ as God's sacrifice for the sins of the world once and for all *John 1:29; John 1:36; Hebrews 10:10 and Jesus is now our Great High Priest of the order of Melchizedek according to Hebrews 7:1-25 who know ministers on our behalf in the heavenly Sanctuary of which the earthly was only a copy based on better promises. So this whole old testament covenant or system of the laws for remission of sins (Levitical Priesthood, under an earthly Sanctuary, animal sacrifices and sin offerings, circumcision and the Feast days) are fulfilled and now continued in Christ under God's plan of salvation under the new covenant based on better promises *Hebrews 8:1-13; see also Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22. These being all "shadow laws" having their fulfillment in God's new covenant promise and the body of Christ *Colossians 2:17. Where we have "shadow sabbaths" in the annual Feast days pointing to Gods' work in the new covenant in the ministration of Jesus. The shadow sabbaths of the annual Feast days are not the same as God's 4th commandment which is a memorial of the finished work of creation so it actually points backwards and not forwards to things to come. As posted earlier to someone else already if you look at the context of Colossians 2:16 you will see that Colossians 2:16 is not talking about the "seventh day" Sabbath of God's 4th commandment. It is talking about the sabbaths or sabbath days (Genitive neuter plural in the Greek) not singular while the scripture context is to the meat and drink offerings and new moons and sabbaths (plural) in the Feast days which is the scripture context. According to the scriptures there were many different types of sabbaths in the old covenant. In the annual Feast days for example that Colossians 2:16 is talking about there were many sabbaths that were linked directly to certain Feasts and would fall on any day of the week depending on the yearly cycle. These Feast day sabbaths (not Gods 4th commandment) included for example; (1) Feast of Unleavened Bread (first and last day) *Leviticus 23:6-8 (2) Feast of Trumpets *Leviticus 23:24-25 (3) Day of Atonement *Leviticus 23:27-32 (4) Feast of Booths *Leviticus 23:34-36 (5) Feast of First Fruits *Leviticus 23:39 (6) Feast days of Holy convocation of no work (sabbaton Colossians 2:16 *Leviticus 23:7-8; 21;24; 27; 35-36. So context of Colossians 2:16 is to the Sabbaths in the annual Feast days being a "shadow of things to come" Colossians 2:17 not God's 4th commandment of the 10 commandments because God's 4th commandment does not point forward to things to come but backwards to the finished work of creation and God as the creator of heaven and earth as a memorial of creation - "Remember" the Sabbath day to keep it holy *Exodus 20:8.

Hope this is helpful.

To me that appears to be standard Christian theology, which ends up taking sharp turn outside outdide of orthodoxy and displays a problem with hermanutics and exegesis.
.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Well the thing is most Christians have the same interpretation of how the Law pertains to them, but they include the whole Law in that, not just parts of it. The Law is a 100% thing. Scripturally there's no such thing as partial or piecemeal Law keeping. Scripture is very clear on that.

So Brian, do you agree with the Jews that we are to seek out a Levite Priest in an earthly Sanctuary and offer up animal sacrifice for sin in the new covenant? To be honest I do not know any Christians that believe this. You see the law is a 100% thing under the old covenant but we are not in the old covenant now we are in the new covenant. The laws for remission of sins according to the scriptures are now fulfilled and continued in Christ to who they pointed to and are continued in Him (Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22. On the other hand in the new covenant Gods' law (10 commandments) have the same role they always had and that is to give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4 and if we break anyone of them according to the scriptures we stand guilty before God of sin *James 2:10-11. Of course God's 4th commandment which is one of God's 10 commandments that give us the knowledge of what sin. Now we are talking about covenants now right. Is the new covenant the same as the old covenant? Do you believe we are to offer up animal sacrifices in the new covenant every time we sin, if not why not? On the same token in the new covenant are we now free to lie, steal, murder and commit adultery and break anyone of Gods' 10 commandments which are the standard of Christian living and all righteousness (Psalms 119:172)? I know you would not answer yes here Brian this is only to prove a point that under the two covenants God has eternal laws that give us the knowledge of good (moral right doing) and evil (moral wrong doing); sin (moral wrong doing) and righteousness (moral right doing) *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; Psalms 119:172 and if we break anyone of them according to the new covenant scriptures we stand guilty before God of sin *James 2:10-11 and in the old covenant God has prophetic "shadow laws" for the remission of sins that are fulfilled and continued in Christ as Gods' sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

Do you agree with the above?

 

[ozso]

So Brian, do you agree with the Jews that we are to seek out a Levite Priest in an earthly Sanctuary and offer up animal sacrifice for sin in the new covenant? To be honest I do not know any Christians that believe this. You see the law is a 100% thing under the old covenant but we are not in the old covenant now we are in the new covenant. The laws for remission of sins according to the scriptures are now fulfilled and continued in Christ to who they pointed to and are continued in Him (Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22. On the other hand in the new covenant Gods' law (10 commandments) have the same role they always had and that is to give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4 and if we break anyone of them according to the scriptures we stand guilty before God of sin *James 2:10-11. Of course God's 4th commandment which is one of God's 10 commandments that give us the knowledge of what sin. Now we are talking about covenants now right. Is the new covenant the same as the old covenant? Do you believe we are to offer up animal sacrifices in the new covenant every time we sin, if not why not? On the same token in the new covenant are we now free to lie, steal, murder and commit adultery and break anyone of Gods' 10 commandments which are the standard of Christian living and all righteousness (Psalms 119:172)? I know you would not answer yes here Brian this is only to prove a point that under the two covenants God has eternal laws that give us the knowledge of good (moral right doing) and evil (moral wrong doing); sin (moral wrong doing) and righteousness (moral right doing) *Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4; Psalms 119:172 and if we break anyone of them according to the new covenant scriptures we stand guilty before God of sin *James 2:10-11 and in the old covenant God has prophetic "shadow laws" for the remission of sins that are fulfilled and continued in Christ as Gods' sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.

Do you agree with the above?

I agree with two thousand years of Christian theology regarding Christians and the Law. So far I don't agree with the fringe theology that's outside of it. Which I suppose means I stand condemned according to it.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

To me that appears to be standard Christian theology, which ends up taking sharp turn outside outdide of orthodoxy and displays a problem with hermanutics and exegesis.
.

Perhaps Brian but keep in mind Gods people have always only been a remnant all through the old and new testament scriptures and will continue to be so until the second coming *Revelation 12:17. That said I would be happy to challenge your claims in regards to the dietary laws not being applicable under the new covenant and believe what I can share with you from the scriptures is exegesis and supports bible hermanutics under God's guidance and promise of His Spirit if your interested. Perhaps we can discuss this further a little latter?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I agree with two thousand years of Christianity regarding Christians and the Law. So far I don't agree with the fringe theology that's outside of it. Which I suppose means I stand condemned according to it.

My question was do you agree with what I shared with you from the post you were quoting from? If not why not; Yes/No? Have you ever wondered why there is 40,000 different denominations of Christianity all professing to be the chosen of God that make up the 2000 years of Christianity? Are they all right? I do not know how accurate that 40,000 figure is. It was taken from a consensus of all the different Christian religions around the world but just say for the argument of this post there is only 40 different Christian religions all teaching different things, are they all right? That would be 39 too many right? How can we know then who is right and who is wrong when Jesus has warned us that in the last days this will be a sign of the end (Matthew 24:24).

 

[ozso]

Perhaps Brian but keep in mind Gods people have always only been a remnant all through the old and new testament scriptures and will continue to be so until the second coming *Revelation 12:17. That said I would be happy to challenge your claims in regards to the dietary laws not being applicable under the new covenant and believe what I can share with you from the scriptures is exegesis and supports bible hermanutics under God's guidance and promise of His Spirit if your interested. Perhaps we can discuss this further a little latter?

Those claims are made by 99% of Christian theology going back the the beginning. As for being a remnant, it seems to me that every fringe group makes that claim and they all have a boatload of custom scripture based theology to back it up. I think perhaps SDA is a bit more generous and or merciful than the other fringe groups regarding the fate of the rest of Christianity.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I am not sure why you would think that is problematic at all. Show me the scripture that says Sunday or the first day of the week is "the Lords day" there is none. The only scripture that says what day Jesus is Lord of is the Sabbath which is in Matthew 12:8 that says the son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day. What problem is there?

if you ask the wrong question you get the wrong answer.
your criteria not valid, you are not asking to see how the early church used the terms the Sabbath and the Lord's day, you are not looking at all the literature, you are saying show me from only the writing's I accept as authoritive. the problem Is the term Lord's Day only appears 1 time in the authoritative writings. Rev 1:10 that Kyriake hemera (Κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day") , but out side the scripture it is very clear they are refering to something else. the Sabbath and the Lord's day are talked about in the same work. so there is no real dispute as to what the terms mean. the dispute is on how they were regarded and observed. the problem that you have is that you are concerned it does away with the Sabbath, I don't think it does that if properly understood. in fact it supports the sabbath and proves they were still observing it. Here is the link to catch you up to speed on the issues. Lord's day Lord's Day - Wikipedia

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Those claims are made by 99% of Christian theology going back the the beginning. As for being a remnant, it seems to me that every fringe group makes that claim and they all have a boatload of custom scripture based theology to back it up. I think perhaps SDA is a bit more generous and or merciful than the other fringe groups regarding the fate of the rest of Christianity.

Well we believe Gods people are in every Church and the true Church is simply all those who believe and follow God's Word and that God is calling us all where ever we might be out from following man-made teachings and traditions back to the pure Word of God. According to the scripture God only holds us (believers) accountable for sin once we have been given a knowledge of the truth of God's Word and choose to reject Gods Word in order to continue in known unrepentant sin (James 4:17; Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31 and Hebrews 10:26-31). I think this will be the test that is coming to all of us. Who do we believe and follow God or man.

God bless Brian.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

if you ask the wrong question you get the wrong answer.
your criteria not valid, you are not asking to see how the early church used the terms the Sabbath and the Lord's day, you are not looking at all the literature, you are saying show me from only the writing's I accept as authoritive. the problem Is the term Lord's Day only appears 1 time in the authoritative writings. Rev 1:10 that Kyriake hemera (Κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day") , but out side the scripture it is very clear they are refering to something else. the Sabbath and the Lord's day are talked about in the same work. so there is no real dispute as to what the terms mean. the dispute is on how they were regarded and observed. the problem that you have is that you are concerned it does away with the Sabbath, I don't think it does that if properly understood. in fact it supports the sabbath and proves they were still observing it. Here is the link to catch you up to speed on the issues. Lord's day Lord's Day - Wikipedia

Sorry I am not interested in what someone said it means outside of the scriptures. I am asking what the scriptures say it means. Where is the scripture that says "the Lords day" is Sunday or the first day of the week? - There is none. The only scripture that says what day Jesus is Lord of is the Sabbath which is in Matthew 12:8 that says the son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day. In Revelations 1:10 "Lords Day κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ does not link to any scripture reference in the New Testament to μιά των σαββάτων (the first day of the week). κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ used in Revelations 1:10 is in reference to the Lord's ownership of the day. It does not say that this day is in reference to μιά των σαββάτων which means the first day of the week. The only day Jesus specifically claims ownership of in the scriptures is the Sabbath day (see Matthew 12:8). Now who's literature are you looking at is it the Catholic Church over the bible? Does that not concern you that there is no scripture reference to "the Lords day being Sunday or the first day of the week in all the bible and one needs to turn to sources outside of the bible to try and find out what it means? - It should be a sign of red flags in my view.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Sorry I am not interested in what someone said it means outside of the scriptures. I am asking what the scriptures say it means. Where is the scripture that says "the Lords day" is Sunday or the first day of the week? - There is none. The only scripture that says what day Jesus is Lord of is the Sabbath which is in Matthew 12:8 that says the son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day. In Revelations 1:10 "Lords Day κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ does not link to any scripture reference in the NEW TESTAMENT to μιά των σαββάτων (the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK). κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ used in Revelations 1:10 is in reference to the Lord's ownership of the day. It does not say that this day is in reference to μιά των σαββάτων which means the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK.

you are not interested in finding the truth, thank-you for acknowledging that. so there is no point in discussing with you any further. now you clearly do not know greek you are over reaching. Again asking the wrong question getting the wrong answer. you're over confident, over aggressive. go hand in hand

 

[LoveGodsWord]

you are not interested in finding the truth, thank-you for acknowledging that. so there is no point in discussing with you any further. now you clearly do not know greek you are over reaching. Again asking the wrong question getting the wrong answer. you're over confident

Perhaps you need to re-read the post # 436 linked you are quoting from it does not say anything in regards to what you are posting here.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Perhaps you need to re-read the post you are quoting from it does not say anything in regards to what you are posting here.

you said you weren't interested in finding the truth, so move along

 

[LoveGodsWord]

you said you weren't interested in finding the truth, so move along

Your not sharing the truth are you? According to the scriptures God's Word is the only definition of what truth is *see John 17:17; Romans 3:4. I provided you with both the scriptures (Gods' Word) and the Greek word meanings. You are seeking to provide sources from the Roman Catholic Church outside of the scriptures and the Apostles teachings. Who did you say is not interested in finding the truth?

 

[ozso]

Well we believe Gods people are in every Church and the true Church is simply all those who believe and follow God's Word and that God is calling us all where ever we might be out from following man-made teachings and traditions back to the pure Word of God. According to the scripture God only holds us (believers) accountable for sin once we have been given a knowledge of the truth of God's Word and choose to reject Gods Word in order to continue in known unrepentant sin (James 4:17; Acts of the Apostles 17:30-31 and Hebrews 10:26-31). I think this will be the test that is coming to all of us. Who do we believe and follow God or man.

God bless Brian.

The thing is most of the Body of Christ sees SDA theology as the epitome of man-made teaching.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Q The thing is most of the Body of Christ sees SDAism as the epitome of man-made teaching.

Yet that claim is easily refuted and turned around when one reads and understands what Jesus is warning us about in Matthew 15:3-9. Do you know what Jesus is saying here Brian?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Perhaps you need to re-read the post # 436 linked you are quoting from it does not say anything in regards to what you are posting here.

you did not actually say that the early church history was Catholic writings. what absoloute foolishness. What you consider Catholic did not even exist until the 6th century. the earliest you can make a claim is at Constantine. 300 years later. the first 300 years are just general Christianity. so you are with out merit on your objection. we quote the Early Church History as the authority of History. in other words you cannot get past what they said and did, we have record. this puts a limit on what people like yourself can say and claim. Now it is not doctrinal authority, we use the scripture for that, but on a subject like the historical use of the term the Lord's Day and the Sabbath, It is very normal and appropriate to use the Church History. You claim the Lord's day and the Sabbath are the same thing, History tells us other wise. Sorry you are wrong. try again.

 

[ozso]

Yet that claim is easily refuted and turned around when one reads and understand what Jesus is warning us about in Matthew 15:3-9. Do you know what Jesus is saying here Brian?

Not in minds of most Christians it isn't easily refuted. I'm sorry to say this, but this is basically the same kind of conversation I would expect to be having with someone LDS or JW. As for Matthew 15:3-9, I think it can just as easily be applied to SDA theology the way you seem to be applying it. And I bet other fringe groups do just that. Our salvation and or inheritance is in Jesus Christ alone, not in partial piecemeal Law keeping.