Seventh Day Adventist

[rstrats]

Rbt Southwell,

re: “Revelations is our Divine Liturgy…”

Any particular reason for adding an “s” at the end of Revelation?

 

[FCEGM]

I have one question for you. Do you believe in sin, . . .

Since I regularly confess my sins, I guess I must.

and if so, what is “sin”?

Well, you seem to have missed my distinction, amun. You obviously equate sinning to breaking a commandment (legalism) as opposed to rupturing one’s relationship (covenantal love) in righteousness (what is BEHIND the commandment) with the Righteous One; this rupturing is sin because it breaks our bond of love with God to lesser or greater extents.

I do not say that Christians are allowed to steal, commit adultery, etc, e.g., God forbid! Those things are terrible sins; but, there is a difference between being bound to do something (or not to do something) as a matter of law, versus being bound to do something (or not to do something) as a matter of a Covenant of Love. For example: It is wrong for a man to cheat on his wife. Now, until very recently, in many American states, it was actually a criminal offense to commit adultery - a violation of the law. And, still today, if a woman divorces her husband for adultery, the law will award her for damages, etc. But, should a man avoid cheating on his wife just because of these laws??? Of course not. A man should not cheat on his wife because he loves her and has a covenant of love with her. See the distinction?

It is one thing to be in a Covenant based on Law (the Old Covenant) but quite another thing to be in a Covenant based on Love (the New Covenant). In both Covenants, something like adultery is forbidden. But, in the Old Covenant, one avoided committing adultery because it was a violation of the Law that subjected you to punishments. In the New Covenant, one avoids adultery because it violates the Covenant of Love between you and Jesus Christ, and outside of that Covenant of Love there is no salvation for you, or anyone. This is an important distinction, because it personalizes our Covenant with God. We do not do righteous things merely because we’re scared of the Law and its punishments, and so do what the Law demands. Rather, we do righteous things because we are in a Covenant of Love with Jesus Christ (He Who enables us to live righteously in the first place by His grace!), and we do not want to ruin this Covenant (this “friendship” or love relationship) with Him. This is why St. Paul, in Romans 3:28, says that Christians are saved “by faith and not by the works of the Law.”

Now, as for the Ten Commandments themselves: As I said, we are not bound by them as a matter of LAW. Rather, we are bound by the righteousness behind these Commandments, which is the Righteousness of the Person of Jesus Christ, Who we are called to be like in all things. What this means is that we need to go beyond the mere letter of the Ten Commandments so as to keep the righteousness behind these (legal) Commandments perfectly. Jesus Himself tells us this in Matthew 5, where He says, in regard to adultery, for example (Matt 5:27-28):

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Likewise, in regard to the Commandment against murder (Matthew 5:21-23), Jesus says:

"You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But, I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother ‘Raqa’ (i.e., “Fool!’ - a specific curse in Aramaic) will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.”

Jesus says other, similar things in this same passage, but, the teaching is clear: Under the Mosaic Law, people were forbidden to commit adultery and murder; however, Jesus (in the New Covenant) requires us to go further than that. For, under the Old Covenant, people would only keep the letter of these Laws and not go any deeper than that …because nothing required that they do so. For example, the Commandment “Thou shall not kill” was limited to the legal wording of the Commandment. According to the Pharisees, as long as one kept the specific legal conditions of the Commandment, one was “righteous before God.” Jesus denies this; for the Lord Jesus, the mere letter of the Law is not enough, for, while the Commandment says, “Thou shall not kill,” it does not mean that you are righteousness if you just beat a man within an inch of his life, just as long as you do not actually kill him. That was never God’s intention at all; rather, the Commandment goes much deeper than that, and Christians are obligated (by their Covenant of Love with Jesus Christ) to keep the Commandment much deeper than that. However, non-Christian Jews are not. They are only bound by the specific wording of the Commandment - that is, they are bound by the letter of the law, and on a mere basis of law. Christians are bound by the righteousness of Christ Himself (to Whom the Law points) because of their Covenant of Love with Jesus Christ. See the distinction?

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Now, it should be pointed out that Jesus is not saying that looking at a woman lustfully or calling your brother a fool is the very same thing as physically cheating on your wife or physically killing your brother, for the latter sins are far more serious than the former. Rather, the Lord’s point is that we are called to a righteousness and a perfection that is so high that, not only would we never commit adultery or murder, but we would not even harbor lustful or unjustly violent thoughts in our hearts, i.e., we are called to avoid even those things, for the sake of our love of Jesus and our desire to be perfect as He is perfect. Again, do you see the distinction?

This is what Jesus means when, at the beginning of the passage in Matthew 5, He says …

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish but to FULFILL. …I tell you, unless your RIGHTEOUSNESS SURPASSES THAT OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

In other words, the Law must be kept in a way that is greater than a mere legal observance of the Commandments. That is, it must be exceeded by the example of Him Who embodies the Righteousness behind the Law - Jesus Christ. This is why Christians are not bound by the Law, but by the New Covenant of grace and love in Jesus Christ.

Adventists, with their strong fixation on the OT, have adopted a very legal-minded attitude toward obeying God that is far more Jewish than it is Christian. But, again, we in the New Covenant are not a people of “law,” but a people of grace who live in a Covenant based on Love. No “law” binds you or any Christian to Jesus Christ; rather, you are bound to Him by a Covenant of Faith and Love, and you obey Him BECAUSE of that Covenant of Faith and Love (per Hebrews 5:9, Romans 16:26, etc). Obedience does not have to be based on Law. Obedience can be based on faith and love. And the latter is the nature of the New Covenant in Christ. This is the Good News of the Gospel, and the Adventists are largely blind to it.

I’m waiting for him to answer my question (my comment was in response to what vtech said).

No, your comment was prompted by your presumption to pretend to read my mind, thus indeed making a caricature of what I actually said. :tsktsk: (I’m a “she”, btw.)

 

[FCEGM]

. . .It is a well known fact that the papacy in historyand from the bible,ruled for 1260 years and killed millions of saints.They also changedGods law as follows,they changed the second commandment,also the forth commandment from saturday to sunday just as the bible said they would.Only Jesus can forgive sins,we are not to bow down to idols[saints],we are not to pray to mother mary,only to the father,the son ,and the holy spirit.In the book of Matt Jesus says the only one to call father is in heaven.I will not alter nor break the thing that is gone out of my lips.Psalms89:34…I say this with love in my heart,Ihate no one and only want to tell the truth.The only way to heaven is through the word,and the word is Jesus Christ[the bible],and the word became flesh.May God bless you in all things,Im not judgeing no one,love vtech[mitchell].My e-mail is mrfountain@cox.net God bless…

Hello, vtech, and welcome. I hope your time here at CAF will be profitable for you in that you will come to see that your understanding of Catholicism is based on misinformation you have received and embraced as your own. There are many threads discussing some of what disturbs you about the Catholic Church, so I hope you will avail yourself of them - and also of the Catholic Answers Library and THIS ROCK magazine linked above. Here are a few for starters:

catholic.com/library/Seventh_Day_Adventism.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9109prot.asp

catholic.com/library/Inquisition.asp

God be with you always.

 

[amun]

FCEGM,
Thank you for your response.
It is quite clear, that while we agree on the fact that being saved is not based on obeying or disobeying a law from legalism – but instead through faith – it is also evident that you are appealing to semantics in order to blur a very simple concept that ends up creating an inevitable paradox for your position.

No one is saved by works, however, if you are living a life of faith you WILL obey god’s law.

Nobody should be keeping the commandments in order to gain merit from God, they should be keeping them out of love. However, God WILL judge us on the basis of whether or not we keep the law – otherwise someone could break the commandments and say “how was I to know what was wrong and right?”. In other words, without a law, it is impossible for someone to know what they are doing wrong. You simply can’t say with impunity that “the law is no longer to be kept” and yet believe in the concept of “sin” while at the same time suggesting that there is still some non-obligatory law that still must be obeyed (except for the 4th commandment)?

When someone sins (breaking the law) they are hurting their relationship of love for God and His Son, because they are obviously not living a life of faith during that time. However, love for God will cause you to be OBEDIENT to the law (“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. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”–Matthew 5:19 & 20).

How does the need for living a life of faith and not works render the law non-obligatory? It doesn’t! You’re trying to create a distinction that only exists in your imagination.

Picture a scenario where a parent who loves their child sets down a rule for the home, and writes it on a piece of paper. The parent is not setting that rule down so that the child will obey out of fear or legalism – they WANT the child to obey out of LOVE – however, that does not negate the fact that breaking the rules will have consequences. How does the parent wanting the child to obey out of love mean that the child is no longer bound to those rules? Again, it doesn’t.

If someone SINS (breaking the commandments) without repenting, they will have consequences. Obeying the law alone does not justify someone, but disobeying it is a sin. Plain and simple.

You’re also trying to create an imaginary legalism that SDAs have, when it is just plain not true. SDAS believe in SALVATION BY FAITH and not works. However, they aren’t as interested in formulating elaborate rhetorical gymnastics and word games in order to somehow justify not obeying God’s law.

You simply can’t say that the requirements of the law are done away with and yet suggest that there is such a thing as sinning (sinning is the transgression of the law). You are clinging to some intangible law floating around, while still suggesting that we are somehow obliged to obey the commandments without that law actually existing? That makes absolutely no sense, and I think you’re intelligent enough to see that very clearly.

What’s even more amazing, is that in your scenario you would have all 9 of the commandments be applicable (in some mysteriously non-lawful way), but at the same time throw away the 4th commandment (the catholic 3rd) as not being something that we should do out of love?

Do you think that SDAs keep the Sabbath in order to not be condemned (well, i’m sure some of them are keeping it legalistically, but they aren’t supposed to!)? No, you are supposed to keep the Sabbath because you WANT to obey God out of love and because it is the day that God himself rested on to be an example for us. “REMEMBER the sabbath day to keep it holy,….for in six days the lord made heaven and earth and rested on the seventh”. I guess God was keeping the Sabbath so he wouldn’t be condemned, LOL. The Sabbath is to be a delight, not a burden. Christ himself came to SHOW the Jews HOW to keep the Sabbath in a non-legalistic way.

Also, what do you do with the fact that your church admits to the that protestants SHOULD be keeping the Sabbath and that the only reason why the CC keeps Sunday is for the fact that the pope had the AUTHORITY to change it. Your teachings don’t seem to be consistent with your own church. Are you a RC?
I hope you really take to heart what I’m saying. There is no need for all of this philosophical meandering. God’s word is very clear.

P.S. Sorry for calling you a “him”, I should have not assumed.

 

[vtech]

Hi Maria this is vtech[mitch] I judge no one and .hope i did not hurt your feelings,My thoughts on this matter is if you love Jesus with all your heart then one day we will meet in heaven,may Jesus walk with you and yours all the days of your life,well got to go with love in my heart mitch.My e-mail if you wish is mrfountain@cox .net God bless you.

 

[amun]

Such a charge overlooks that we are no longer bound by the Law, of which the Ten Commandments are a part. If we are bound by the Ten Commandments as written, then we must also be subject to the specific punishments prescribed in the OT for breaking each Commandment.

And what makes you think that because God changed the methods of punishment that all of a sudden we will no longer be punished if we disobey the laws? Those who do not repent of their SINS (remember, sin is transgressing the law of God) WILL be punished by not entering into heaven. Does that mean that their salvation hinges on whether or not the keep the law legalistically? NO, for we are saved by grace. A pear tree does not produce pears to prove that it is a pear tree, it produces pears BECAUSE it IS a pear tree. True faith will cause obedience.

And so, by selecting Sunday as its day of worship, the Church holds to the righteousness of the Commandment while being free from the Law of the Commandment itself. Further, no Christians of the early Church kept the Sabbath observance. On Saturdays, the earliest Christians lived and worshipped as Jews, evangelizing their Jewish brethren in the synagogues (a work). Their “day of rest,” the day on which they gathered to pray and worship among themselves exclusively was the following day, the Lord’s Day: Sunday.

No, that’s called changing a commandment that God has set up as a means of knowing what we are doing wrong. “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:19

And you are completely incorrect in your assertion that the early Christians did not keep the Sabbath – in fact, it’s staggering that you would even say such a thing – but even if it were TRUE, your position would still be indefensible. What other christians do is not a barometer for how we should live our life according to scripture.

It’s also very interesting how at the end you insert “The Lord’s day: Sunday”. How is it the Lord’s day if He never sanctified it? That’s a very sly way to go about creating your own beliefs.

One other question for you. Do you believe that not keeping Sunday, along with the other commandments is “sinning”? Remember, there’s no way to sin without a law. If not, then please tell me what sinning is?

 

[amun]

I would also suggest that everyone here reads what Paul has to say about how faith and works go together:

Romans:
2:14: What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.
2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

 

[Church_Militant]

Amun doesn’t seem to know the difference between the epistle of Paul to the Romans and the epistle of St. James to all the churches.

 

[vtech]

Hi Amun this is vtech and yes im a man of 46 years old,I beleave in every thing you just said and im a devout SDA and i also know what we stand for,but did you ever think about why we have the light that we have?We must not argue with our brothers and sisters of any denomanation,we can only tell them what Jesus tells us from his word and let the holy spirit go from there.When we argue with them we only turn them away,let Jesus work on there hearts and never judge lest ye be judged.I can tell that you love Jesus and that * your a man ha ha,and your a good person,I understand you want to tell the whole world like myself,but keep in mind that Jesus would want you to be gentle and loving just like Jesus.You are right in what you say,but remember ,always be gentle and never judge,let Jesus do that,your brother forever in Jesus vtech [mitchell].My e-mail is available through my profile page. im just an old country boy who loves Jesus just like you my friend God bless,and dont be a stranger. *

 

[SDA2RC]

You act like the Waldensian church is our “core” argument to proving the Sabbath or something. That’s just one little “smidgen” we threw in. If the Waldensies didn’t keep the Sabbath, that’s hardly an argument for keeping Sunday.

Their were a lot of other churches besides the Waldensies, some whom we know kept the Sabbath. That article makes this very plain.

Lysimachus,
I dont think that the Waldensian Church is your core argument, but it one that is used repeatedly, in evangelization seminars, bible studies, and even by EGW. So while it is not a core argument, it certainly gets plenty of mileage from Adventists, which is why it deserves to be investigated at the source… the Waldensians themselves. Anything else is just gossip.

There were some churches who kept the Jewish Sabbath, but like I have said previously, there have always been heretical sects, their heresies are proven by the fact that even Adventists dont support their doctrines and had to bring about a seperate movement. You can hardly claim these as your spiritual heritage.

 

[SDA2RC]

Lysimachus said: 2 Tim. 3:16, 17 — *"**All scripture ***[is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
These 2 verses are so plain, it is impossible for anyone to get around it. And I know Rbt that you are mature enough to not quible over my use of the word “tool”. You know very well what I mean.

**Brandon: We don’t disagree that scripture, all scripture, is given by the inspiration of god, and that is is profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc, etc. However, you are confusing the word profitable with sufficient. We agree that it is profitable, scripture and the Church tells us this, however, both Scripture and the Church NEVER say that it is sufficient, or all we need… in fact quite the opposite. The fact is there is no where in scripture where scripture is said to be sufficient. **

You said: If we had no scripture, where would we be at as far as Christianity is concerned? The answer is very simple. NO WHERE! There would be no Christian world period.

**This is where we differ… we do not rely on a book, as Catholics we rely on Christ. Christ formed a church while on earth, not a book. He commanded us to teach, not to write. The church of the first centuries survived fine with no defined New Testament. The Jewish Church was established before there was an Old Testament. The writings are a tool, not the end all. God is all powerful. **

You said: John 3:39 --“Search the scriptures*; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify (the testimonies–both Old AND New) of me.”*

***As has already been pointed out, there was no New Testament when this was written, it was the Old Testament that is being spoken of here… and again, we agree, we are commanded and encouraged to search the scriptures. Again, this verse NO WHERE tells us that searching the scriptures is our only duty, nor that the scriptures are all sufficient. ***

 

[SDA2RC]

**Lysimachus said: Let’s pick on just the Sabbath portion of scripture, and see if it applies to the gentiles as well: Mark 2:27 – *“And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:” ***If it was for only the Jews, it would have said “The Sabbath was made for “Jews”, and not Jews for the Sabbath”.

You again are not taking the text in context… who was the audience, the JEWS… where was he speaking, ISRAEL, who was his mission to? Israel!

If I am preaching in an Adventist Church and I say, I want all men, women, and children to stand with me and sing, Amazing Grace. Do you really think that I expect EVERY man, woman and child in the world to stand and sing with me? Of course not… I expect those in my AUDIENCE to stand. Likewise, when Christ said it was made for man… who was he talking to… THE JEWS. You have to take the context or you continue to twist around scripture. It would be absurd to think that Christ expected every man to observe the Sabbath, but then only tell a small group of Jews, and NEVER even roam out of Israel. Further, if you take this so literally, that it is every man, then it is also true that women must not have to observe the Sabbath since the Sabbath is for MAN and not Woman. Context… Context… context!

**You said: Jesus even warned in Matthew 5:19: “*Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” ***

Oh no!! Again you have IGNORED the context. What is he talking about in Matthew 5… the 10 Commandments? No!! READ THE CONTEXT!!! He had just finished the Beatitudes… not the 10 commandments.

Mat 5:2 and he opened his mouth and taught them, saying,
Mat 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Mat 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Mat 5:6 Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Mat 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Mat 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Mat 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.
Mat 5:10 Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 5:11 Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Again, you are pulling a verse out of context and claiming it is referring to the 10 Commandments, however when we read the verse in context, it is clear that the commandments he is speaking of is the ones he had just given!

You said: Oh please, please do not refrain from grasping the simplicity of these texts.

I agree they are simple… so why do you insist on twisting them all to talk about the 10 Commandments when in fact, they have nothing to do with the Commandments. He says “THESE COMMANDMENTS”, the ones he had just talked about.

 

[SDA2RC]

LOL! I have to say, an SDA to a Catholic has got to be just about one of the most hilarious things I’ve ever seen - almost comparable to someone who has once believed the world to be round being converted over to thinking its flat…but that’s besides the point. Makes me wonder if he really even took a Bible study…because some of the arguments being used are so tenuous that they can be countered by even some of the most rudimentarily experienced adventists.

I’d like to ask sda2rc a question.

You claim that the seventh day sabbath was only for jews, so when was the official starting point when God instituted the sabbath specifically for the jewish people?

Exodus 16

 

[SDA2RC]

Rather than replying to this whole thread in its entirety, I’d like to make a few observations.

Speaking of SDAs being a “cult”, I’d like to know if it’s true that Catholics believe that someone MUST be catholic in order to be saved?.

No… we dont believe that you must be Catholic in order to be saved.

Catholics on the other hand send Martin Luther to hell. Why? Because he wasn’t Catholic. Defining a key characteristic of a cult. ?.

Amun, Catholics have not sent Martin Luther anywhere… only God can judge a man.

If you need a few references to what Catholic authorities have to say on the issue:?.

I am not sure who you are quoting… but we have only one official catechism and you didnt mention it. Why do you assume that some person’s opinion is what Catholic authorities “say”. If you would like to find out what Catholic authorities say, please go to the USCCB’s website and the Vatican Website… those are our authorities. Anything else you mention means absolutely nothing to me and is proof that your more interested in gossip than truth.

 

[SDA2RC]

LOL! I have to say, an SDA to a Catholic has got to be just about one of the most hilarious things I’ve ever seen - almost comparable to someone who has once believed the world to be round being converted over to thinking its flat…but that’s besides the point. Makes me wonder if he really even took a Bible study…because some of the arguments being used are so tenuous that they can be countered by even some of the most rudimentarily experienced adventists.

No amun… I didnt ever take a Bible study… in fact, I cant even read… When the Adventist pastor baptized me, he did it out of pity, not because I had any knowledge. I am a simple ignorant person with absolutely no Bible knowledge at all. In fact, it is really kind of you to spend time talking to such an ignorant person as me. My posts should make you feel very superior since even the most “rudimentarily experienced” Adventist can counter them. I appreciate your suggestion, I will take it into consideration.

 

[SDA2RC]

Amun:

Here you go again: making goofy assertions WITHOUT Scriptural basis or Tradition [as shown in other ECF writings] to back it up.

What NEWER version of the Bible do you SDAs use?

Is it like the BoM or the JW Bible?

I ask because in all seriousness your theology is without foundation or basis in the teachings of Jesus.

Sorry:shrug:

Robert

I think that “newer” Bible of the Adventists would be the CLEAR WORD Bible… LOL Check it out… LOL

ratzlaf.com/pdf%20files/4-17-01%20Deliberate%20Distortions%20in%20SDA.pdf

Yes… it is a real Bible published by the Church publishing houses, called a Bible on the cover in 14 places, and sold in the Adventist Book Centers.

Is that what you read Amun?

 

[Lysimachus]

Well welcome to the forum Amun, I had not expected so much help in this forum regarding the defense of God’s immutable law. And thank you too Vtech–and yes, Vtech, you have a great point about how we come across. You never win souls to christ with a “combative spirit”. We must let the word speak for itself and let the Holy Spirit guide and lead in all things.

I’m still in the process of making a full response to SDA2RC, which will still take me some time, as SDA2RC wrote a lot, which in-turn requires me to cover a lot of ground.

However, in the meantime, I thought I’d go ahead and share a few pointers from the New Testament.

I discovered that the words “Sabbath” and “Synagogue” are found together 7 TIMES in the New Testament, but the words “First Day” and “Synagogue” are fuond 0 times.

"Synagogue" + “Sabbath” = 7 Hits – 4 hits before Christ’s Ascension, 3 hits after Christ’s Ascension:

Before Christ’s Ascension:

1. Mark 1:21 - And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.

2. Mark 6:2 – *"And when the **sabbath day *was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing [him] were astonished, saying, From whence hath this [man] these things? and what wisdom [is] this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?"

3. Luke 4:16 – "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

4. Luke 6:6 – “And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.”

But wait a minute, that was only because Christ hadn’t ascended to heaven yet, so it was still obligatory! Or no? Let’s continue…

After Christ’s Ascension:

5. Acts 13:14 – “But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.”

6. Acts 13:42-44 – “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.” [Just to insert an additional point here–The Gentiles at this point were learning the ways of worshipping God and learning on the Sabbath. They begged Paul to teach them as well, so Paul did not deny their request to become new learned men in the faith, so the NEXT Sabbath came "almost the WHOLE city together to hear the word of God! This city was FILLED with gentiles]

7. Acts 18:4 – “And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.”

"Synagogue" + “First Day” or “First” = 0 Hits

---

It becomes very clear that the Seventh-Day Sabbath was the day of worship in the Synagogue (a house of worship–where today’s “church” buildings come from) for BOTH the Jews AND the gentiles (which included Greeks)–even well after Christ’s ascension to heaven.

**The desciples “Came Together” or “Assembled” on the “First Day” of the Week

• 1 Hit before Christ’s Ascension, and 1 Hit After Christ’s Ascension:**

Before Christ’s Ascension:

1. John 20:19 – “Then the same day at evening, being the first [day] of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you.”

After Christ’s Ascension:

2. Acts 20:7 – “And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples **came together **to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”[Bear in mind that the Sabbath was the “evening” and the “morning” (all the daylight), which was from Friday evening until Sabbath evening sunset. However, upon noting the kind of assembling on Sunday, it is clear that the disciples are not observing Sunday as any special “Sabbath”, nor is there any mention of a “Synagogue”.

3. [Minus “Came Together” or "Assembled] Acts 16:2 – "Upon the first [day]* of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as [God] hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come."*[There was NO “coming together” or “assembling”]

---

It is interesting to note how Catholics will hang on to that “ONE” verse of Acts 20:7 to develop an ENTIRE false doctrine of “Sunday Sacred Keeping”. It is absolutely and completely 100% unfounded doctrine. We have all the evidence we need from scripture that the desciples worshipped on the Sabbath as the “Sabbath Day” as written in the 4th Commandment (house of worship) than–and EVEN BEYOND Christ’s Ascension, “ALONG” with Gentiles and Greeks. In Acts 20:7, the desciples had travelled from long distances to meet with Paul for the weekend. They also had these long distances to travel back. So wouldn’t it be logical to conclude that the desciples were making good spiritual use of the entire weekend? Why would you travel for days only to spend time together on only the Sabbath? Even I as a Seventh-Day Sabbath keeper have met together on weekends with other Christians, and the next day on Sunday we continued our Bible studies before everyone departed later in the afternoon or evening.

The gathering together on Sunday for the desciples makes perfect sense.

 

[SDA2RC]

Lysimachus,
I think your again arguing your own straw man here… No one has denied that Jews and the Apostles went to the Synagogue on Saturday. What we have repeatedly said is that there is no command for a Christian to observe the Jewis Sabbath. We worship Christ in our Church on Saturday too… in fact we do it every day of the week. So I am not sure what your point is?

In addition, God never commanded the Jews to worship Him in the synagogue on the Sabbath, quite the opposite. They were commanded to worship at the Temple, the TEMPLE was the main place of Jewish Worship. In fact the Synagogue was originally established as a place of prayer and study… not worship. The synagogue did not even come onto the scene until about 1300 years after Moses.

“The primary purpose of the synagogue is as a house of prayer (beit tefilah). Although much prayer takes place outside of the synagogue, group prayer is extremely important in Judaism. Certain prayers may only be said in the presence of a minyan, or a group of at least 10 adults (10 men in Orthodox shuls)”

The Apostles going to the Synagogue hardly suggests that they observed the Jewish Sabbath, synagogue attendance was not a command of Sabbath observance.

No matter how many matches of Sabbath and Synagogue you find, the fact is that the Bible still never commands a Christian to observe the Sabbath after the resurrection. Period.

We make our claim for Sunday, not based on Acts 20:7 or 1 Corinthians, but on a deep reverence for the Word of God and the authority given to the Church by Christ to set observances and practices.

 

[Lysimachus]

And finally one more point after my previous post:

It is interesting to note how the ENTIRE Christian world after Constantine’s decree in March 321 AD fused the terms “Synagogue” and “First Day” together. There are even some Christians who believe that NEITHER Sunday nor Saturday are to be observed in the sense of resting from our work, but instead, “resting in Christ”—but my point is, some of them think that on Saturday “we rest in Christ”, and on Sunday “we go to Church” (Synagogue).

It is Saturdays that were meant to be kept as the Sabbath, and they day to not only rest from our labors, but to come together in God’s holy church (Synogogue)—and no, it doesn’t mean this building has to be a church, rather a place reserved for worship.