Hi Bob S,
In my "Ten Reasons I'm a Sabbatarian" thread I supplied that:
Except when He broke it.. Jesus is God and God works on the Sabbath.
If one goes to church on ?Saturday it does not mean "keeping" Sabbath. If you answer yes then please explain.
- The Apostles kept the Sabbath
According to who???
- The Gentiles kept the Sabbath
According to who. Going to the Synagogue does not mean keeping Sabbath. Your going to church on the Israelite Sabbath does not mean that you are "keeping" it.
Furthermore I supplied that:
- We are told to follow the example of Jesus.
Jesus kept all of the Law the Law that would pertain to most Israelites. He was under the Law. We are not under the Law.
- We are told to follow the example of Paul
Paul, according to scripture, attended feast days. Did he actually participate? If you answer yes please provide scripture.
You are looking for a "command," but you are rejecting the very thing you say you seek. You are like unbelievers looking for a sign from Jesus, but He says none will be given. You are like the rich man pleading to send Lazarus to warn his family. But the response is that they need to listen to the information already available. Will you listen? Paul talks about men who are "always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." Icy it.
How is it you get to reject the example of Jesus, Paul, the apostles, and the Gentiles who all observed the Sabbath?
All of them "keeping" Sabbath is a figment of your and your church.
No, I'm the one taking Jesus's affirmation that, "the Sabbath was MADE for human beings..." and reading that in its normative sense. You are the one going to the absurd in an attempt to deny the obvious. Jesus didn't bless the seventh day for Himself. Jesus didn't make the seventh day holy for Himself. Jesus didn't rest on the seventh day because He was tired. Jesus didn't get baptized because He was sinful. For you to insist that the Sabbath isn't the Sabbath merely because you don't see a command is again revealing your predetermined beliefs and not a conscientious consideration of what should be obvious to the unbiased reader.
Sorry spark, that is just a bunch of blah, blah and mor blah. As far as we know Jesus/God blessed the day He rested. If He wanted all Seventh-days blessed He would have revealed such. As it is there is absolutely no indication of that happening until after the crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites. The flight took several weeks to accomplish and Jesus didn't have them stop during their journey. If Jesus was keeping the Sabbath while leading them then He broke the Sabbath you tell us was perpetual from the beginning and Jesús never broke it. You cannot have it both ways. You need to do a lot of "splannin".
Since Jesus said the Sabbath was "made," when do you suppose it was "made" if it wasn't "in the beginning" when things were "made"?
Before He made all of the feast days and new moon days. All we know is that there is no evidence of any other people ever keeping Sabbath before it was given to Israel nor during their inhabiting Cannon.
No. You reject information which doesn't suit your predetermined beliefs. Most scholars have no problem accepting that the seventh day of creation is dealing with the issue of the Sabbath. Why? Because it's obvious.
Most??? Where did you get that information. Most SDA scholars believe that. When they find out they are wrong they head out the back door of the church. Better repair the hinges of those back doors, They are almost worn out.
You don't get to arbitrarily accept that "adultery and murder are part of Jesus Law of Love." Prove it.
Are you telling me you don't believe they are? I need to prove that to you? Come on spark, get real.
You don't just get to make these assertions and walk away. You can't prove it. The Sabbath is more fully articulated in the book of Genesis than the prohibition against murder or adultery.
Fully articulated in Genesis? Now must I understand that because God said He rested on the day after Creation you can hang your hat that that is proof of anything? Don't be silly spark. You know better.
Again, you just accept that these are "part of Jesus Law of Love" merely because you have no command to indicate their Godly disapproval. You realize that your same nonsensical appeal to the "law of love" could also be applied to the Sabbath? Your arbitrary designations of what you consider "moral" and what is not only reveals your apparent desire to elevate your finite and flawed opinion above the Word of God.
It could have been if He made it an issue especially with all His apostles, but He didn't. It was your third grad prophet that made it a life or death decision.
See, this is your latest attempt at your version of "brainwashing." You keep pressing forward this nonsensical understanding of what you arbitrarily determine to be moral and what you believe to be ritual. You apparently believe that if you say it often enough that people will believe you. Nope.
Normal people can do know the difference between laws that deal with morality and those that deal with civil and ritual issues. Stating facts that cannot be proven otherwise is not brainwashing.
In post #13 on this thread you made the following contention: "
I know you would like to persuade everyone into believing there is no difference in the laws and we cannot categorize them, but that is nothing but deceivery. SDAs are masters at segregating laws." I find your comment laughably ironic. Who's the one attempting to segregate laws here? Um, that'd be you! According to your finite and failed interpretation you get to be the sole arbiter of what is "moral" and what is "ritual". That God made no such distinction doesn't matter to you as you become the "
master at segregating laws" you attempt to deride SDAs as being. How do you reconcile the cognitive dissonance in your beliefs?
HMMM! Somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to recall the SDA reaction to the subject of Col 2:16 as being related to ceremonial.
And of course we can go to the vast writings of dear old Ellen for some thoughts on the subject of ceremonial (ritual).
To substitute the external forms of religion for holiness of heart and life, is still as pleasing to the unrenewed nature as in the days of the apostles. For this reason, false teachers abound, and the people listen eagerly to their delusive doctrines. It is Satan's studied effort to divert the minds of men from the one way of salvation,—faith in Christ, and obedience to the law of God. In every age the arch-enemy adapts his temptations to the prejudices or inclinations of the people. In apostolic times he led the Jews to exalt the
ceremonial law, and reject Christ; at the present day he induces many professed Christians, under the pretense of honoring Christ, to cast contempt upon the moral law, and teach that its precepts may be transgressed with impunity. It is the duty of every faithful servant of God, to firmly and decidedly withstand these perverters of the faith, and to fearlessly expose their errors by the word of truth.
LP 192.2
Paul continues to vindicate his position as the apostle of Christ, not by the will of men, but by the power of God. He describes the visit which he made to Jerusalem to secure a settlement of the very questions which are now agitating the churches of Galatia, as to whether the Gentiles should submit to circumcision and keep the ceremonial law. This was the only instance in which he had deferred to the judgment of the other apostles as superior to his own. He had first sought a private interview, in which he set the matter in all its bearings before the leading apostles, Peter, James, and John. With far-seeing wisdom, he concluded that if these men could be led to take a right position, everything would be gained. Had he first presented the question before the whole council, there would have been a division of sentiment. The strong prejudice already excited because he had not enforced circumcision on the Gentiles, would have led many to take a stand against him. Thus the object of his visit would have been defeated, and his usefulness greatly hindered. But the three leading apostles, against whom no such prejudice existed, having themselves been won to the true position, brought the matter before the council, and won from all a concurrence in the decision to leave the Gentiles free from the obligations of the
ceremonial law.
LP 192.3
The disciples themselves yet cherished a regard for the ceremonial law, and were too willing to make concessions, hoping by so doing to gain the confidence of their countrymen, remove their prejudice, and win them to faith in Christ as the world's Redeemer. Paul's great object in visiting Jerusalem was to conciliate the church of Palestine. So long as they continued to cherish prejudice against him, they were constantly working to counteract his influence. He felt that if he could by any lawful concession on his part win them to the truth, he would remove a very great obstacle to the success of the gospel in other places. But he was not authorized of God to concede so much as they had asked. This concession was not in harmony with his teachings, nor with the firm integrity of his character. His advisers were not infallible. Though some of these men wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, yet when not under its direct influence they sometimes erred. It will be remembered that on one occasion Paul withstood Peter to the face because he was acting a double part.
LP 213.2
Seems like you should take your problem with labeling to the head of the church. I also remember Matt5:17-19 as meaning ceremonial.
Your understanding of the old covenant conflates the agreement with what was agreed upon. A covenant is merely an agreement. The reason for a new agreement was not in any fault in what was agreed upon. "God found fault with the people," not with the perfect law He gave them. If your god provided an imperfect law which had to be abolished then your god is not the god of the Bible.
Sorry sparky, the old covenant dealt with all aspects of life the Israelites were to adhere to when going into the Land of Milk and Honey. It was their constitution. It was an agreement. Israel broke the agreement thus finely ending the covenant. A new covenant was given them in place of the one they failed to adhere. Hebrews tells us it is not like the old one. We know it is not like the old one because we are not subject to keeping days physical circumcision and adhering to to their civil laws which were the words of the old covenant.
You're right. No law, no guilt. So are you a sinner? If so, on what basis are you a sinner?
Easy sparky, if I do not adhere to the truth I am a sinner. The truth is found in 1Jn3:19
This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: 20 If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 21 Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22 and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. 23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 The one who keeps God’s commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us
