Why do SDA preach

[Major1]

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?

You do realize that that statement is part of building a straw man. It is not the issue. The New Testament makes that a moot point because it says it doesn't matter what day you worship on.

Romans 14:5
"One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind."

Galatians 4:9-11 "But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain."

Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."

 

[Ceallaigh]

Perhaps you have a misunderstanding here. I posted scripture to you from the very words of Jesus. They are Gods Word not my words so do not really have much to do with me accept are also applicable to me as they are to everyone else. Jesus not me says that the many are called will be lost and only the few will be chosen in *Matthew 22:14; Matthew 7:13-14; Joel 2:28-32; Romans 9:27; Revelation 12:17 etc. I only posted the above because your argument to me earlier was that the majority do not believe SDA teachings therefore the scriptures I have been sharing with you here must be wrong. I did not say to you at any time that I am among the chosen. This is something you have tried to read into the scripture that were shared with you to show that your claims about the majority must be correct is not biblical. What you have posted here does not change the fact that according to the scriptures Jesus is saying that many are called but only the few are chosen. The majority will be lost and God's people are only a remnant.

Scripture is not wrong. But scripture can be used wrongly. Someone can easily take something Jesus said, and misapply it. Someone could say when Jesus said love your neighbor, that meant it's okay to make love to your neighbor. Some atheists love use scripture that way.

According to the scriptures we hear God and follow him by believing and following what God's Word says *John 10:26-27. I do not know your relationship with God Brian so I do not comment on it and do not judge you. It is the Word of God that we believe or not believe that becomes our judge come judgment day according to John 12:47-48. Who we stand with is who we believe and follow.

I have only provided Gods' Word that are not my words but God's Word and we should believe and follow them. What is it Brian you do not believe?

Hope this clears up any misunderstandings.

God's Word gets misinterpreted, misapplied and misused all the time.

I remember an LDS commercial that used Jesus saying "other sheep will hear my voice" (John 10:16) to back up their claim that Jesus visited ancient America.

 

[Major1]

So you believe a Pharisee who was spying on Jesus and did not think He was the son of God over the Word of Jesus?

You obviously did not read or do not understand the passages you are quoting.

Do YOU think that sarcasm is the way to communicate?

I simply posted the Scriptures to answer YOUR question!

Do you then realize what you asked?

See how that works?

 

[tall73]

Fair enough. But I think nothing is going to be gained by continuing on. Of course, that's just my own view of things. By the way, I have appreciated your contributions.

Understood. And thank you for the discussion.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible is the word of God. At least that's what almost every Christian denomination says is its belief.

Agreed

But I have noticed that it's common to have people say that this or that book or chapter or verse is just what some writer said, so it can be dismissed as wrong. Where does that notion come from?

I don't know - who is using it??

The debate here was about the Sabbath and whether it was moved or superseded by the choice of Sunday in the early church instead. The church of course does commemorate Pentecost, but that doesn't cut one way or the other with our topic here unless we might care that it's observed on a Sunday.

True.

This has gone on far too long IMO, so here's the pulpit commentary from the appropriate page in Biblehub. It basically reflects the orthodox and historic view of the evidence.

"The first day of the week. This is an important evidence of the keeping of the Lord's day by the Church as a day for their Church assemblies (see Luke 24:1, 30, 35; John 20:19, 26; 1 Corinthians 16:2). To break bread. This is also an important example of weekly communion as the practice of the first Christians.

None of those example is one of a weekly worship service. Wouldn't it be nice to point to at least one example of a weekly week-day-1 worship service?

The quote above says "This is also an important example of weekly communion as the practice of the first Christians"

Where "weekly" means "weekly week-day-1 services" - not "2000 years ago a service happened on a week-day-1 at some point".

Luke 24:1,30,35 is all on the same day. not a weekly event.
John 20:19,26 does not have any reference to "weekly" or that this event has going on in that same fashion every week for a month or a year etc.

We have many "on a Sabbath" events in the NT - but we also have "EVERY Sabbath" events also in the NT.

Comparing the phrase, "to break bread," with St. Luke's account of the institution of the Holy Eucharist (Luke 22:19) and the passages just quoted in Luke 24, and St. Paul's language (1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Corinthians 11:24), it is impossible not to conclude that the breaking of bread in the celebration of the Lord's Supper is an essential part of the holy sacrament,

Which happened "every day" in Acts 2. But that was not the sign that all days of the week in the NT were set aside for sacred assembly and devoted as a day of rest and worship

 

[Major1]

Genesis 26:5 "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." contradicts this view. not that simple.

ABRAHAM!

I mean NO disrepect to anyone but.....are you so ingrafted into the SDA doctrine that the Bible has come to mean nothing to you?????

Deuteronomy 5:2-3 says
"The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today."

Nehemiah 9:13-14 says:
"You came down on Mount Sinai; you spoke to them from heaven. You gave them regulations and laws that are just and right, and decrees and commands that are good. You made known to them your holy sabbath and gave them commands, decrees and laws through your servant Moses." .

You do not hear that the righteous Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob kept the Sabbath. There is a conspicuous silence for 2,500 years after the Fall of man. It is not until after the redemption of God's people Israel out of Egypt when they are safely on the other side of the Red Sea that you read in the Book of Exodus that the Sabbath is mentioned again. (Exodus 16:22-30). Abraham was given commandments and ordinances, but the Sabbath is never mentioned as one of them.

Why does that not bother you????

 

[BobRyan]

I remember an LDS commercial that used Jesus saying "other sheep will hear my voice" to back up their claim that Jesus visited ancient America.

So that is why we have exegesis and paying close attention to Bible details.

And as noted repeatedly - some bible details are sooo in credibly obvious that Bible scholars on both sides of the Sabbath topic freely admit to them.

 

[BobRyan]

Genesis 26:5 "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." contradicts this view. not that simple.

ABRAHAM!

I mean NO disrepect to anyone but.....are you so ingrafted into the SDA doctrine that the Bible has come to mean nothing to you?????

Deuteronomy 5:2-3 says
"The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today."

Already addressed here --

Is 56:6 gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping
Mark 2:27 Sabbath "made for mankind" - said Christ, -- (so not "just Jews)
Is 66:23 for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship"
Ex 20:11 points to Gen 2:1-3 for making of mankind and the Sabbath at creation week itself.

Bible scholars in almost all Christian denominations agree on this point
For example:

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism

And I would add that prior to Sinai there was indeed no "nation covenant" ... Moses was not claiming that before Sinai "it was ok to take God's name in vain"

You do not hear that the righteous Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob kept the Sabbath. There is a conspicuous silence

You also don't see them commanded to "not take God's name in vain" - " a conspicuous silence??" -- no

Ex 20:11 points directly to Gen 2:1-3 for the making and sanctifying of the Sabbath - and provides that Gen 2 event "alone" as sufficient reason to obligate mankind to honor God's Sabbath.

Mark 2:27 Christ puts both the "making of the Sabbath" and the "making of mankind" into the same context.

And the confessions of faith noted before - also agree to this as does D.L. Moody and R.C Sproul and C.H. Spurgeon

 

[Ceallaigh]

So that is why we have exegesis and paying close attention to Bible details.

And as noted repeatedly - some bible details are sooo in credibly obvious that Bible scholars on both sides of the Sabbath topic freely admit to them.

The thing is people use eisegesis and insist it's exegesis all the time.

Or perhaps what Bible scholars said is taken out of context.

 

[BobRyan]

The thing is people use eisegesis and claim it's exegesis all the time.

Or perhaps what Bible scholars said is taken out of context.

"Maybe" works fine until you read the actual text of what you're talking about... try it for a second.

Look at sectn 19 of the online Baptist Confession of Faith or the online Westminster Confession of Faith.. this is not rocket science. Or read the Sabbath section D.L. Moody's online sermon on the TEN Commandments

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Do YOU think that sarcasm is the way to communicate?

I simply posted the Scriptures to answer YOUR question!

Do you then realize what you asked?

See how that works?

There was no sarcasm. You really need to understand the implications of what you are posting.

 

[Ceallaigh]

"Maybe" works fine until you read the actual text of what you're talking about... try it for a second.

Look at sectn 19 of the online Baptist Confession of Faith or the online Westminster Confession of Faith.. this is not rocket science. Or read the Sabbath section D.L. Moody's online sermon on the TEN Commandments

So you're saying those sources say exactly the same thing about the sabbath in exactly the same way as SDA?

 

[BobRyan]

So you're saying those sources say exactly the same thing about the sabbath in exactly the same way as SDA? Exactly come to the same conclusion as SDA?

Do I ever say "Bible scholars in almost all denominations say exactly the same thing about the Sabbath in exactly the same way as SDAs?" -- ever? -- you and I both know that the answer is "no".

Rather we know that I point to very specific "Bible details" related to the Sabbath and note that on those specific details we find agreement.

yes.. "details matter"

There is a thread where I posted the links to my text quote of some of that online info for readers --

Jun 23, 2021 #2

 

[LoveGodsWord]

This is why the argument from that text is not that convincing. And that is what Major1 was letting folks know in his own wording by saying it doesn't relate to now, but to eternity.

I agree we may well come before the Lord to worship on Sabbath and the New Moon on the new earth. And I have no issue with that at all as the Jewish Christian believers went on keeping the law. We see reference to Paul wanting to be back in Jerusalem by Pentecost, etc. These laws were not destroyed, but fulfilled in Christ.

Now the issue is that you do not treat the New Moon and Sabbath the same currently. So the notion of something being done in the hereafter meaning that it should be done now does not seem to hold true.

That does not in any way rule out other arguments from the text in favor of Sabbath observance. And the new moon is certainly different, and less prominent than the Sabbath in any case, which we agree upon. Especially since there is no clear command to observe the new moon. But you will have to make your argument on those other texts if you wish to be convincing. Because the "do it in the new earth = do it now" argument is clearly not accurate based on your handling of the two elements listed. You don't in fact do now what you now seem to acknowledge may be done in the new earth.

The emphasis placed on this text for Sabbatarian arguments is misplaced, in my view, because there is glaring inconsistency in how Adventist handle the elements. On the other hand, for Messianics I suppose it would be consistent.

And as you note below, the whole scenario is seen as an unfulfilled possibility by Adventists themselves.

The reason this text is used is because on its face it seems plain. We will observe the Sabbath in the new earth. But when you look at the details it is not plain.

And when, as happens too frequently, Adventists omit the first part of the verse referencing the new moon, it comes across as deceptive argument when people become aware of the larger context. Such polemical usage without looking at the context is counterproductive with those who go and read the full text.

For me I respectfully disagree with this post, but allow me to explain why as I do not think your post here answers my earlier questions to you. As posted earlier to someone else and you may not have been aware of that post. If Isaiah 66:22-23 was used in isolation to the rest of the bible I think you might have an argument but realistically it is not used in isolation to the rest of the bible. For me personally the only time I tend to use Isaiah 66:22-23 is when discussing the Sabbath as an everlasting covenant as it was given to God's people in Exodus 31:16 as Isaiah 66:22-23 shows that the Sabbath will be continued to be kept in the new earth for eternity. For me I think that is what is missing in this discussion and perhaps something you may not have considered here in your response. I personally never use Isaiah 66:22-23 as an argument in regards to the Sabbath needing to be kept here now in isolation to the Sabbaths connection to God's saying it is an everlasting covenant because the Sabbath being kept in the new earth is an argument that we should keep it now because the everlasting covenant was given in the old earth (our earth now). When one however understand the perpetuity of the Sabbath covenant with God's people and that it is an eternal covenant the scripture becomes supportive of the fact that the Sabbath needs to be kept now. So when God says that in the new earth we will the worshiping before him on the new moons and every Sabbath we should believe him. This of course is supportive of the Sabbath being kept now in our current earth because the everlasting covenant was made with God's people on our current earth and therefore can be argued in my view along with the rest of the bible that the Sabbath should still be kept now. On the other hand there is no everlasting covenant or commandment to observe the new moons for the new covenant to be kept on earth now while God's Sabbath is the 4th commandment of the 10 commandments *Exodus 20:8-10 and according to the scriptures in the new covenant every one of them are a requirement for Christian living being repeated there. So as posted earlier this is a non-issue for me and I still do not understand why people are making an issue over something that is one of God's 10 commandments and an everlasting covenant that give us the knowledge of what sin is and something that is not even a commandment of God (new moons) in the new covenant.

Hope this helps

 

[Adventist Heretic]

ABRAHAM!

I mean NO disrepect to anyone but.....are you so ingrafted into the SDA doctrine that the Bible has come to mean nothing to you?????
Deuteronomy 5:2-3 says
"The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today."

Nehemiah 9:13-14 says:
"You came down on Mount Sinai; you spoke to them from heaven. You gave them regulations and laws that are just and right, and decrees and commands that are good. You made known to them your holy sabbath and gave them commands, decrees and laws through your servant Moses." .

You do not hear that the righteous Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob kept the Sabbath. There is a conspicuous silence for 2,500 years after the Fall of man. It is not until after the redemption of God's people Israel out of Egypt when they are safely on the other side of the Red Sea that you read in the Book of Exodus that the Sabbath is mentioned again. (Exodus 16:22-30). Abraham was given commandments and ordinances, but the Sabbath is never mentioned as one of them.

Why does that not bother you????

no it doesn't bother me at all, because I know how covenants work and you don't. The covenant of heaven & earth didn't cease at the fall it continued. Just like the marriage covenant continued, just like the calendar continued. Man's sin did not annul God's order nor did it end his sovereignty, man just ignored it. That is why the law was added because of man's transgression. Meaning man was violating it,so God wrote something down to preserve the knowledge of himself and what would offend Him. Those things did not cease to offend Him at the cross.

What changed was the fact that law could be written on the heart and we would walk in his ways and we would do them. You seem to ignore that. You seem to ignore the fact that Jesus said tell heaven and Earth pass away, which happens after the 1000 years, not one jot or tittle will will pass from the law.

So when you come in here and say that the law has been done away with you better be pretty specific about what you're talking about. Jesus says it hasn't passed away yet.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Do I ever say "Bible scholars in almost all denominations say exactly the same thing about the Sabbath in exactly the same way as SDAs?" -- ever? -- you and I both know that the answer is "no".

Rather we know that I point to very specific "Bible details" related to the Sabbath and note that on those specific details we find agreement.

yes.. "details matter"

There is a thread where I posted the links to my text quote of some of that online info for readers --

Jun 23, 2021 #2

I think most everyone agrees on the Bible details. How those details apply to gentile Christians is what's not agreed upon. So what I'm asking is do those sources say the details apply to gentile Christians the same way SDA does? Is the answer still "no"?

 

[BobRyan]

I think most everyone agrees on the Bible details.

Then you have not been following the Sabbath discussions.

A super simple example/illustration of that point I just made - #571

How those details apply to gentile Christians is what's not agreed upon.

If you were reading the texts that you are commenting on you would know that this is the very point where we do have agreement between SDAs and those non-Sabbatarian Bible scholars regarding the details I pointed to (which apparently you are "also" not reading).

==========================

Out of curiosity - are you comfortable "with these details" in Christ's statement below?

Mark 7:6-13
6 But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

So what I'm asking is do those sources say the details apply to gentile Christians the same way SDA does? Is the answer still "no"?

hmm let's see "all mankind" .. They agree on that and that the Sabbath was given to mankind in Eden and binding on Mankind as the 7th day Sabbath to the point of the cross - and the Sabbath commandment still binding on all mankind today

- although "edited" at the cross (re-pointed to week-day-1 for Christians) --which is the one difference...

So then the same list of details I have pointed to - in the examples that apparently you are still not looking at. I get the distinct feeling you are not comfortable looking at the details. This is really not rocket science - I suggest you take a look.

 

[mmksparbud]

Random rambling here. when it comes to fringe group members and fringe individuals. there often seems to be a very similar pattern among them. They go on quite a bit about everything they say is the pure Word of God. That everyone else is going by man-made teaching. Everyone else is wrong to the point where either their salvation is in dangrer or they're not really saved. That most Christians mistakenly think it's okay to sin by breaking God's commandments and still be saved. And so on. And interestingly, a lot of them believe in annihilation of the damned rather than there being a hell of eternal torment.

You are being quite predictable.

 

[mmksparbud]

I would not expect anything less than what you said.

You said.............
"The bible is the bottom line. If what an angels says goes against the bible, it is not from God. Also there are signs about the prophet which are like the prophets in the bible had---like no breath, increased strength and then frailty again. What the angel said and her physical manifestations all had to agree with the scriptures----they did."

I can only say that one of has not read the historical facts of our dear friend.

The Great Controversy book contradicts both the Bible and historical facts!

The Investigative Judgment from Ellen White's statements contradict the Bible!

Did a 1755 earthquake, a dark day in 1780 take place?, a

Was there a meteor shower in 1833 that fulfilled a Bible prophecy?

What historical proof can YOU provide that Jesus entered the Holy of Holies in 1844.

In her own writings, Why was Sister White's vision changed?

From Source Embarrassing Failed Prophecies
"Mrs. White reportedly had a vision showing the fate of those people attending the conference. She specifically states that some of them would suffer the seven last plagues, and some would be alive when Jesus returned. The Whites had such confidence in this "vision" that it was published in Mrs. White's Testimonies to the Church and received widespread distribution. However, by the early 1900s, all those who attended the conference had passed away. This left the SDA Church with the dilemma of trying to figure out how to explain away such a prominent prophetic failure.

The Bible leaves no doubt that when a prophet makes a prediction that does not come to pass, that prophet is not speaking for the Lord:

Deut. 18:22.......
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Is that enough or do you want to go on?????

I take it you have not heard of "conditional predictions."

You also are not very well acquainted with history:

The Night the Stars Fell - Ancestry Insights

Unravelling the Mystery of New England’s Day of Darkness | Ancient Origins (ancient-origins.net)

1755 Lisbon earthquake - Wikipedia

Is that enough or do you want to go on?????

 

[LoveGodsWord]

What I said/meant is that the majority of the remnant of God's people don't agree with your views regarding Christians and Mosaic Law. Although I'm pretty sure the remnant spoken of are the few among many Jews who accepted Jesus as their Messiah.

Brian when we are talking about all Christianity which is what our discussion has been about there is no such thing as the majority of the remnant.

What you seem to mean by remnant is like 1% of all Christians (including you).

There you go telling me again what I do not believe or have never said in response to the scriptures that have been shared with you.

David, a man can make the scriptures say just about anything he wants them to. I'm sure most every false prophet and cult leader has used lots and lots of scripture. I'm pretty sure they all say that what they're teaching is purely God's Holy Word. I'm pretty sure that I could probably cobble together a fairly good false doctrine using nothing but scripture. Now I'm not calling you a false prophet or cult leader or comparing you to one. I'm just saying that someone saying "God's Holy Word" a lot, doesn't automatically mean that are teaching or following sound doctrine.

It is true that there are many false teachers on Christianity in the world today and as discussed earlier at one consensus over 40,000 different denominations of Christianity were recorded and growing in fulfillment of the very Words of Jesus (Matthew 24:24; 2 Peter 2:1 etc). Why do you feel that that is an argument that there is no true Church and that there is no correct and true understanding of the scriptures? How then Brian are you going to know if your not deceived in following the false teachings of the majority when the many come up to Jesus at the second coming and say Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (sin). According to Jesus only those who do the will the will of God will enter the kingdom of heaven. The many will not enter into God's Kingdom *Matthew 7:21-23. The only way therefore we can know God's will and the truth of God's Word is to seek Jesus through His Word asking God to be our guide and teacher. According to God's promises in the new covenant God promises to be our guide and teacher through His Spirit *Hebrews 8:11; John 14:26; John 16:13; John 7:17; John 8:31-36; 1 John 2:27. It is true however according to the words of Jesus that men love darkness rather then light because their deeds are evil
and everyone that does evil hates the light (Gods Word in the lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path - Psalms 119:105) lest their deeds are reproved. But the good news is that he that comes to the light (Gods' Word) we can see that our deeds are wrought in God or not. He that believes and follows Gods' Word is not condemned according to the scriptures but he that believes not is condemned already because he has not believe in the name of the old begotten Son of God. *John 3:18-21

Yes, but in your eyes that could be limited to only those whom you believe are following God's Word. Which could be most Christians, or only 1% of Christians (including you).

If our lamp has gone (Psalms 119:172) out how can we find our way when the road is dark and narrow? According to the scriptures the five foolish virgins found this out only too late when the bridegrooms call to go out and meet the bridegrooms call was given when they were all sleeping.

Something we should all pray about.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

First of all. I have nothing whatsoever against 7th Day Adventist people. I am only speaking out to show that what is being said about Sabbath worship is NOT Biblical and is strictly the teaching of the church. Anyone and everyone can gather on the Sabbath. I DO NOT CARE. It is that IMHO it is wrong to do so and "Insist" that it is Biblical.

The reason why some things are hard to follow is that when anyone trys to respond to long questions such as yours here....it gets confusing.

Anyway I shall try to answer you.

1.
I used Acts 20:9-11 to show that the 1st gathering was on a SUNDAY.
EVERY MENTION OF THE SABBATH IN THE BOOK OF ACTS without a single exception is in connection with Jewish worship on that day and not Christian celebration. Paul's evangelistic strategy was to go to the Jews first in a community and share the Gospel with them. Sabbath is the day when he knew he would find the most Jews gathering for worship. He knew he would have his best opportunity of sharing the good news of the Messiah to the Jews on Sabbath. It was not because he was meeting with a group of believing Christians. He was meeting with non-Christian Jews.

2.
The argument of 7 day visits. not being Biblical.
Now, I can not apologize for you having never heard what I explained. What I posted came ONLY from the Scriptures and an in depth study of those Scriptures validating the times and days spent on Pauls visits. All I can do is to ask YOU to read and do the same study I did and you will come to the very same observation.

3.
You said...............
"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."

Your answer was included in my post where I said that ...."IF Sabbath worship was all that important, why would Paul spent only ONE Sabbath and TWO Sundays."????

In my opinion, it was for 2 reasons.
1. Sunday was the day of Resurrection and was more important than the Sabbath.
2. Paul was setting the president of Sunday as the day of worship for the Christian.

4.
Your comment is a little deceptive my brother. You said but did not elaborate.......
"The records of biblical history also show Jesus and the Apostles and disciples after the death and resurrection continued keeping God' "seventh day" Sabbath."

I say "deceptive" because you only told 1/2 of the situation. Allow me to show the "Rest of the story" as Paul Harvey.

At Antioch Paul “went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day” (Acts 13:14).

In Philippi “on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side” (Acts 16:13).

In Thessalonica Paul preached on the Sabbath and for “three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead” (Acts 17:1-3).

In Corinth Paul “came to Corinth” and “reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks” (Acts 18:1, 4).

In Ephesus Paul, “went into the synagogue, and spoke boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God” (Acts 19:8). This was obviously on the Sabbath days, as in Antioch, Corinth and Thessalonica.

What is the PATTERN here as seen in the Word of God????????

Paul went to the Synagogues on the SABBATH because HE was a Jew and he knew that the Jews would be there. He went there to preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified and resurrected.

Eventually, Paul was arrested in the Temple in Jerusalem in Acts 21.
At his trial before the Sanhedrin, the ones who had him arrested, the Pharisees admitted in Acts 23:9--- “we find no evil in this man”.

Before Felix, Paul tesified in Acts 24:14.....
"So worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets”.

And he declared before Festus in Acts 25:10.....
“to the Jews have I done no wrong”.

Before Agrippa he said, in Acts 26:22......
“I continue to this day … saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come”.

Finally, Paul spoke to the Jews in Rome, in Acts 28:23........
“persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening”.

During all of his trials, the Jews never once accused Paul of breaking the Sabbath because he never did!

The Jerusalem Council, led by the apostles was organized to discuss “this question … this matter” of “circumcision” and “the law of Moses” in Acts 15:1, 2, 5.

I am hoping and expecting that you will take time to read all of these Scriptures.

Now at that meeting, he Sabbath itself was not debated or even discussed. The Church then decided that the Gentiles were “SAVED … through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ” in verse 11 and observing the Sabbath was never an issue.

It was also at this meeting that decided that they did not need to be circumcised.

That brother is where I am coming from.

Hello Major, thanks I did take the time to read what you posted and I read the scriptures you have provided but I do not see how the scriptures you provided address or answer the questions asked of you and the counter arguments from the detailed scripture response provided to you in post # 426 linked. As posted earlier from Acts of the Apostles 2:47-48 God's people met every day of the week. That does not make every day of the week a holy day of rest or one of God's 10 commandments that God expects us to believe and follow as the standard of Christian living. Also, you did not provide a single scripture here that says that God's 4th commandment has now been abolished and we are now required to keep Sunday as a holy day of rest. So I do not think based on the scriptures you have provided that they are proof texts that we are to keep Sunday as a Holy day when God's people were meeting every day of the week now are they? Thanks for your time in trying to respond to my post though. For now we will agree to disagree.

Take Care.