God changed Seventh Day Sabbath Worship to First Day of the Week

[quietthinker]

The SDA claim is that the sabbath was observed by man since the seventh day of creation - despite the fact that the term SABBATH is found nowhere in Genesis, and despite no mention that Abraham or anyone else kept the seventh day of rest in that bible book, and despite the fact that God told Israel after their Exodus from Egypt, that He gave it to them, Israel, as a remembrance of Him delivering them from slavery, and gave it to them, Israel, as a covenant sign.

Mysteriously, the term sabbath, and sabbath day command - completely missing in Genesis - suddenly appears for the first time, when Moses gives Israel the law, and the ten commands.

We need detective Colombo to solve the case of the missing seventh day sabbath command, and the term ‘sabbath’ from the entire book of Genesis.

Shalom Aleichem

It's clear you are opposed to the Sabbath Curtis. It beats my why such a simple request to remember it generates so much opposition.

 

[post]

does there need to be?

what if i go around telling people they are fake Christians living in sin if they aren't offering lambs on an altar, since it's instituted by Genesis 4?
where are all the 'new moon festival' threads? the moon was created on day 4

 

[quietthinker]

what if i go around telling people they are fake Christians living in sin if they aren't offering lambs on an altar, since it's instituted by Genesis 4?
where are all the 'new moon festival' threads? the moon was created on day 4

There is nothing fake about remembering the memorial for Creation. The Commandment to remember the Sabbath is a reinstatement of what had been largely forgotten in Israel's 400 year sojourn in Egypt....an indication that early generations kept it.

If it were not of value why would God write it in stone?.....and was the Commandment to remember ever changed to that of, to forget?

 

[BarneyFife]

@Curtis
@JunChosen
@post

You can bring as much of the Bible against Itself as you like. If you only live by the parts that agree with your bias, you deceive yourself. The Bible has to be rightly divided. Scripture upon scripture, line upon line, here a little, there a little. The Bible is not a normal book. God speaks of things which are not, as though they were. Paradoxes must be reconciled. If only 1/3 of the Bible seems to support a certain, erroneous view of Theology, that gives the erring one 250,000 words upon which to rest his case. Very long lists of proof texts could be (and are) constructed from this.

So many untruths have been claimed in this thread, it reminds me of Revelation 12:15:

And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

Most of the claims made against the Sabbath in this thread would have never been made before the information age, and there are serious logical flaws advanced from quoting verses out of context with Scripture as a whole.

1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a RIGHTEOUS man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for THE UNGODLY and for SINNERS , for UNHOLY and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

From the same author: So indeed, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. (Romans 7:12) This is a serious contradiction if the paradox is not resolved, and yet, Sabbath (and Law of God) decriers refuse to do it honestly.

There is no separation in the 613 statutes, ordinances and commands into sections such as moral and ceremonial laws - they all had to be kept.

This is bunk. Antinomianists parade this "613" figure around like it's divinely ordained, and it is anything but, as a short period of research will reveal.

The ten commandments are indeed seperate from the laws contained in ordinances. In point of fact, what there absolutely is no separation in is within the ten commandments themselves, delineating the fourth from the other nine. And yet the Sabbath objectors insist there is. A classic case of wanting to have it both ways.

If the law that institutes the command is still in effect, the penalty under the law for breaking the law, would obviously and unequivocally still be in effect.

Not so obvious and unequivocal. But if one is desperate to hold a position, the more flowery the language, the better, I guess.

We know that the traffic laws are still in effect, because the penalties for breaking them are still enforced.

This is simply illogical. The fact that penalties are prescribed is not how we know traffic laws are still in effect. We know, simply, because the laws still remain in the books. Period.

To claim that a law is still in effect, but the penalty for breaking it is not, is ludicrous.

This is absolute nonsense. What is ludicrous is not realizing or acknowledging that penalties are changed all the time without changing the law involved at all. But the poster won't address this. He will, if experience indicates, simply heap more and more rhetoric on the growing pile of nonsense.

In the end it all depends on one of two definitions of faith:
The human definition of mental ascent--no doubt, a product of so-called "spiritual discernment."

-OR-

The just shall live by faith. (Hebrews 10:38 & Habakkuk 2:4)

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4 & Deuteronomy 8:3)

Now, either there is more than one way by which the righteous just can live -OR- Faith is living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Notice these texts are found both in the Old and New Testaments, so there is no dispensational argument. The manner in which the righteous just shall live appears to be the same on both sides of Calvary, historically speaking.

To find out more about living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, see Hebrews 11.

 

[BarneyFife]

can someone please teach me the thought process, without using 'because the commandment says'?

No. If it is in the heart to disobey God's commands, there is no hope for regeneration.

 

[BarneyFife]

The SDA claim is that the sabbath was observed by man since the seventh day of creation - despite the fact that the term SABBATH is found nowhere in Genesis, and despite no mention that Abraham or anyone else kept the seventh day of rest in that bible book, and despite the fact that God told Israel after their Exodus from Egypt, that He gave it to them, Israel, as a remembrance of Him delivering them from slavery, and gave it to them, Israel, as a covenant sign.

Mysteriously, the term sabbath, and sabbath day command - completely missing in Genesis - suddenly appears for the first time, when Moses gives Israel the law, and the ten commands.

We need detective Colombo to solve the case of the missing seventh day sabbath command, and the term ‘sabbath’ from the entire book of Genesis.

Shalom Aleichem

The Children of Israel were just that--childlike--and needed their instructions to address the wrong they were already accustomed to doing. Not so with the Edenic pair. All they needed to understand rest was an example of it--which they got in Genesis 2:2-3. The command not to eat of the tree was different. It was designed strictly as a test of loyalty.

Besides all of this, Exodus 20 plainly declares the Sabbath as originating in Eden.

***And, by the way, an argument from silence is a logical fallacy. The observation that no one was positively commanded to keep the Sabbath before Exodus 16 means just what it says: Nothing.***

 

[BarneyFife]

I think I've spent just about enough time pleading with folks not to be hostile toward that which God has blessed.

 

[Brakelite]

I think I've spent just about enough time pleading with folks not to be hostile toward that which God has blessed.

I just said something similar in another thread.

 

[post]

There is nothing fake about remembering the memorial for Creation. The Commandment to remember the Sabbath is a reinstatement of what had been largely forgotten in Israel's 400 year sojourn in Egypt....an indication that early generations kept it.

If it were not of value why would God write it in stone?.....and was the Commandment to remember ever changed to that of, to forget?

There's nothing in scripture that says anyone was ever supposed to keep sabbath prior to Exodus 16.

The law requires new moon festivals.
God created the moon on day 4.
4 comes before 7
Where are all the new moon festival threads?

 

[Brakelite]

The very same body of law given by God to Moses, that demands ALL of it be kept down to the least comma and period, requires the death penalty for those who break the sabbath day command.

the law of Moses is not meant for a righteous person, but for the ungodly, for sinners, for murderers, etc.: because it exists to show the unsaved what sin IS.


1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a RIGHTEOUS man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for THE UNGODLY and for SINNERS , for UNHOLY and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

The scripture doesn't say what you claim it says, that it's speaking to unbelievers. No. James said here, the law is for those transgressing it. That includes Christians, because that is who James is writing to here saying they need to keep the whole law, speaking specifically of the Ten Commandments... Surely not unbelievers...
KJV James 2:10-11
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Seems that according to James, of you transgress in one commandment, you've transgressed the whole law. He's writing to the church. To you. And as you discard the 4th Commandment altogether, you certainly cannot lay claim to being righteous, as James describes righteousness...
KJV James 1:25
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.

 

[post]

I think I've spent just about enough time pleading with folks not to be hostile toward that which God has blessed.

Affirming the word of God, which is that we are not under law, is not 'hostility'

 

[post]

@Curtis
@JunChosen
@post

You can bring as much of the Bible against Itself as you like. If you only live by the parts that agree with your bias, you deceive yourself. The Bible has to be rightly divided. Scripture upon scripture, line upon line, here a little, there a little. The Bible is not a normal book. God speaks of things which are not, as though they were. Paradoxes must be reconciled. If only 1/3 of the Bible seems to support a certain, erroneous view of Theology, that gives the erring one 250,000 words upon which to rest his case. Very long lists of proof texts could be (and are) constructed from this.

So many untruths have been claimed in this thread, it reminds me of Revelation 12:15:

And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.

Most of the claims made against the Sabbath in this thread would have never been made before the information age, and there are serious logical flaws advanced from quoting verses out of context with Scripture as a whole.



From the same author: So indeed, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. (Romans 7:12) This is a serious contradiction if the paradox is not resolved, and yet, Sabbath (and Law of God) decriers refuse to do it honestly.


This is bunk. Antinomianists parade this "613" figure around like it's divinely ordained, and it is anything but, as a short period of research will reveal.

The ten commandments are indeed seperate from the laws contained in ordinances. In point of fact, what there absolutely is no separation in is within the ten commandments themselves, delineating the fourth from the other nine. And yet the Sabbath objectors insist there is. A classic case of wanting to have it both ways.

Not so obvious and unequivocal. But if one is desperate to hold a position, the more flowery the language, the better, I guess.

This is simply illogical. The fact that penalties are prescribed is not how we know traffic laws are still in effect. We know, simply, because the laws still remain in the books. Period.

This is absolute nonsense. What is ludicrous is not realizing or acknowledging that penalties are changed all the time without changing the law involved at all. But the poster won't address this. He will, if experience indicates, simply heap more and more rhetoric on the growing pile of nonsense.

In the end it all depends on one of two definitions of faith:
The human definition of mental ascent--no doubt, a product of so-called "spiritual discernment."

-OR-

The just shall live by faith. (Hebrews 10:38 & Habakkuk 2:4)

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4 & Deuteronomy 8:3)

Now, either there is more than one way by which the righteous just can live -OR- Faith is living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

Notice these texts are found both in the Old and New Testaments, so there is no dispensational argument. The manner in which the righteous just shall live appears to be the same on both sides of Calvary, historically speaking.

To find out more about living by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, see Hebrews 11.

I'm not arguing against sabbaths.
I am affirming the gospel, by which we are saved, having died with Christ and our lives being hidden in Him.

We have died to the law and are not beholden to it.
No corpse is liable to the law.

That's all.

The scripture commands me not to let anyone judge me over a sabbath, so I'm not letting you judge me, and I will defend the less knowledgeable among the brethren from your judgment also.

You have no idea whether I keep sabbath or not.

 

[Brakelite]

There's nothing in scripture that says anyone was ever supposed to keep sabbath prior to Exodus 16.

Jesus said the Sabbath was set aside, made, for man. Was Adam not a man?

 

[Brakelite]

No corpse is liable to the law.

So. When you were baptized and lowered into the water signifying your death in Christ, are you still floating around dead in the water?

 

[Brakelite]

Affirming the word of God, which is that we are not under law, is not 'hostility'

The only way you can be not under the law, is to be not transgressing it.

 

[MatthewG]

Glad under Christ Jesus there is no law living by the spirit.

That is an amazing grace of mercy and truth in a nut shell.

 

[Brakelite]

Glad under Christ Jesus there is no law living by the spirit.

That is an amazing grace of mercy and truth in a nut shell.

The grace of God is magnificent. Without lowering the standard of the law, God creates in us the image of Christ whereby we are now empowered to meet the standard. Indeed, that is amazing.
KJV Romans 8:2-4
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

[post]

The only way you can be not under the law, is to be not transgressing it.

Romans 6-8 says a very different thing than what you are saying.
It says in no uncertain terms that we are set free from the law by having died.

Salvation is not by works.

 

[BarneyFife]

Affirming the word of God, which is that we are not under law, is not 'hostility'

If you have no hostility, then pay no mind to the pleading.

The scripture commands me not to let anyone judge me over a sabbath, so I'm not letting you judge me, and I will defend the less knowledgeable among the brethren from your judgment also.

The Scripture to which you refer is not a command. It is a declaration of liberty. Taken ultra-literally, do you actually think you could keep a magistrate from judging you on something based on this text? Do you think you could simply disallow Matthew 18-style church discipline on the matter? I have neither desire nor need to judge anyone, but I most certainly have a mandate to reprove, rebuke, and exhort (2 Timothy 4:2).

You have no idea whether I keep sabbath or not.

I never claimed to, and if you do keep the Sabbath holy then my pleadings do not apply to you.

 

[Brakelite]

Romans 6-8 says a very different thing than what you are saying.
It says in no uncertain terms that we are set free from the law by having died.

Salvation is not by works.

Right. I clearly said that we are saved by works. I accept your perceptive correction.