Seventh-day Sabbath Questions And Answers

[Teeliumtrozzle]

SDA think the sabbath is Saturday because they say that Jesus rested on Saturday in the tomb. This site(which belongs to an Adventist) explains their beliefs-http://pages.matmice.com/home/tf_sabbathday.

Of course, they are wrong, because Jesus actually went to preach to the dead on Holy Saturday(1 Peter 3:19).Still,no matter what day they worship him on, I’m sure he enjoys it, just the same as he does when we go to Mass.

 

[planter654]

I’d like to post two passages which I believe clearly show that the sabbath does not have to be kept under the new covenant by Gentile christians. Col 2:16; Gal4:10

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Colossians 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

Yes I agree with you! Let NO MAN therefore JUDGE you for only GOD is the judge, don’t you think? Let NO MAN. Only God can make us “HOLY” I agree. WE are free to serve God or not serve God and no man has that right given to them to judge you!

Obey God’s commands or choose not to, right! Serve man or serve God it is our choice right that is what you are saying I agree with you!

Which are a shadow of things to come???

God Bless love to all

 

[Joel1984]

The second verse I’d like to post that I believe proves that we do not have to keep the weekly and yearly sabbaths according to the law is found in the book of Galatians.

Galatians 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
Galatians 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

This passage I believe covers all the holydays according to the law. I will just make a couple of points to prove my postion that Paul is talking about days in the law and not some pagan days as some try to say.

First the context. The overall context of the book of Galatains is Paul writing to Jewish and Gentille christians that are turning back to the law. The whole context of chapter 4 is about the law also, especially from v 21-31.

The immidate context Paul refers to the law twice.

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Galatians 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Later on in the chapter Paul compares the two covenants. He uses Sarah and Issac as opposed to Hagar and Ismeal. Sarah and Issac represent the new covenant and heavenly Jerusalem while Hagar and her son Ishmael represent the Old Covenant and Jerusalem at that time.

Galatians 4:24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
Galatians 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

Paul opens up this analogy in v 21 Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

So there is no doubt I believe when it comes to context as to what Paul is discussing in v10. Also verse 30

Galatians 4:30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
Galatians 4:31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

The bondwoman which was Hagar and her son are cast out says Paul which represent Sinai and the Old covenant. The law.

There are two arguments commonly used in saying that the days mentioned in Gal 4:10 cannot refer to the sabbath. First, the more popular one amound Adventists is that the weekly sabbath is not found in Gal 4:10 but Paul is just speaking of the yearly sabbaths. This arguement is the same as they try to use for Col 2:16 which we already seen will not do.

Galatians 4:10 Ye observe days (weekly sabbaths), and months (monthly sabbaths), and times (yearly sabbaths), and years (sabbatical years).

All the sabbaths were covered. The weekly sabbaths, monthly sabbaths, yearly sabbaths, and the sabbatical years when the land was to rest every seven years and slaves were to be set free etc.

The second argument raised is that these days are not days of the law but are pagan days. To prove this postion they will cite v9

Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

The argument is that the Galatians are turning back to pagan days before they knew God. I’ll list a few problems with this postion.

First, pagans never kept any weekly day but mainly yearly festivals and some monthly festivals I think. So the “days” and “years” are not covered in the pagan calender. Also the “times” in v10 can also mean “seasons” as some bibles translate it which would of course mean the yearly feasts of the law.

…

 

[Joel1984]

Second, “know not God” does not mean they were heathens. An example of this is found in 2Thess 1:7-9.

2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Paul says in v8 vengeance would be taken on those “that know not God.” Is Paul referring to pagans? No. Verse 7 “And to you WHO ARE TROUBLED” Some of the believers in Thessalonica were troubled. They were troubled or persecuted by the unbeliving Jews. The unbeliving jews were not heathens and kept the law!

1 Thessalonians 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
1 Thessalonians 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
1 Thessalonians 2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Notice in v16 Paul says "wrath is come upong them to the uttermost.2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,2 Thessalonians 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Wrath is come on those who were troubling the thessalonians, unbelieving jews, and yet they are said to “know not God” 2Thess 1:8.

Third, Paul uses the word bondage in v9 Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

In Gal 4:24,25; 5:1 Paul uses the word bondage in these verses to describe the law and the old covenant.

I believe Col 2:16 and Gal 4:10 are proofs that we today as believers under the new covenant do not need to keep the weekly sabbath.

Christian regards
Joel Sexton

 

[planter654]

Who were the people that were held in bondage when Jesus walked the earth?

I ask, if you are now saying that the sabbath no longer needs to be kept then why do we go to church? If you are saying that the sabbath day of the Lord is not important then why do we go to Church on Sunday?

What do you think Paul is saying when he says, do you want to go back into bondage under mans authority do you think he is saying this?
Were not millions killed because of their faith in those centuries? who called them pagans, but were they really pagans? Were they not slaves held under bondage?

Was not Moses mother a Hebrew slave? Slaves to whom? Are they not God’s choosen people.Were they not held in bondage with the rich at the top?

Is Jacob, Israel not the apple of God’s eyes?
Has God forgotten his choosen people? Not till all the gentles come in?
No man has the right to judge someone’s soul, but God is the judge and God is the one who makes us " HOLY" is he not?

To keep his laws and commands is up to each one with no man telling you any different, do you think? Are we to please man or God?

For God to write the Ten commandments with his own finger must be pretty important and to place them in the ark for do you not think in God’s time they will not bare witness against us? have we not heard? Have we not heard, have we not studied, have you not read Jesus said.

The commandments are a blessing for those who obey willing, desiring to do so. Jesus paid the debt of our sins they are not void, but we now can draw nearer to God in Holiness. Those who believe in God. If we say with our lips we love him, do we not want to do all that pleases him?

We are to work out our own salvation for we all have received God’s grace.
Jesus refers to Moses, Elias and the Holy prophets in saying what did they say etc.

We were created from “LOVE” to become “LOVE” to serve “LOVE”.
Love to all.

 

[planter654]

Jesus tells us he did not come to change one tittle or jot of the law! Jesus did not ask us to make Sunday the sabbath but to be batized. If you choose or anyone to call Sunday the sabbath that is up to you or who ever. Let no man judge!!!

We are no longer under bondage, but free indeed for each one will answer to God. He is my creator. As Jesus pleased God in all things I pray I also in asking God for his strength and power to preserve to the end in pleasing him also.

Jesus came to also re-teach the laws and he was not well received by the scribes and the priest, do you think?
I pray for the church,priest nations, everyone as I hope they shall pray for me also etc.

God loves us all dearly we are precious to him. How much do I love him is what I ask myself. Jesus to Peter " How much do you love?

The road is narrow and few shall enter.

God is not foolish and he will not be mocked, do you think?

I am a little child of God. Love to all.

 

[planter654]

The second verse I’d like to post that I believe proves that we do not have to keep the weekly and yearly sabbaths according to the law is found in the book of Galatians.

The argument is that the Galatians are turning back to pagan days before they knew God. I’ll list a few problems with this postion.

First, pagans never kept any weekly day but mainly yearly festivals and some monthly festivals I think. So the “days” and “years” are not covered in the pagan calender. Also the “times” in v10 can also mean “seasons” as some bibles translate it which would of course mean the yearly feasts of the law.

…

Hello Joel

1. Who are you calling pagans?
2. Feast of the Passover, Feast of Weeks, Feast of Booths were not worshipped by pagans… Were celebrated and commanded by to Moses “DIRECTLY FROM GOD” God’s choosen people. We call these today Easter,(bunny) Christmas (Santa Claus)
3. God explains why they are to be celebrated! Giving thanks and praise to God in these seasons–first harvest–late harvest etc…
4. God tells Moses they are not to fallow the customs of the people of the land that God is bringing them to.
   5… God warns them also not to fallow the customs of those people he was driving out before them

We worship the days, years rather than praising and giving God thanks or living out his message, laws and commands. Slowly the “true meaning” gets lost. Thanks for his gifts of the seasons, our blessings etc.

We begin to worship man rather than God. We put him on the back burner and serve self first, don’t you think? We change the names etc. But I do not worry God has a great plan!

These pagans were God’s chosen people!!! To say such a thing would also be saying Moses was a pagan!

God Bless

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Maybe you missed me posting Ezra 7; Neh8; 2Chron31:3; Lk 2 showing that the “law of God” and the “law of Moses” are the same thing, not two different laws.

These show nothing of the kind. The only thing they show is that these laws are both known as the law. Law of God or the law of Moses. Something I stated back in post #186.

You then say “you go off on some tangent about witness or covenant or something.I’m not sure why.” The reason why I went “off on some tangent” is because in previous posts you and Protestant101 went on about the decalouge as it is more superior to the rest of the law. So I gave three passages (Gen21:27-30; 28:18-20; 31:48) to show that physical objects were used at that time as a contract or covenant between two parties. The decalouge was the same. It is called a “testimony” in Ex34 and other places which means a “witness”. Same as in the above passages I quoted. So the decalogue itself doesn’t point to all sin or is of more importantance than say the commandment “thou shall not lie” found in Lev19 because it is written on stone. All it was meant to be was a witness between God and Isreal of their covenant, as the ten commandments were called the covenant throughout the OT.

So you don’t think that the decalogue. The word spoken by the mouth of God and written by His own finger in stone and placed in the ark of the covenant to show that this is the basis for God’s kingdom, is of any more importance than say the law of circumcision. Well I do.

Your next post you say that Col 2:14 is speaking of the Mosaic law that is prophetic in nature. You make this assertion without any proof Richard. The fact is as I already stated, that when Paul wanted to speak of the the law he used the word law-nomos. The word law is missing from the entire book of Colossians. Also as I already stated the context of v14 is v11-13, mainly 13 shows Paul is saying our sins were nailed to the cross, not the law. The greek phrase for “handwriting of ordiances” is not used anywhere else in scripture. It denoted a record of debt. Nothing in the context of Col 2:14 or in the greek suggest your assertion Richard.

I didn’t think that I needed proof for something that is so blatantly obvious. Here’s a link you can read all about the prophetic nature of the sanctuary feasts. biblelight.net/feasts.htm

I’ll continue on another post Richard

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Your next post you say that Col 2:14 is speaking of the Mosaic law that is prophetic in nature. You make this assertion without any proof Richard. The fact is as I already stated, that when Paul wanted to speak of the the law he used the word law-nomos. Here’s what Joe Crews Has to say about Col. 2:14 4
WHAT LAW WAS BLOTTED OUT

 But let’s look closer at that text in Colossians 2:14-16 to get the real picture. After describing the “blotting out” and “nailing” of the ordinances, Paul wrote, “Let no man THEREFORE judge you in meat, or in drink.” The word “therefore” means “based on what has just been said, we must come to this conclusion.” In other words, he was saying, “Based upon the fact that the ordinances have been blotted out, THEREFORE let no one judge you in meat or drink.”
 Now we begin to see clearly which law was under discussion. Is there anything in the Ten Commandments about meat and drink
 But let us read the rest of the text before us: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Colossians 2:16, 17).
 Question: Could these sabbath days be talking about the Seventh-day Sabbath of the ten-commandment law No. Because they are clearly defined as “shadows of things to come.” Please keep in mind that the weekly Sabbath was instituted by God before sin came into the world. THERE COULD NEVER BE TYPES OR SHADOWS BEFORE SIN EXISTED! All the shadows were introduced because of sin and pointed forward to the deliverance from sin through Christ. For example, all the lambs slain represented Jesus, the true LAMB, who would die for the sins of the world. If sin had not entered the world, there would have been no need of a Saviour, and therefore, no lambs or shadows pointing to a Saviour.
 So these “sabbath days which are a shadow” could not possibly be referring to the Seventh-day Sabbath. But what other sabbaths could they be talking about Were there “sabbaths” other than the weekly Sabbaths Yes, there were yearly sabbaths which had absolutely nothing to do with the Seventh-day Sabbath of the decalogue. And they were definitely a part of the “ordinance” system which ended at the cross.
 For proof of this, let us go back to the law of Moses and read about these annual feast days which were shadowy sabbaths. “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation” (Leviticus 23:24). Again we read, “Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement ... It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest” (verses 27, 32).
 As you can clearly see, these annual sabbaths fell on a different day of the week every year, and God specifically explained that they were not to be confused with the weekly Sabbath. “These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, everything upon his day: BESIDE THE SABBATHS OF THE LORD” (verses 37, 38).
 Now we can understand what Paul was referring to in Colossians when he wrote about meat and drink and sabbath days which are shadows. There were certain prescribed offerings for each of those yearly feast days, and they were shadows pointing to the future sacrifice of Jesus. But the Bible says these were “BESIDE THE SABBATHS OF THE LORD,” or the Seventh-day Sabbath.
 Now it is fully established which law was blotted out and nailed to the cross. At the moment of Christ’s death, the veil of the temple was ripped from top to bottom by an unseen hand (Matthew 27:51). The most holy place of the sanctuary was exposed where the sprinkled blood recorded all the sins of the people. But no more blood needed to be sprinkled; no more lambs needed to be slain; the true Lamb had come to which all those sacrifices pointed. From henceforth, it would be a denial of the Saviour to bring animals. It would be denying that He was the fulfillment of all the shadows and types. Therefore, it would be “against us” or “contrary to us” to continue observing that mosaic law.

In Christ Richard

 

[Richard_Kastner]

I’d like to post two passages which I believe clearly show that the sabbath does not have to be kept under the new covenant by Gentile christians. Col 2:16; Gal4:10

See above In Christ Richard

 

[Joel1984]

Richard

I anticipated your response to my post on Col 2 as at the very end of that post I stated, “The SDA might respond by saying that sabbath is found in creation and therefore cannot be a shadow of anything. Again, they assume the thing yet to be proven.” I predicted that you would respond exactly how you did Richard, I must be a prophet!

You gave me a link to an SDA link. Don’t bother, I wasted enough time as an Adventist on those sites. I think Richard you misunderstood my statement as I did with one of your last posts. I was implying that the temple services are not what Paul was discussing in Col 2. I never said that the feasts were not prophetic, as I believe they were.

I am goin to repost my post on Col 2 Richard as it is obvious that you did not even attempt to respond to any of the four reasons I gave as to why the weekly sabbath is the “sabbath days” of Col 2. I don’t think I should have to re-type everything I already stated. Ignoring the facts doesn’t make them disapear Richard.

Your presuppostion has blinded you Richard. You cannot see the clear, strong proof as to why the weekly sabbath is in Col 2. You say no way it can’t be because of this. Please actually respond to what I posted Richard instead of saying I am wrong and you making affirmitives for your postion without even touching anything I stated as to why the weekly sabbath is there. I will re-post now

Christian regards
Joel Sexton

 

[Joel1984]

I’d like to post two passages which I believe clearly show that the sabbath does not have to be kept under the new covenant by Gentile christians. Col 2:16; Gal4:10

Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Colossians 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

There are some things in this passage that I have not yet worked through fully but I’d like to prove that the “sabbath days” here are clearly the weekly sabbath.

The SDA postion to this passage is that the “sabbath days” are the yearly sabbaths as the sabbaths are in plural “sabbath days.” This might seem foolish to some but it is the SDA postion.

First, the “days” are in italics meaning the word was added by the translators. So the text should read, Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath.

This fact alone destroys the SDA assertion that the sabbaths here in Col 2:16 is the yearly sabbaths.

Second, the order Paul gives is yearly, monthly, weekly and not yearly, monthly, yearly as the SDA’s presume. What utter nonsense to say Paul was repeating himself. Six times in the OT we find the same list but in ascending order as opposed to desending order as given by Paul.

1 Chronicles 23:31 And to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the LORD in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them, continually before the LORD:
2 Chronicles 31:3 He appointed also the king’s portion of his substance for the burnt offerings, to wit, for the morning and evening burnt offerings, and the burnt offerings for the sabbaths, and for the new moons, and for the set feasts, as it is written in the law of the LORD.
2 Chronicles 8:13 Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.
Nehemiah 10:33 For the shewbread, and for the continual meat offering, and for the continual burnt offering, of the sabbaths, of the new moons, for the set feasts, and for the holy things, and for the sin offerings to make an atonement for Israel, and for all the work of the house of our God.
Ezekiel 45:17 And it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.
Hosea 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

It is absurd to say the “sabbaths” in these verses refer to the yearly feasts as the yearly is already mentioned.

Third, other places through out the Bible where we see “sabbath days” or “sabbaths” it means the weekly sabbath, and the SDA’s will use these passages to prove their postion of the sabbath. I’ll list just a few.

Exodus 31:13 Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Ezekiel 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

Ezekiel 22:26 Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.

Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

…

 

[Joel1984]

Did Paul go into them three on three feast days? No, of course not. Sabbath days here means the weekly sabbath. The above verses are cited all the time by Adventist’s to support their postion which state “sabbath days” or “sabbaths” and they say that they refer to the weekly sabbath. The word “sabbath” is found 60 times in the NT. The last being Col 2:16 and evertime the word appears in the NT it means the weekly sabbath except in Col 2:16 say the Adventist’s! Desperate measures for sure.

Fourth, the greek word for sabbath-sabbaton means the weekly sabbath. All 60 times in the NT this is word for it.

So we see clearly that the weekly sabbath is here in Col 2:16. Paul says we are not to judge each other in such matters and they are but a shadow of things to come. The SDA might respond by saying that sabbath is found in creation and therefore cannot be a shadow of anything. Again, they assume the thing yet to be proven.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard

I anticipated your response to my post on Col 2 as at the very end of that post I stated, “The SDA might respond by saying that sabbath is found in creation and therefore cannot be a shadow of anything. Again, they assume the thing yet to be proven.” I predicted that you would respond exactly how you did Richard, I must be a prophet!

You gave me a link to an SDA link. Don’t bother, I wasted enough time as an Adventist on those sites. I think Richard you misunderstood my statement as I did with one of your last posts. I was implying that the temple services are not what Paul was discussing in Col 2. I never said that the feasts were not prophetic, as I believe they were.

I am goin to repost my post on Col 2 Richard as it is obvious that you did not even attempt to respond to any of the four reasons I gave as to why the weekly sabbath is the “sabbath days” of Col 2. I don’t think I should have to re-type everything I already stated. Ignoring the facts doesn’t make them disapear Richard.

Your presuppostion has blinded you Richard. You cannot see the clear, strong proof as to why the weekly sabbath is in Col 2. You say no way it can’t be because of this. Please actually respond to what I posted Richard instead of saying I am wrong and you making affirmitives for your postion without even touching anything I stated as to why the weekly sabbath is there. I will re-post now

Christian regards
Joel Sexton

John 3:16 says 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Joel, There are going to be two types of people on the earth when Christ comes back those that have everlasting life and those that perish. The differance between the two is faith.
Heb 4:1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

2For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

3For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

4For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

5And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.

6Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

In Heb. 4:4 makes mention of Gen. 2:2,3 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

I BELEIVE that in these verses God gave the sabbath rest to us and I BELEIVE that the rest of the bible shows us that that rest is on Saturday. You have said that you require proof before you will accept what the word of God says: I think the two points of view are mutually exclusive As Heb, here says we enter into Gods rest by faith. If we require proof we not only will not enter His rest we will not be allowed into His rest. I really don’t see the need to give anymore “proof” than has already been given and I don’t think it would be accepted if given. For this reason I am discontinueing any futher dialogue with you on the subject.

In Christ Richard

 

[Joel1984]

To Richard

I don’t blame you for not wanting to further our discussion on the sabbath as it is clear you do not have the answers. It’s ok Richard, I never had them ethier as an SDA. You would probably rather debate someone on the sabbath who hasn’t studied the issue at all. A lot easier. Protestant101 couldn’t handle the discussion ethier.

Christian regards
Joel Sexton

 

[Protestant101]

To Richard

I don’t blame you for not wanting to further our discussion on the sabbath as it is clear you do not have the answers. It’s ok Richard, I never had them ethier as an SDA. You would probably rather debate someone on the sabbath who hasn’t studied the issue at all. A lot easier. Protestant101 couldn’t handle the discussion ethier.

Christian regards
Joel Sexton

Hmm; it would sure be nice if you would wait for ME to say whether or not I can “handle” this “discussion”. I would much rather discuss the subject with someone who seems interested, regardless of their level of study on the subject. It is good if we have the attitude that we can learn from others.

You say that you are a former SDA, so there is a lot of basic info which you are already familiar with; but there is one point which you have not addressed too well yet, and that is about Sunday, and how/why it has become “the Lord’s Day” to the Catholics and many Protestants.

The “apologists” at this forum, as well as other of Catholic Theologians, including the Pope, have all stated that there is no authority in the Bible for changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday; and the sole authority for this change is admitted to be by the “power of the Catholic Church” and while they are careful to say they did not really change the Sabbath - only the day of worship, they are giving away their total lack of understanding of the Sabbath, and what God intends out of it.

Catholic’s own doctrines and the Catechism describe this whole issue as one of “authority;” and how there is no Biblical admonition to make this change. It is solely by the “authority” of the Catholic Church that this change was made, and many Protestants even bow to this “authority.” To the Catholic, this whole Sunday-Sabbath question needs to be one of their own church’s authority - for everytime they try to come up with Bible reasons, they fail miserably to produce anything convincing.

I suppose that it would flatter your mighty apologetics ego to think that you can shut up all the Protestants, and silence them with your theological prowess; but I for one still await conclusive evidence from the Bible that I should accept ANY authority that made this change from Sabbath to Sunday; except God’s.

Every day should be a day of worship to Jesus! To say that you have changed “the day of worship” is to totally miss the point God makes with His children about this wonderful doctrine. The Sabbath is not described as just “a day of worship;” it is much more than this. It is a sign of God’s authority. I believe His authority to be higher than any Church, and His authority is in His written Word. If there is some “Tradition” which defies this written authority - then it is not biblical.

 

[St_Violet]

The Authority of the Catholic Church has been given to them by Christ himself.

The Council of Jerusalem was a matter of the authority of the Church, Now remember the apostles did not have the New testament. According the the scripture they had,Jews HAD to be circumsized, the apostles went beyond scripture and eliminated the requirement of circumsion. Now that I think about it, the council of jerusalem is another example of sola scriptura being unbiblical, this shows that the apostles didn’t rely on scripture when they settled the matter .

Now, it would be absurd to believe that authority has died with the apostles…

As for the Sabbath, you have to ask yourself if you accept the authority of the Church, or the authority of your own convictions. If the sabbath was still soo important, the early church fathers would have encouraged us to keep it, but they do not. what Ignatius of Antioch said is PROOF of how the apostles felt about the sabbath from the influence of the authority of the Church.

Seventh Day Adventism is a very backwards version of christianity.

 

[Protestant101]

The Authority of the Catholic Church has been given to them by Christ himself.

The Council of Jerusalem was a matter of the authority of the Church, Now remember the apostles did not have the New testament. According the the scripture they had,Jews HAD to be circumsized, the apostles went beyond scripture and eliminated the requirement of circumsion. Now that I think about it, the council of jerusalem is another example of sola scriptura being unbiblical, this shows that the apostles didn’t rely on scripture when they settled the matter .

Now, it would be absurd to believe that authority has died with the apostles…

As for the Sabbath, you have to ask yourself if you accept the authority of the Church, or the authority of your own convictions. If the sabbath was still soo important, the early church fathers would have encouraged us to keep it, but they do not. what Ignatius of Antioch said is PROOF of how the apostles felt about the sabbath from the influence of the authority of the Church.

Seventh Day Adventism is a very backwards version of christianity.

This is exactly what I thought would be said; but all it is is claims - without Bible evidence. “Church authority” is claimed by many, to excuse all manner of disobedience to God’s commands. You haven’t convinced me yet.

I will acept the authority of the Bible; which in this topic does differ from the “authority” of the Catholic Church. The Apostles did in fact rely on Biblical principles for all that you claim above; and we should follow their example today - including their Sabbath-keeping.

 

[amills]

This is exactly what I thought would be said; but all it is is claims - without Bible evidence. “Church authority” is claimed by many, to excuse all manner of disobedience to God’s commands. You haven’t convinced me yet.

I will acept the authority of the Bible; which in this topic does differ from the “authority” of the Catholic Church. The Apostles did in fact rely on Biblical principles for all that you claim above; and we should follow their example today - including their Sabbath-keeping.

You request biblical evidence, however you ignor that there is no bible without the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[Protestant101]

You request biblical evidence, however you ignor that there is no bible without the authority of the Catholic Church.

The Bible came by God’s authority - something you ignore.