Seventh Day Adventist

[Lysimachus]

Delraek,

I already knew and read about Dr. Sam Bacchiocchi’s research. Which is why I particularly gave you a reliable reference.

A report of an inquisition before whom were brought some Waldenses of Moravia in the middle of the 15th century declares that among the waldenses “Not a few indeed celebrate the Sabbath with the Jews”:.-- Johann Joseph Ignaz Von Dollinger, Beitrage Zur Sektengeschichte Des Mittelalters (Reports On The History Of The Sects Of The Middle Ages, Munich, 1890, 2D PT., P. 661. There can be no question that this source indicates the observance of the Seventh-Day Sabbath.

Let us remember: Regardless of whether there is research to support that these churches in Europe kept the Sabbath or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is, “what saith the Lord?”–from scriptures.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Delraek,

I already knew and read about Dr. Sam Bacchiocchi’s research. Which is why I particularly gave you a reliable reference.



Let us remember: Regardless of whether there is research to support that these churches in Europe kept the Sabbath or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is, “what saith the Lord?”–from scriptures.

Good Morning to all.

I was taught that the Apostles being of the Jewish faith continued to observer the Sabbath on Saturday, but also gathered together for prayer and celebration Of the Eucharist on Sunday (The Lords Day ). As the Gospel was spread to the gentiles the Jewish temple service of the Holy Scripture and song and prayer were incorporated into the Sunday Eucharist gatherings.

I see us sitting here arguing about and trying to tell one another that I’m right and your wrong, which does nothing but divide the Body of Christ. I find nothing in the New Testament that clear states Saturday or Sunday. I do find in Mark ch 2 vs 23 - 28
*23 14 As he was passing through a field of grain on the sabbath, his disciples began to make a path while picking the heads of grain.

24 At this the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the sabbath?”

25 He said to them, "Have you never read what David did 15 when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry?

26 How he went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of offering that only the priests could lawfully eat, and shared it with his companions?"

27 Then he said to them, "The sabbath was made for man, 16 not man for the sabbath.

28 17 That is why the Son of Man is lord even of the sabba*th."

Now I don’t know but to me it states that observance of the Sabbath in in your heart not in the day. So be it Saturday or Sunday that you observe is all in the same.

Peace in the Lord

Scott

 

[Delraek]

Delraek,

I already knew and read about Dr. Sam Bacchiocchi’s research. Which is why I particularly gave you a reliable reference.



Let us remember: Regardless of whether there is research to support that these churches in Europe kept the Sabbath or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is, “what saith the Lord?”–from scriptures.

Since this book was written in German, I doubt that you have actually read it yourself. And just because someone in 1890 may have written that a certain sect observed the Sabbath does NOT make it true. (So much for your “reliable reference”.)

You shouldn’t be posting so-called “historical” information without being able to back it up. It removes any semblance of credibility from your posts.

It is interesting how Christians (including the reformers) had no problem with Sunday worship for approx 1800 years. Why are all these interpretations of Scripture so different from yours?

We can see from early church writings that Sunday worship goes all the way back to the 1st century…

 

[Lysimachus]

Since this book was written in German, I doubt that you have actually read it yourself. And just because someone in 1890 may have written that a certain sect observed the Sabbath does NOT make it true. (So much for your “reliable reference”.)

You shouldn’t be posting so-called “historical” information without being able to back it up. It removes any semblance of credibility from your posts.

It is interesting how Christians (including the reformers) had no problem with Sunday worship for approx 1800 years. Why are all these interpretations of Scripture so different from yours?

We can see from early church writings that Sunday worship goes all the way back to the 1st century…

Sorry, this is the first time I’ve had a chance to check back at this thread since 2 weeks ago. I definitely have plans to get more into it, but I’ve been so caught up in my business/health activities.

I’m dissapointed that you feel so moved to remove your semplance of credibility from my posts–especially when my historical data is only a “smidgen” of what my whole post was all about. My whole purpose was to point out from scripture why there is no scriptural backing whatsoever to recognize Sunday as having anything “sacred” associated with it.

You ask the question so confidently why Christians for 1800 years have had no problem with Sunday worship, yet you seem to completely forget that Christ still has not come to pick up his children. Perhaps God is unhappy with the “traditions of men” rather than following a “thus saith the Lord”? Maybe Christ will actually return to pick up his Children once He can see there are enough people obeying His commandments!

Traditions never save us. God’s word does. What we have been “taught” or “raised to think” is OUT of the question.

Matthew 7:14 ~ “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

Tell me Delraek, do you think that the Sunday keeping Christians are considered “few”? If anyone has a head on their shoulders, they will recognize that Sunday keeping Christians are the most popular kind of “Christians” the world-over. Just America alone comprises of 60 million Catholics, and by jolly if one thinks this is “few”, remind me that an appointment needs to be made for a head examination.

I’m still in the process of gathering more data for you on Sabbath-Keeping Christians that existed during the Middle-Ages. You might want to know that there is a documentary out on it, and I saw it…there is so much data of Sabbath-keeping Christians in there, it will blow you away. But I actually have to sit down and go over the transcripts for the videos again. For anyone of you who feels like purchasing the series, or just wants to read the transcripts, you can always go here: the7thday.org/. Give me a few more weeks to finish compiling all my research instead of landing bits and pieces at a time.

Blessings to you!

Lysimachus

 

[rstrats]

Delraek,

re: “Acts 20 does show that the first day of the week was the day the disciples got together to break bread…”

Whether or not the “breaking of bread” in Acts 20:7 was referring to communion, we can still exclude the verse as support for first day specialness since Acts 2:46 says that the believers broke bread every day.

 

[Lysimachus]

And who are you rstrats? Nice to meet you.

 

[Brady]

The Bible is very clear that all days are sacred. Can anyone rationally believe the allknowing God bases judgement on what day someone goes to church??!!!

Seriosly, thats why there is mass everyday.Try reading some of their literature sometimes. I’m fairly open-minded and non judgemental for a catholic, but I do not like wolves leading the sheap away.

 

[famousjonnyk]

Lysichamus:

Two things for you to consider. First, who says that the Scriptures are the final authority on matters of faith? You obviously are operating with the notion of Sola Scriptura…however, there is no evidence in the scriptures to believe that all Christian doctrine MUST be in the Bible. This belief is foreign to Judaism, and all of Christianity before the Reformation. Nowhere in the Bible will you find the Bible arguing for it’s self sufficiency, yet you will find the Scriptures arguing for the authority of the Church.

Next: Does evidence of worshipping God on Saturday really mean that someone is a Sabbath keeper and does not observe the Lord’s Day? I personally, attend Mass every Saturday afternoon. Does this make me a Sabbath keeper?

 

[Lysimachus]

famousjonnyk,

Two things for you to consider. First, who says that the Scriptures are the final authority on matters of faith? You obviously are operating with the notion of Sola Scriptura…however, there is no evidence in the scriptures to believe that all Christian doctrine MUST be in the Bible. This belief is foreign to Judaism, and all of Christianity before the Reformation.

Please be aware that DianJo was using “Sola Scriptura” to back up his positions of Sunday and the Eucharist. He quoted scripture with confidence–utilizing it as a “tool” to back up these Catholic teachings. He made it very plain that the verses he used were “evidence” in support of Sunday keeping and celebrating the Eucharist on Sunday.

So what did I do in return? I used “Sola Scriptura” right back at him to show him that if he is going to believe in Sunday as the Sabbath, and the “breaking bread” on Sunday as that of the “Eucharist” that he has no scriptural foundation whatsoever.

If anyone wants to believe in these teachings based on “additional” information outside of the scriptures, that is their pregrogative. This is perfectly fine as long as you do not claim that these teachings can be backed up by the scriptures.

Nowhere in the Bible will you find the Bible arguing for it’s self sufficiency, yet you will find the Scriptures arguing for the authority of the Church

Actually, if you search the scriptures a little deeper, you will find it.

Please remember. The Catholic Church is made of “men”. How does God enable each individual to determine which men are speaking according to the word, and which are not? Remember, many men can speak “great things” (Dan. 7:8,20), but how do individuals by themselves determine whether it is truly “great” or not?

God gives every individual a tool—the Word of God, the Bible.

Isaiah answers quite clearly:

Isaiah 8:20 – "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

The law represents the Old Testament, and the testimony the New Testament. Anything that is taught outside of this clearly has “no light”.

And yes, the Bible argues for the authority of the church. However, God’s true church will “speak according to the law and the testimony”. We should be thankful God gave us a measuring rod by which to measure truth and discern who is who.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

If anyone wants to believe in these teachings based on “additional” information outside of the scriptures, that is their pregrogative. This is perfectly fine as long

Well, Lysimachus (can I call you ‘Ly’ for short?),

You suffer from a fundamental perceptual handicap, and I mean this in all Christian charity, but you accuse us Catholics of the same reasoning you use to justify your wild hair beliefs.

EXAMPLE: Who told you that what Isaiah means by “law” and “testimony” is the Bible? (OT and NT)

NOT THE BIBLE.

EXAMPLE: Where does it say in the Bible that God gives it as a tool for every individual? Heck, where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the ‘How to be a Christian Book’???

IT DOESN"T.

EXAMPLE: If the Bible is your “measuring rod,” then why do you and all the other ‘bible thumpers’ disagree on what specific passages mean? Who is the infallible speaker on Scripture here, Ly?

IT ISN"T YOU.

EXAMPLE: How do you make the stretch between ‘God’s Church’ having authority and the application of Isaiah 8? Did Isaiah speak specifically about the future “Church founded by Jesus Christ”? or is there another ‘proof-text’ from St Paul (for example) saying Isaiah 8:20 MUST BE READ IN LIGHT OF ‘THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM VERSES.’

YOU MADE THE STRETCH, YOU ARE INTERPRETING OUTSIDE OF SCRIPTURE.

Lie low, Ly, you are embarrassing yourself.

Go in peace.

Robert

 

[rstrats]

famousjonnyk,

re: “I personally, attend Mass every Saturday afternoon. Does this make me a Sabbath keeper?”

Probably not. Leviticus 20:10 - “but the seventh day [sundown on the sixth day until sundown on the seventh day] is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.”

 

[SDA2RC]

**This is a response to parts 1 and 2… I would like to respond to much of what you have said. Although you have typed in your own words, your responses are nearly identical to the several Adventist books and lecturers I have read and heard. Unfortunately, while still an Adventist I found that often they had not done very good homework or research. It appears that at least in some cases, you have repeated this mistake. What you said is in normal print, what I responded with is in Bold. **

You said: The true understanding of the definition of “Sabbaths” here are those “shadow Sabbaths” of Colossians.

**Funny that you say that your belief is the “true” understanding… true for who? Dr. Bacchiocci, a SDA Theologian/Church historian, disagrees with your conclusion here, as do the majority of other Biblical scholars and linguists as represented in commentaries, who read and care about scripture as much as you. What do you believe makes your interpretation the only “true” one when in fact it flatly contradicts the verse. In fact in Col. 2:17, we see a natural progression from yearly, to monthly, to weekly Sabbaths. If you look above at your quoted statement, you will find that you have presumed to tell us what the Sabbaths were, as though you yourself had written the text. In fact, you didn’t, and we rely on the writers words above your own. So what does the writer say… well he makes a natural progression (which can be seen often in the Old Testament) from Yearly to Monthly, and lastly, to weekly Sabbaths. If the Sabbaths in this verse referred to the yearly Sabbaths, it would have been redundant to repeat them again, after he had already addressed the yearly festivals, which were the yearly Sabbaths. Furthermore, while you claim that the writer meant only ceremonial Sabbaths, the writer himself never limits his use of the word to only ceremonial Sabbaths, so what you have done is added your own interpretation to twist this verse in spite of the inspired writers own clear words. If we take what the writer says, he did not limit it to only non-weekly Sabbaths… only you did, fortunately, as Catholics we reject this kind of personal interpretation scripture warns us about. **

You said: This is not the 7th Day Weekly Sabbath of the 4th commandment. The “sabbath days” referred to here are the feast days given to ancient Israel, such as, unleavened bread, feast of weeks, feast of tabernacles, etc. This has nothing to do with God’s Seventh-Day weekly Sabbath–the day that God sanctified and hallowed, and of which he later said: “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it Holy”

**Again, unfortunately, the text does not agree with you. No Sabbaths were excluded by the author in Col 2.17 as you are trying to do, therefore as a Catholic and as a Christian I must go by scripture, not your explanation which flatly contradicts the inspired writer. **

Just because Jesus rose on Sunday bears no specific command to honor it in any special way.

**You are correct; the command to honor it was given by the body of Christ, as established in scripture. To ignore this command is to ignore scripture its self. **

The Sabbath represents “rest from sin”.

**I again agree. The Sabbath was a type of the rest we could have in Christ. Christ has fulfilled this type and we now do not rest temporally on only one day, but we rest eternally in Christ. To continue observance of the temporal Jewish Sabbath, is to deny that which it represents, the rest of Christ secured on the cross. This is why we find NO WHERE after the resurrection a command to observe the Jewish Sabbath, there was no longer a need for it, just as there was no longer a need for sacrifices, or the Temple. **
You quoted Hebrews 2… which tells us that TODAY is the day to enter that rest, not the 7th day Sabbath spoken of “somewhere”.

Simply because the apostles “gathered together” still does not hold a shred of evidence that Sunday is to be held as any “special” day.

**I agree… and would continue your logic… just because the apostles gathered together or preached on Saturday, does not mean that they were observing the day as a Sabbath. It was the most convenient day on which to preach, it as the only day on which work was not allowed and the Jews were gathered in one place. If your pastor went to the park and preached each Sunday for 18 months, would this mean that he kept Sunday as the Sabbath, of course not. However, in the verses you mention next, that is exactly what you what us to assume about the apostles. Once again you are asking us to read something into scripture that is not there… this is expressly against the Bible and the Church, and therefore we reject it. **

Cont…

 

[SDA2RC]

Instead, every day of the week is made by God, and we should worship God every day.
**Your right, and as the Apostles did… we do… you can go to a Catholic Church and worship every single day as a community. Unfortunately, this is not the same in the Adventist Church, I hope you will work to change that in your ecclesiastical community. **
Sunday was a convenient time on weekends for the apostles to come together, yet regardless of what day they met during the week, they ALWAYS came together and worshipped God on the Seventh-Day Sabbath.
Actually… the opposite is true… and I am not sure what your basing your statement on… where did you get the idea that Sunday was a convenient time to come together for the Apostles, this was a work day. In fact, Saturday was the only day in which Jews did not work, it was by far the easiest day on which to gather.

You said: “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.” ~ Acts 18:4
No mention of observing the Sabbath as a day of rest here… If the verse said “every Tuesday” instead would you assume that this meant that the Apostles were now resting on Tuesdays?

You said: "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath." ~ Acts 13:42

No mention of observing the Sabbath here… If the verse said “next Tuesday” instead would you assume that this meant that the Apostles were now resting on Tuesdays?

Your interpretation that the Apostles came together to celebrate the “Eucharist” on Sunday in Acts 20:7 is only a figment of your wild imagination. You are improperly using the definition “break bread” to carelessly represent the celebration of communion (Lord’s Supper). But “break bread” in this proper understanding simply means “to eat”. That’s it! The disciples broke bread EVERY day.
I am afraid that you are the one with the wild imagination, and again did not do your homework. In fact, if you look at 1 Corinthians 11 you will find the description of breaking bread specifically applied to the Lord’s Supper. For brevity I will only quote a few verses, but I encourage you to read the entire text. **
1Co 11:23 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; **
1Co 11:24** and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. **
1Co 11:25** In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. **
1Co 11:26** For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come. **
1Co 11:27** Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. **
1Co 11:28** But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.**

**Does this sound like a casual meal to you? Notice the penalty of one who takes part in this meal casually… “You should be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”. **
The definition of “break bread” in Acts 20:7 is absolutely no different than Acts 20:11 where it says: “ When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.”.

There is nothing here to indicate to me that this could not be the Lord’s supper.

Cont -

 

[SDA2RC]

“Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you. And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat.” ~ Acts 27:34,35
Please tell me, does this instance of breaking bread sound like the “Eucharist”? If not, then how can you interpret the breaking of bread in Acts 20:7 as that of the “Eucharist”? Sounds like you just went off a wild shoot.

**The Lord’s supper was just that, a supper during the Passover. It is entirely possible that the apostle here was observing the Eurcharist… notice he breaks bread, then eats. Then the rest of the crew took food… they did not all break bread. Unless you believe that this text is simply telling us he had to cut the bread before he ate it? If that is the case, it seems as though it is a trivial detail. This does not mean that all mention of breaking bread has to refer to the Eucharist, but you cannot simply rule it out because they also ate… The Catholic Church breaks bread, observes the Eucharist, EVERY DAY… as I believe the apostles did. We also eat everyday… (unless fasting of course) sometimes we eat (especially donuts) right after we break bread. You should try it **

Notice that as Paul continued to preach long after the death of Christ, they continued to worship on the Sabbath day: "And the next sabbath day* came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God."*~ Acts 13:44.

**Whoa… notice you inserted the word WORSHIP into your explanation of the verse, even though the verse its self says nothing about worship… next your going to insert “observed the Sabbath” into the verse… your going to have to quit adding to God’s word. Again, let me ask you: Does this verse say anything about any Christian observing the Jewish Sabbath as a day of rest? This is the question here… Sabbath observance… not worship… we can worship every day… but observance of the Jewish Sabbath was only done on one day. You are using this verse to support Sabbath observance… yet I see ABSOLUTELY NO mention of Sabbath observance here… It appears again, that you didn’t do you home work on this very well. **

It is important to note that modern research has established that the early Christians continued to worship on the Sabbath day according to the commandment 300 years after the death of Christ.

**I agree… Christians did continue to worship on the Sabbath, **
**they worshipped any day of the week they could… in fact every day… Just as Catholics do today. What they did not do was OBSERVE THE JEWISH SABBATH. I encourage you to provide me with any primary sources that state that any of the communities established by the Apostles observed the Sabbath… not worshipped on it… but observed it as a Sabbath. **

Then gradually, Christians began to keep the seventh-day sabbath and the pagan “day of the Sun”.

**Interesting history… LOL How about this… what really happened was that heretical groups rejected the body of Christ, which was given authority to bind and loose, and began observing the Jewish Sabbath on the “day of Saturn”, to honor of the God Saturn, thus paganizing their form of religion, and really honoring the God of Saturn. In fact Adventist abbreviate their name with the letters S.D.A,. as has been noted in other writings, it appears that this is a refernce to Semiramis, Diana, and Astarte, a triad of Pagan goddesses. After all the Adventist church was heavily influenced in doctrine and culture by a woman, Ellen G. White. In fact the family plot of the Whites in Battle Creek Michigan is marked with pagan obelisk shaped monuments, a clear indication of pagan worship. Tie this in with the fact that her name equates to 666…Adventists MUST be pagan! **

As Christianity became paganized through the influence the early Catholic fathers who developed a church, half pagan and half christian,

**Ooooh… lets play this fun he said – she said game some more! Please tell me which Catholic fathers “paganized” the Church, if your going to make such an outlandish claim, then certainly you will show us that your not bearing false witness against us… Remember, please provide documentation from primary sources, not merely opinions. You have made a strong accusation against our faith, we deserve a honest accounting of your statements. **

with the help of Emperor Constantine, who brought in the first Sunday law.

What was the Sunday law he brought in? Tell us! And support your claims from Primary sources. I have read his edict, and I want to know what you find objectionable about it… and what about it constitutes a “Sunday law.” Also, please tell us your definition of Sunday law. Thanks

Cont -

 

[SDA2RC]

But even through the Dark Ages the true persecuted Christians continued to keep the Sabbath holy in the mountains and caves running from the great persecution.

**LOL… please tell me that name of ONE SINGLE person or groups of people who were persecuted as you put it, for keeping the Sabbath. Again, please provide support for your claims. These are hilarious… but unfortunately, common among the Adventists. It is very much the same as the Nazi history of Jews, or the Muslim history of WWII… Without facts and meant entirely to demonize a people group. It is a very ignorant and uninformed assertion. **

These Christians were, the Waldenses, the Huguenots, the Vaudois, Moravians, Albagensians, Bohemians, etc. Though severely persecuted and slaughtered by the fierce Catholic Church through the inquisition, they continued to faithfully keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

LOL… um… the Waldenses never kept the Sabbath, according to themselves (I have personally contacted them and received a respons from the Execute Synod on this subject. Not only did they say that they never were interested or observed the Jewish Sabbath, but they also said their focus was on the “third day”, the day of the resurrection. Further, they said they do not now nor have ever espoused the other distinctive Adventist beliefs like Soul Sleep, that Michael the archange is Christ, modern day prophecy to the Church as a whole, etc.). Even Adventist Church historian Samuele Bacchiocci… (although EGW did say otherwise) says that the Waldensians did not keep the Sabbath. In fact, the Waldensians were a Catholic sect until the reformation, when they organized as a Church. Waldo was himself a Catholic…LOL And are you really trying to tell us that the Albigensians were “True Christians” that you tie your spiritual heritage to? Lets look at the Albigenses you mention as the “TRUE CHRISTIANS”… From encyclopedia.com (A non Catholic site):

“The Albigenses were extremely ascetic, abstaining from flesh in all its forms, including milk and cheese. They comprised two classes, believers and Perfect, the former much more numerous, making up a catechumenate not bound by the stricter rules observed by the Perfect. The Perfect were those who had received the sacrament of consolamentum, a kind of laying on of hands. The Albigenses held their clergy in high regard. An occasional practice was suicide, preferably by starvation; for if this life is essentially evil, its end is to be hastened.”

**This is your version of TRUE Christians, encouraging suicide? Since this is what you claim as your spiritual heritage… do you also encourage suicide? Would you like your children joining such a group of “TRUE CHRISTIANS”? ROTFL… you have got to by kidding… btw… they didn’t observe the Jewish Sabbath either… you REALLY need to do more research before you repeat what Adventists have told you. Do you want to go through the rest of your list of TRUE Christians and compare them to your beliefs… **
**Look, I have responded in kind to your post here. Your comments towards us about wild imaginations, poor scholarship, etc…etc… can also be repeated by us to you. What I fail to see in any of your posts is a desire to understand or respect the beliefs of others, as your trying to learn about them. I hope that we can establish this before long. **

 

[rstrats]

SDA2RC,

re: “There is nothing here to indicate to me that this could not be the Lord’s supper.”

Nor is there anything in Acts 20:7 and 11 to indicate that it WAS referring to the Lord’s supper. You argue that 1 Corinthians 11 shows that the term “breaking bread” is a reference to the observance of the Lord’s supper. In this case it is specifically identified as such. But when this specificity is not indicated, “breaking bread” can mean nothing more than the partaking of a common meal. “It means to partake of food and is used of eating as in a meal… The readers [of the original New Testament letters and manuscripts] could have had no other idea or meaning in their minds” (E.W.Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, pp. 839,840.

Again, as mentioned above, when Paul was shipwrecked on the voyage to Rome, the sailors had been fasting out of fright. But “Paul urged them all to take some food, saying, ‘Today is the fourteenth day that you have continued in suspense and without food, having taken nothing. Therefore I urge you to take some food; it will give you strength…’ And when he had said this, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat” (Acts 27:33-35, RSV). Here Paul broke bread to give to unconverted sailors who were hungry. It was hardly the Lord’s Supper.

 

[SDA2RC]

**This is a Response to parts 3 and 4 of your posting. Again, my responses are in bold. **

You said: There is a VAST difference between the shadow Sabbaths and the 7th Day Sabbath as established in the Moral Decalogue and written by the “finger of God” (not the Mosaic Laws of rights and ceremonies).

The problem is that the VAST difference is in your man made interpretation of scripture not scripture its self. The writer of Col did NOT make this distinction, as part of your theology, you must add this to the verse in order to uphold your non-biblical view of this belief. If you take the verse as it reads, rather than reading into it, it does not exclude the 7th day Sabbath, in fact since the 7th day Sabbath was so widely known, and the verse shows a natural progression from yearly to monthly, to weekly, it cannot be understood any different than how the writer actually wrote it…

But are we talking about the traditions of God? Or the traditions of men? There is no scriptural text ANYWHERE that provides any reason to suggest the Apostles changed the day from Saturday to Sunday.

**Your setting up your own straw man here… to my knowledge, no on has claimed that scripture dictated the change from Saturday to Sunday. There is no change. As our catechism says, the Lord’s day comes the day AFTER the Sabbath. There is the Sabbath and there is the Lord’s Day. We worship every day. We observe especially the Lord’s Day, but this does not change the Sabbath. We are simply not under the Old Covenant, therefore the Sabbath does not apply to us. And to answer your question above, we follow the Apostolic Tradition, which his what was commanded in Thess. This Tradition (teaching) was handed down to use from the Apostles. Does this mean it was written down… no… nor do we claim it needs to be. To claim that one cannot believe something unless it is written in scripture is silly. God gave us the Church to be our foundation of truth, not a book. The book is an outgrowth from the Church, not the other way around. **

Notice that after the cross the faithful Jews who had become faithful Christians (that is, followers of Christ) continued to keep the Sabbath holy according to the commandment: *… *Luke 23:54-56 Notice “according to the commandment”.

**We have no argument here, the JEWS observed the Sabbath after Christ died. As Christ did Himself in the grave. However, after the RESURRECTION this was not the case. NO WHERE in scripture or other writings are Christians commanded to observe the Sabbath. In fact the question of circumcision settled this once and for all… IF one was not to be circumcised, he was under no obligation to keep the Sabbath, at least this was the understanding of the Jews (and hence apostles) during this time period. In fact a Gentile keeping the Sabbath was considered a blasphemy. The Jews understood the Sabbath was part of a Covenant with only the JEWS, not everyone else. Luckily our church was founded by Christ, by Jews, and we understand this. Unfortunately, Adventism, coming 1800 years after Christ’s death, and separated by time, culture, and understanding is **

“Another Day” is “Sunday”? Talk about interpreting scripture their own way, if there ever was such a thing, you by far have exceeded my expectations by crowning yourself as “king of personal interpretation” ^.^.

**No the verse clearly says that the “Another day” is TODAY! Everyday! We rest in Christ daily, through his redemptive sacrifice and resurrection; there is no longer a need for the weekly temporal rest. Hebrews 4 is drawing a comparison between the Old Covenant Sabbath (the temporal Sabbath of one day) and the eternal Sabbath Rest we have through Christ. **

**“**The first mention of “rest” is actually found in Hebrews 3:11. The context in which the author speaks of this rest is in his exhortation to New Covenant obedience, and against defection from the New Covenant to the Mosaic Covenant. He reminded his readers of the day wherein the Israelites provoked the Lord to anger when they believed the evil report of the ten spies, which in turn caused them to lose faith in Yahweh’s ability to give them the land of Canaan as He had promised (Hebrews 3:7-9; Numbers 13-14). As a result of their lack of faith in the promises of God they were condemned to wander in the wilderness for forty years, not able to enter into the rest intended for them by God (Hebrews 3:10-11, 17-19).

The rest spoken of was not the rest of the Sabbath day, but entrance into the Promised Land (Hebrews 3:18-19). If “rest” speaks of the Sabbath rest Israel would have most assuredly experienced it because they did observe the Sabbath in the wilderness. Such a conclusion, however, is in stark contrast to the author’s assertion that Israel did not enter into rest. The Israelites could not enter the Promised Land because of a lack of faith, not because of a lack of Sabbath observance.”

Cont -

 

[SDA2RC]

Part 4
When there is a change in the law, the question that remaineth is “which law?”.

**Ok… here again you are creating your own false paradox… scripture speaks of ONE LAW in the Old Covenant… not two. The Jewish Mitzvah, or Law, included the Ceremonial and what you would call the Moral law… there was no difference in the importance or longevity between the two, they were both from God, and both were considered to be part of the Covenant with Israel. Adventist have created (another man made doctrine) a separation in the Law that neither the Jews, Scripture, or other Christians recognize. **
BTW… if you believe that the 10 Commandments are still binding on the SDA Church, why do Adventists take pictures, create paintings, and statues, in open defiance of the 1st/2nd commandment?

James 2: 10, 11. Unquestionably, James is quoting from those commandments of which Jesus said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15.

**Yes… the author is quoting some of the Old Covenant Laws, for as Christians, we believe that some of the Old Testament laws are also part of the New Covenant. Notice he does not quote the Sabbath commandment. And yes… we are to keep Christ’s commandments, HIS commandments, the NEW COVENANT, not the Old Mosaic Law that scripture clearly tells us was abolished. Are some of the Old Covenant laws in the New Covenant, yes… but not all of them. If you believe that this refers only to the 10 Commandments, then you have again erroneously inserted the word “TEN” into the command to keep his commandments. God gave hundreds if not thousands of Commandments, not just 10. **

Does God change his moral law?

Yes… he said he did!

The eternal law–the 10 commandment decalogue written with the finger of God and given to Moses to ancient Israel was never nailed to the cross, for Jesus himself said "For 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." Matthew 5:18

Right… THE LAW… which included the 10 Commandments, the Sacrifices, the Priestly Laws, the Yearly and Monthly festivals, the Temple rituals etc…etc…etc. However, No Adventists keep all of these, instead they falsely interpret “THE LAW” only as the 10 Commandments, which is inconsistent with what the writer said. The writer of scripture does not identify only the 10 Commandments here… .this is yet another example of Adventism twisting scripture to suit their own beliefs. In fact, if you look at this text, you will see that Christ never said that the Law would not be around forever, not at all, he said it would be around UNTIL all be fulfilled. On the Cross, Christ said, “IT IS FINISHED”. You can continue to ignore the words of Christ, but as Catholics we must follow them.

So this law of rights and ceremonies was no longer to be observed as was settled in the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. “Blotting 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;” ~ Col 2:14. The “handwriting of ordinances” were handwritten by Moses, and known as the “Mosaic laws” and were given to the Children of Israel—which were “types” and “shadows” pointing to Christ’s life and death.

**Again, you are inserting your own belief (Isogesis) into the text. The text says HANDWRITNG, not HANDWRITNG OF MOSES. The 10 Commandments were also written by the hand of God. We know that these were a) part of the Old Covenant, and b) were contrary to us as explained in Galations 4: **

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the freewoman.

Gal 4:23 Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son by the freewoman is born through promise.

Gal 4:24 Which things contain an allegory: for these women are two covenants; **one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto bondage, **which is Hagar.

Gal 4:25 Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children.

Gal 4:26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
**Tell me… which law came from Mount Sinai and bears Children into Bondage? Yep… the Old Covenant, the Law, including and especially the 10 Commandments. Scripture tells us that it is THIS LAW, the law from MOUNT SINAI is the one that enslaves us and is against us. **

**The New Covenant however, of which I am under, produces spiritual heirs to the Promise… Christ! **

 

[SDA2RC]

You said: The 10 Commandments were not a “type” or a “shadow”, rather a moral Decalogue written for “all men” and written by the finger of God: “And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.” ~ Exodus 31:18

Actually… you are again wrong… the 10 Commandments were but a shadow of the Word of God, Christ. The fullness of the Law and perfection is in God alone… not in Exodus 16. Do you actually believe that the Law of God is greater that the Law that is God? One was revealed to us in the Old Covenant, the other is revealed to us daily in the New Covenant.

NOT the 10 Commandments which were written by the finger of God for ALL MEN.

**Again, I must make a correction here… The LAW (not just the 10 commandments, but the entire law) was only ever given to the Jews. You will not find ONE SINGLE instance of God commanding anyone other than the Jews to observe the Law. **

Regarding Revelation 1:10, you said: The Lord’s Day is the Seventh-Day Sabbath. Not Sunday. You may attempt to argue all you want, but in vain. This I promise you. You will never prove that the Lord’s Day is Sunday, no matter how hard you try. It will not be found in scripture, anywhere.

**We don’t have to argue or attempt to argue about it… the early Christians already told us what the Lord’s Day was… we can turn to the writings in the same time period and find that this term is applied to only the Day of the Resurrection, Sunday. This is how they used and understood the term. You, on the other hand, can not show one single example of the term “the Lord’s Day” being applied to the Jewish Sabbath. There is no argument. You can ignore the facts or you can accept them. **J

 

[SDA2RC]

Nor is there anything in Acts 20:7 and 11 to indicate that it WAS referring to the Lord’s supper. .

Rstrats, next time please read everything I wrote before you respond. I never said that it WAS necessarily referring to the Lords Supper, I dont think that the Acts 20:7 proves anything either way… I will repeat what I said:

"This does not mean that all mention of breaking bread has to refer to the Eucharist, but you cannot simply rule it out because they also ate… The Catholic Church breaks bread, observes the Eucharist, EVERY DAY… as I believe the apostles did. We also eat everyday… (unless fasting of course) sometimes we eat (especially donuts) right after we break bread. You should try it "