Info on SDA

[Richard_Kastner]

Hello Ben

yes, i agree whole heartedly my friend.

You agree with what? Did you read the passages that I provided carefully? It says the Sabbath is a perpetual covenant and will be kept forrever. In Isaiah 66 it tells us that **all **people will come to worship the Lord on the Sabbath. I mean the implication is clear. There will be no Sunday keepers in the new Jerusalem.

but again, this was written to the physical nation of israel. even Paul differentiates when he states what advantage hath a Jew? much. to them has been given the oracles of God. etc. etc. you are a gentile.

I think you need to be real careful how you use that word gentile. Paul used it to denote a pagan. He never used the word to refer to himself. How did he refer to himself?

Acts 22:3
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are

Actually you have touched upon a critical point that really needs to be understood. You say “this was written to the physical nation of israel” I’m assumming that by physical nation of Israel you mean ethnic Jews. Check out Jer 31
Jer31
31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Now unless you believe that the new covenant was given only to the ethnic Jews the term “house of Israel” must mean something other than ethnic Jews. Consider

Heb10
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

Verse 16 which is a direct quote of Jer.31:33 says that the Law is written on the minds and the hearts of “THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED” through the sacrifice of Jesus.
So what does he mean by the house of Israel if it doesnn’t mean the ethnic Jews?
Rom.2
28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Gal3
29And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

We become spiritual Jews through faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

the apostles were very specific, what we were supposed to follow in acts. this has been gone over many times.

Ya, I know it has been gone over many times Ben, so why can’t you get it?

Acts15
29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Are you saying that these instructions here in acts 15 some how replace the Ten Commandments? When was the last time you heard of anyone offering meats to idols or drinking blood in a ritual setting or straggling animals for ritual consumption or having ritual fornication? Thats what these instructions are for Ben. They are for the pagans that The apostles were trying to convert and all these instructions were against pagan rituals.

if you wish to keep part of the law, you in fact, are required to keep all of the law. including the cerimonial, and the the laws on wearing two types of fabrics together. all of it. not just the 10. so if thats the route you wish to go. by all means. as for me, i will follow the teachings of the apostles on this matter. we were not called to bondage, but to freedom. the law of love. you are attempting to follow something that was not meant for you. sorry ive been away so long, had to travel to a very hot place. and the Adventist are quite wrong… there is a hell! im just north of it. and man is it hot hot hot! good to see ya again. Peace

The cerimonial law or the law of types and shadows.
Heb8
4For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Was done away with when Christ fullfilled the prophetic nature of these laws by His death on the cross.

Col.2
14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

This is not talking about the ten commandments because there is nothing in the decaloge that is against us or contrary to us. The apostles Paul included, never taught that the Ten Commandments had been done away with. In fact Paul says he needs the law to show him that he is a sinner.
Rom.7
7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

And then of coarse there is this Matt.5
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Doesn’t sound like Jesus thought the law had been done away with.

 

[benidict]

Hello Ben

You agree with what? Did you read the passages that I provided carefully? It says the Sabbath is a perpetual covenant and will be kept forrever. In Isaiah 66 it tells us that **all **people will come to worship the Lord on the Sabbath. I mean the implication is clear. There will be no Sunday keepers in the new Jerusalem.

I think you need to be real careful how you use that word gentile. Paul used it to denote a pagan. He never used the word to refer to himself. How did he refer to himself?

Acts 22:3
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are

Actually you have touched upon a critical point that really needs to be understood. You say “this was written to the physical nation of israel” I’m assumming that by physical nation of Israel you mean ethnic Jews. Check out Jer 31
Jer31
31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Now unless you believe that the new covenant was given only to the ethnic Jews the term “house of Israel” must mean something other than ethnic Jews. Consider

Heb10
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

Verse 16 which is a direct quote of Jer.31:33 says that the Law is written on the minds and the hearts of “THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED” through the sacrifice of Jesus.
So what does he mean by the house of Israel if it doesnn’t mean the ethnic Jews?
Rom.2
28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Gal3
29And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

We become spiritual Jews through faith in Jesus Christ.

ahh but my friend. Paul was a Jew. an ethnic Jew. we are gentile believers, who are not to be shaken by people who think to entangle us in the old law. we have been place under the law of liberty, and love. which is a far better law. so are you able to keep all the 600 plus comandments? does the old law teach mercy? no on both counts i would think. the apostles themselves stated we were not to be placed under a system, they themselves COULD NOT KEEP. which seems to indicate they had a change of mind about it. i will stick to the council of the apostles, who have the authority of Jesus, and to the teachings of His Church which he established. yes we are adopted sons and daughters into the house of israel. but grafted in. until the fulness of the GENTILES come in. then physical israel, will recognize their messiah. and will say, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. then and only then, will Christ return. as he stated. you will not see me again until you say blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. at some point, Israels blindness will be lifted as to their messiah. i await that day, and believe it is close. will their be time of trouble? certainly. but it wont be a ban on sabbath worship. it will be all hell let loose on all followers of Christ. and what would tick the devil off, more than Gods Chosen finally, enmass recognizing Christ? the last is just speculation on my part. Peace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

ahh but my friend. Paul was a Jew. an ethnic Jew. we are gentile believers, who are not to be shaken by people who think to entangle us in the old law. we have been place under the law of liberty, and love. which is a far better law. so are you able to keep all the 600 plus comandments?

let me get this straight Ben. Are you saying that there is a different means of salvation for the Jews. That they can get to heaven by keeping the old law and Jesus for some reason changed that law for the “gentile believers” and now we have no way of knowing what sin is, but that doesn’t matter as long as we keep the law of love. That about it Ben?

 

[Protestant101]

Well; one things for sure Richard. This “new law of love” actually isn’t new. It was only “new” to the disciples, who had not previously kept it; something like my “new” truck. A 92 GMC with 300,000 km on it. It’s “new” for me; but we can also note the Biblical related support showing that the “law of love” is an accurate summary of the ten commandments. It sure is entertaining to watch all the excuses people drum up to somehow “do away” with something that is indestructible! See Mat 5:17.

Anyways; you have made some excellent posts. I enjoyed reading them. Thanks!

 

[benidict]

let me get this straight Ben. Are you saying that there is a different means of salvation for the Jews. That they can get to heaven by keeping the old law and Jesus for some reason changed that law for the “gentile believers” and now we have no way of knowing what sin is, but that doesn’t matter as long as we keep the law of love. That about it Ben?

as it is written in galatians. until Christ came, the law WAS our schoolmaster. not IS our schoolmaster. those things we are to follow, are given by the apostles. people like yourself and protestant 101, would have butted heads with the apostle Paul in a big way. we as gentile believers are not required to keep the law that was given to the Jews. Peter makes this perfectly clear in acts. we are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, meat with the blood still in it, and avoid fornification. if we do these things, we do well. James also writes along these lines. what is true religion. to visit the widow and the fatherless in their distress. and that means doing more than just a visit. we are to give relief. if the Adventist wish to follow a covenant that is based on rule keeping, then you are welcome too. but if you wish to do this, then you cannot follow only the 10. many of the proof text you offer are talking about the whole law. all 600 plus commandments. so i ask again. can you keep them? weve gone over this before. if you are going to do so, then you really need to change how you observe the Sabbath. you would be better off, joining with a messianic Jewish congregation, and converting. Peace

 

[MarysRoses]

Well; one things for sure Richard. This “new law of love” actually isn’t new. It was only “new” to the disciples, who had not previously kept it; something like my “new” truck. A 92 GMC with 300,000 km on it. It’s “new” for me; but we can also note the Biblical related support showing that the “law of love” is an accurate summary of the ten commandments. It sure is entertaining to watch all the excuses people drum up to somehow “do away” with something that is indestructible! See Mat 5:17.

Anyways; you have made some excellent posts. I enjoyed reading them. Thanks!

looks like its time for me to wade in again…

I think its time to rehash some things I’ve posted before. Adventists and Catholics both believe that the Ten Commandments are valid and binding. But there are differences in the details, which is why people are continually talking past each other on this topic.

You agree that God’s eternal law is a law of Love. Something that existed before Adam and Eve were created, and will always continue. This law is woven directly into his creation… it is an expression of who God is. Societies instinctively know that some laws and rules are good and build up society, and some actions are things that tear apart families and society. Societies that allow murder, adultery, and stealing don’t last. People who live in them have shorter, unhappy lives.

Catholics believe that the ten commandments are binding… as an expression of this natural moral law. God’s law of love. An interesting contrast to me, is that Adventists believe the 10 commandments as written, word for word, in Exodus 20
are this eternal law.

So close… but such a difference.

Small divergences can have huge consequences.

Adventists believe that the sabbath commandment, as given in the 20th chapter of Exodus… is exactly the same as is inscribed on the tablets held in the ark of the covenant. Their prophetess, Ellen G. White, had a vision, that these tablets were now in heaven, and she said she saw a halo of light highlighting this sabbath commandment. She said that this commandment would be a test for believers, whether they truly follow God and are loyal to Him, or have been deceived by man, with an emphasis on sabbath being “given at creation” (her view… and Adventist teaching, the bible actually does not record it being kept by man until the time of Moses) and that the only proper day to “keep” it was the seventh day of the week… our Saturday.

Catholics believe that Exodus 20 is an expression of God’s eternal law…the natural, moral law, just as Deuteronomy 5 is an expression of God’s eternal law. Both passages list the 10 commandments. Both are essentially the same. But… they are not identical. The sabbath commandment has a different rationale in the two different chapters, both of which are accounts of the giving of the 10 commandments:

From Exodus 20:

8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

From Deuteronomy 5:

12 "Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

This difference presents no problem to Catholics… as we believe both passages, and both listings, are expressions of God’s law… not exact transcripts. Catholics believe the Ten Commandments are binding as moral law, not because we believe we are under the same covenant as Israel. Catholics believe Christians are under the New Covenant, and are not bound by the shadows contained in the old covenant.

Adventists have to consider the following… in deuteronomy the reason for the sabbath being given to the Hebrews was this:

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

Probably the first thing about my above statement that will jump out to an Adventist and prompt a quick response… “given to the Hebrews”. They would be quick to insist the sabbath was given at creation and was not just for Israel.

(Cont. next post…)

 

[MarysRoses]

(cont. from previous post)

But look at the introduction to this chapter, Deuteronomy 5:1-3 :
1 Moses summoned all Israel and said:
Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today.

The Bible, specifically says this covenant was NOT WITH OUR FATHERS… This same chapter goes on to list the same essential commandments as Exodus 4… in fact this is another account of the same event, the covenant with Israel.

Yes… it is fair to say the sabbath is a memorial of creation. This reasoning is in Exodus 20. But it is also a fact that the sabbath is a memorial of Israel’s deliverance from bondage in Egypt, as recorded in Deuteronomy 5.

It is also an uncomfortable fact (for Adventists) that Deuteronomy affirms that this covenant was made with the Hebrews… at horeb, and explicitly says it was not made with their fathers.

I have not seen any credible biblical argument that the Ten Commandments, as recorded in Exodus 20, are an exact transcript of God’s eternal law. The fact that there are two versions of them in the bible, with different details but the same essentials shows that they are expressions of the same, deeper reality… not a word for word contract.

That said… what about the sabbath? Catholics accept the Ten Commandments are moral law. What is moral about the sabbath? What is shadow? What passed away withe the Old Covenant… what is binding under the new Law of Love that the NT says is written on the tables of our heart?

What is moral about the sabbath, and what is shadow?

Adventists teach that during the end times, the sabbath will become a matter of salvation. (some teach that it already is, but I’m trying to be charitable). Adventists cannot agree on exactly “how” to keep the sabbath. Some go out to eat, some won’t. Some warm food up… some don’t. Some will cook simple foods, some will only re heat. Some will go to the grocery store for necessities, some won’t.
All they can agree on is that whatever you do to keep “sabbath” holy, is that mostly, it involves going to church and even more importantly, that it has to happen on Saturday. Sunday will not do. To keep Sunday is to disobey God. “knowingly” keeping Sunday instead of Saturday if you have been given the “light” on the sabbath, will cost you your salvation.

Problem is, Saturday is an arbitrary, human designation. As such, Catholics do not see a moral precept that rest must be on Saturday. Saturday is not natural, and in actuality, you can’t even be sure what day you designate as Saturday, is in fact the biblical sabbath.

Adventists will argue the Jews have never lost sabbath… that is not quite correct. For most of the planet west of Jerusalem, that our “saturday” is congruent with the NT sabbath is fairly certain. East of Jerusalem to the international dateline, that is more tricky. In the polar regions where you may go days without a sunset… trickier still. And we now have the technology to live in space, where there is no sunrise/sunset at all. Even the Jewish scholars disagree on exactly how to keep the biblical sabbath on the International space station, or in the arctic where there is no sunrise/sundown some times during the year. There are rabbis that argue, that because of the international dateline ( a totally man made, imaginary line), Jews living EAST of Jerusalem and WEST of the dateline should not keep sabbath before it begins in Jerusalem, even if that means they keep sabbath on the day recognized by civil government as Sunday. Adventists follow the dateline, not the beginning of the sabbath in Jerusalem (which is biblical? who has the authority to say?)

The 10 commandments are binding as an expression of Natural, moral law. The old covenant and its shadows have been fulfilled. There is nothing natural about keeping “saturday” over any other day of the week. It doesn’t exist in nature. There is a moral precept in having time set aside for regular rest. (If you actually read the commandment, worship and assembly are not in there)

There is nothing morally superior about Saturday over Sunday for rest.

Adventists will argue that there is nothing natural about a 7 day week, and therefore, it only exists because of the sabbath, a Proof. Again… that is not correct. That is putting the cart before the horse. The natural origin of the week is apparent to anyone who has watched a mother cut up fruit or a sandwich for her child. You cut it in half… if the pieces aren’t quite small enough, you cut it in half again. The lunar cycle is 28 days… a little too much for humans to order their lives around… half of that is 14… still a bit too much… half again is 7. And there is the week, a perfectly natural, logical division of the lunar month. What mother wastes time cutting an apple into fifths?

Within the cycle though, no day stands out as having any quality different from another.

Even in the commandment, the word seventh is not the name of a particular day, but an ordinal number… as in the third planet, the fourth apple, or the seventh day. If you mix up a plate of apples and recount them, a different one might be the “seventh” one each time you order them.

(cont. Next post…)

 

[MarysRoses]

With me so far???

I’ve posted my thoughts before… I’m still waiting for reasoned answers to the following…

If the sabbath was given to man at creation… why is there no record of it being kept by people before moses? To “rest” is to cease… thats what the word sabbath literally means. There is no record that God ended his rest and returned to “work”. Why does commandment list the reason for sabbath observance as creation in exodus… for deliverance from Egypt in Deuteronomy? Why two different versions of this “immutable” “eternal” law that is so detailed it specifies a particular day of the week that is superior than others?

another question… if Saturday is the only proper day to fulfill the command to set aside time for rest and worship… How can you kn ow for sure which slice of time God recognizes as "Saturday’?

 

[MarysRoses]

The church recognizes this moral precept of setting aside regular time for rest, and also the NT precept of not neglecting to assemble ourselves together… and applies these to the first day of the week… Sunday. The day of the resurrection. The first day, which is also the Eighth… which cannot be found in the natural weekly cycle. It stands outside time. God’s rest stands outside time… Eternity. The Jewish people looked at sabbath and remembered creation .(Exodus 20:8). Christians look at Sunday and remember the NEW creation. (2 Cor 5:17) The Jewish people looked at sabbath and remembered their deliverance from slavery in Egypt. (Deut. 5:15) Christians look at Sunday and remember their deliverance from slavery to the law. (Romans 8:2) The Jewish people looked at sabbath and carefully guarded its edges, looking forward to entering into God’s eternal rest. Christians experience Sunday as a joyful feast, a weekly Easter, a celebration of their rest in Christ, who is the fulfillment of the old covenant sabbath, and in whom Christians find their sabbath, their rest. (Hebrews 4:10)

One of the old covenant shadows, was the offering of the first fruits. Jesus is referred to in the New Testament, as the first fruits of those who are raised from the dead. On what day was the offering of the first fruits made? (Leviticus 23:39) The Eighth day!

Jesus is our sabbath rest.

Sunday is the feast of the Church, a celebration of what Jesus has done for us. Sunday is not the sabbath on another day.
There is no explicit biblical command for Christians to worship on Sunday, this is not a matter of old covenant law. It fulfills the moral precept of regular rest and worship, “keeping” the commandment, as Christians should keep the commandments. As moral law. In spirit and truth, not in letter and shadows.

Adventists love to trot out statements that the Church “changed” the sabbath to Sunday. You can find them. They summarize the externals (The day of the week has changed) without delving into the deeper meanings and history. Adventists take these simple explanations, which were not meant to be in depth theological statements, and twist them to their own meanings.

In common English usage, ‘sabbath’ means any day of rest and worship. This is frequently and correctly used in the English language to designate the Sunday rest day as well as the Saturday Sabbath. The Church, did indeed change the day of worship. Christians no longer rest and worship on Saturday, they rest and worship on Sunday. So the Church did indeed “change” the sabbath… as the English word is commonly understood meaning a day of rest. If you look for specific clarification about the status of the biblical sabbath in regards to Sunday, the Church is very clear. Saturday is the biblical sabbath. Sunday is not the sabbath on another day… it is a day distinct from the Jewish sabbath. These documents and explanations are widely available. For Adventists to use these statements to bolster their own assertions without taking into account context and language… is in fact academic dishonesty.

A Catholic understands “Church” to mean the one Church, which has existed from the day of Pentecost. The authority which is referred to in the statements… is the authority Jesus gave his Apostles to teach and establish His Church. Not something that came along long after the apostles. This is indeed “the Church” and the Church did change the day of assembly. These statements were not made with an idea in mind that the “church” came about hundreds of years after Jesus. They are not statements verifying that the day of worship was changed hundreds of years after Jesus. Yet adventists will tack them on after asserting that Sunday became the day of worship under Constantine in the fourth century… as if they confirm their statements. This is another form of academic dishonesty. Catholic statements have to be understood with Catholic definitions of the terms… not Adventist definitions. This is simple fairness.

Adventists claim that Catholics keep Sunday as an act of rebellion against God’s law. Sunday came about not as an act of rebellion against God, but of recognizing the need for Christians to express their new reality and what Jesus has done for us. This was done in the freedom that Jesus paid for with his life, by the apostolic authority which Jesus gave his fledgling church, to teach in His name.

MarysRoses

And yes, this was copied from a previous post… long buried in the archives. You’ll forgive me for not spending hours typing it out again …

 

[Protestant101]

With me so far???

I’ve posted my thoughts before… I’m still waiting for reasoned answers to the following…

If the sabbath was given to man at creation… why is there no record of it being kept by people before moses? To “rest” is to cease… thats what the word sabbath literally means. There is no record that God ended his rest and returned to “work”. Why does commandment list the reason for sabbath observance as creation in exodus… for deliverance from Egypt in Deuteronomy? Why two different versions of this “immutable” “eternal” law that is so detailed it specifies a particular day of the week that is superior than others?

another question… if Saturday is the only proper day to fulfill the command to set aside time for rest and worship… How can you kn ow for sure which slice of time God recognizes as "Saturday’?

Hi MarysRoses; I am glad you think it is “time for you to wade in again,” this tells me that you do pay attention to what I am doing! But I am always glad to hear you chime in! I kind of miss it when you ar not around challenging me to the point where I have to think!

The Exodus Deuteronomy paradox you present; is just that. A paradox. It does not mean that in one passage; it is contradicting the other one. Adventists also believe both passages re the pictures they paint of the Sabbath. Certainly neither passage actually has textual evidence to show that “the sabbath” is any other than the “seventh day,” so it is always hard for me to follow your reasoning here. Over the last 4 years I have watched you repeat this same content about Deut & Exodus, as if it somehow presents in one passage a reason to “do away with” the seventh-day sabbath, and in the other passage; it’s “rational” says to keep it. Why would God be so arbitrary as to pick one of the ten and distort it like this, making a mockery out of His own law, and how can you say Jesus “did away with the Sabbath” or, the fourth commandment, on the cross; if God did it way back in these OT times?

You never fail to make me chuckle as you try to reason away that no one can know when the seventh day is; but if that were so, and time has been “lost” then you also have no idea when any other day of the week is either, making it impossible for Catholics to also keep their church’s mandated “Sunday Obligations.”

I would like to see the day when Catholics like yourself who enjoy apologetics, would just dispense with all these artificial arguments, and admit what this issue is really all about. It is an issue of authority, not theology.

Take care my friend. It is nice to hear from you. I do enjoy your participation!!

 

[benidict]

maryrose, thank you. i have seen a refutation of SDA theology, so eloquently put. and so soundly silenced. gonna wait to see how they refute your reasoning. it looks rock solid to me. looking forward to the debate. as protestant 101 stated it is a question of authority. and the SDA does not have the authority of Christ, or his apostles. but theology is also important. and the Good Lord did not leave us orphans. his apostles were given the authority to set up a means of succession that exist to this day. if there is a succession of Seventh Day Adventist teachers, that recieved their authority from the apostles, i havent seen it. the wheel the apostles set in motion from when they were called the way, to when they were called Christians, became what we now know as Catholicism. history, and the Church fathers bear this out. we have many witnesses. and the proof is irrefutable. Peace an Grace to you. and again thank you. only so much can be done with a high school education…

 

[greggy53]

maryrose, thank you. i have seen a refutation of SDA theology, so eloquently put. and so soundly silenced. gonna wait to see how they refute your reasoning. it looks rock solid to me. looking forward to the debate. as protestant 101 stated it is a question of authority. and the SDA does not have the authority of Christ, or his apostles. but theology is also important. and the Good Lord did not leave us orphans. his apostles were given the authority to set up a means of succession that exist to this day. if there is a succession of Seventh Day Adventist teachers, that recieved their authority from the apostles, i havent seen it. the wheel the apostles set in motion from when they were called the way, to when they were called Christians, became what we now know as Catholicism. history, and the Church fathers bear this out. we have many witnesses. and the proof is irrefutable. Peace an Grace to you. and again thank you. only so much can be done with a high school education…

The SDA will refute it because they have been taught that the history of Christianity has been re-written by the Church of Rome. That the real history of the “Sabbath” Christians who existed back then has been suppressed. This then makes it easier to invent a new history and place anything they want into it.
Case in point: The history of St Patrick who we know is the patron saint of Ireland. On his feast day a couple years ago the SDA ran an article about who St Patrick really was. They said that his name wasn’t Patrick at all but something else no one has ever heard of and that we was in fact a “Sabbath” Christian who fought against the false teachings of Rome, but his true history had been “suppressed.” I posted a comment on the article asking them that if the real history of St Patrick had been suppressed how did the SDA know about it? I never got an answer of course. This is what the SDA does. They re-invent the history of Christianity to suit their own purposes then twist the truth of the scriptures to match that history and beguile the unwary.

 

[greggy53]

You never fail to make me chuckle as you try to reason away that no one can know when the seventh day is; but if that were so, and time has been “lost” then you also have no idea when any other day of the week is either, making it impossible for Catholics to also keep their church’s mandated “Sunday Obligations.”

The point being that it makes NO DIFFERENCE if we can determine what the 7th or 1st day of the week actually was in antiquity. It is a day set aside for rest and worship and thanksgiving and Sunday obligations are mandated by the authority of the Church.

I would like to see the day when Catholics like yourself who enjoy apologetics, would just dispense with all these artificial arguments, and admit what this issue is really all about. It is an issue of authority, not theology.

You are absolutely right. It always boils down to a question of authority. The Churches authority versus the SDA authority. And don’t tell me you get your authority from the scriptures because the scriptures don’t give you that authority. Whether you will admit it or not you accept the authority of the SDA. But that authority was never given to the SDA. It was and is given to one Church only, the Catholic Church. It’s in the scriptures you should look it up.

 

[CatholicLover]

You are absolutely right. It always boils down to a question of authority. The Churches authority versus the SDA authority. And don’t tell me you get your authority from the scriptures because the scriptures don’t give you that authority. Whether you will admit it or not you accept the authority of the SDA. But that authority was never given to the SDA. It was and is given to one Church only, the Catholic Church. It’s in the scriptures you should look it up.

We don’t claim authority. We are simply trying to follow the word of God as presented in the Bible. One does not need authority to do that.

 

[CatholicLover]

The SDA will refute it because they have been taught that the history of Christianity has been re-written by the Church of Rome. That the real history of the “Sabbath” Christians who existed back then has been suppressed. This then makes it easier to invent a new history and place anything they want into it.
Case in point: The history of St Patrick who we know is the patron saint of Ireland. On his feast day a couple years ago the SDA ran an article about who St Patrick really was. They said that his name wasn’t Patrick at all but something else no one has ever heard of and that we was in fact a “Sabbath” Christian who fought against the false teachings of Rome, but his true history had been “suppressed.” I posted a comment on the article asking them that if the real history of St Patrick had been suppressed how did the SDA know about it? I never got an answer of course. This is what the SDA does. They re-invent the history of Christianity to suit their own purposes then twist the truth of the scriptures to match that history and beguile the unwary.

I’ve never heard of this. Do you have a link to the article? I’d like to read it. I find it hard to believe that an Adventist publication would knowingly print something that was not true.

 

[Javl]

MarysRoses:

Thank you for a very sound explanation of the Sabbath. But, I am sure the SDA will object to, and reject, it. I have explained to the SDA that “Sabbath” means rest and that it does not mean Saturday. The Sabbath can be any day of the week.

But, according to the SDA, it IS Saturday for it was so before the foundation of the world! I don’t know how this can be since the days of the week had no name until Julius Caesar decided to name them to avoid confusion among the peoples of the Roman empire in matters of commerce. This naming was arbitrary and in time the Jews accepted Saturday as the seventh day and considered it the Sabbath.

I have also told them, and they refuse to accept, that the Apostles had the authority to designate Sunday as the Christian Sabbath. The Authority was given to them by God in the matter of “binding and loosing”. All of this is/was to no avail.

The SDA is so fixated on Sabbatarianism that I find that no amount of explanation, scriptural or otherwise ( including yours ), will move them from their position. Thinking individuals may, but not the SDA church.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[CatholicLover]

I’ve never heard some of these arguments against keeping the Sabbath before. I’ll try to address what I think your main points are but if I miss something please point it out to me and I’ll address it in another post.

This difference presents no problem to Catholics… as we believe both passages, and both listings, are expressions of God’s law… not exact transcripts. Catholics believe the Ten Commandments are binding as moral law, not because we believe we are under the same covenant as Israel. Catholics believe Christians are under the New Covenant, and are not bound by the shadows contained in the old covenant.

I’m not sure the differences between these passages present any problems for Adventists either. If Catholics believe the 10 Commandments are binding, why follow only 9 of them?

Adventists have to consider the following… in deuteronomy the reason for the sabbath being given to the Hebrews was this:

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.

That’s how you read it. I read it as God saying, “I delivered you from Egypt now keep my Sabbath Day.” God is reminding the Isrealites of who he is AND of his Sabbath Day.

Probably the first thing about my above statement that will jump out to an Adventist and prompt a quick response… “given to the Hebrews”. They would be quick to insist the sabbath was given at creation and was not just for Israel.

You’re right, we will insist this. It is there for all to see in the story of Creation. The 4th Commandment says “Remember the Sabbath Day”, meaning the Sabbath Day existed BEFORE God gave the 10 Commandments to the Isrealites.

(Cont. next post…)

 

[greggy53]

We don’t claim authority. We are simply trying to follow the word of God as presented in the Bible. One does not need authority to do that.

Nonsense, You are accepting what someone else has told what the bible says.

 

[greggy53]

I’ve never heard of this. Do you have a link to the article? I’d like to read it. I find it hard to believe that an Adventist publication would knowingly print something that was not true.

Yes I have the link. I have posted it before. It comes from the official SDA website amazingfacts.org. I have read many such “amazing” things on their website. Go there and dig around it’s chock full of lies and false accusations against God’s Church. The really “amazing” thing about the website is that people actually believe the lies. Otherwise it would be completely laughable and I wouldn’t feel the need to respond.