Is Sunday sacredness in the Bible?

[Ronald Nolette]

I am very sorry he speaks to you in that manner.

It doesn't bother me. But I will hold him openly accountable for slandering the brethren and making false accusations when he does! In the hope god will open his eyes and allow him to be set free from the bitterness that seems to engulf his soul.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

The Covenant that God was referring to in Jer 31:31-34 was the same covenant that was entered into at Mt Sinai

False doctrine!

God said He was making a New Covenant... that that's what He did whether you accept it or not.

It is so sad that people want something that is brand new rather than something that has been in existence since the beginning of mankind for our Salvation.

Rejecting what God says.... ends badly.

 

[Jay Ross]

False doctrine!

God said He was making a New Covenant... that that's what He did whether you accept it or not.

Seems like you have not grasped what is written in Jer 31:31ff and which covenant that God was referring to even though there are big clues given in jer 31.

Rejecting what God says.... ends badly.

Again, because you have not grasped the significance of God's words, you have come to a very wrong understanding. As you have stated, "Rejecting what God Says . . . ends badly."

Oh well hoping for something better from you only leads to disappointment.

 

[marks]

Also remember that Paul would always go to the synagogues first in every city he went so naturally he would observe Sabbath, also being a Jew and staying faithful to the everlsating command God gave to Israel.

Interestingly, when the Apostles were considering what to tell the gentiles concerning the Law,

Acts 15:28-29 KJV
28) For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29) That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

The Sabbath didn't come into it. If Gentiles were bound to the Sabbath Law, why would they not have included it here? This is THE place!

Much love!

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Seems like you have not grasped what is written in Jer 31:31ff and which covenant that God was referring to even though there are big clues given in jer 31.

Seems like you have rejected the Book of Hebrews altogether!

Oh well hoping for something better from you only leads to disappointment.

You eyes should be on the Lord... not on any man, or on Ellen G White either.

The Sabbath didn't come into it. If Gentiles were bound to the Sabbath Law, why would they not have included it here? This is THE place!

That's exactly how we know the Saturday sabbath is not applicable to New Testament believers.

Apparently the SDA peoples believe the Apostles in the Book of Acts were being led by devils and not be the Lord.

 

[Jay Ross]

Seems like you have rejected the Book of Hebrews altogether!

Not at all. My understanding comes from my own study of the scriptures.

You eyes should be on the Lord... not on any man, or on Ellen G White either.

But your understanding of who I am and the denomination that I adhere to is lacking. The denomination I adhere to has no connection with any man or Ellen G White.

You are a disappointment not getting who I am, right.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Paul was reaching out to the jews... the jews did the Saturday thing and were gathered one that day, so Paul had to go where they were gathering if he wanted to speak to them.

We see Christians actually having meetings on the first day of the week, the day of new beginnings

Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

This means we have a new high priest (Jesus) that we live under, and we have a new law (Law of Christ) that we live under.

Saturday sabbath is no longer in force because as Hebrews 7:12 clearly states the priesthood has changed, therefor the law has changed as well.

These 2 scriptures show the Apostles having meetings on Sunday, and they were being led by the Holy Spirit of Jesus tpo meet on Sunday... not Saturday

The early church met on the first day of the week for communion - Acts 20:7

Early church offerings were directed to be done upon the first day of the week - 1 Corinthians 16:2

This scripture indicates we are not judged by the sabbath days that we observe as being holy since the judaizers claim we cannot be saved if we don't have church on Saturday and those not having church on Saturday are doomed to hell

Colossians 2:16,17
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.

Saturday sabbath was one of the requirements of the law of Moses... and sadly those that try to be justified according to the OT law have fallen from grace and are no longer saved just like the Galatians!

Galatians 5:4
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Of course you are free to have church on Saturday, but claiming others have to do the same or they are not saved is false doctrine.

At the Council of Jerusalem chapter 15 of the Book of Acts, they had opportunity to address aspects of the OT law that the judaizers were falsely claiming New Covenant believers were required to observe such as circumcision... and they did not conclude Christians were required to keep Saturday sabbath under the leading of the Holy Spirit.

The council did, however, retain the prohibitions on eating blood, meat containing blood, and meat of animals that were strangled, and on fornication and idolatry, sometimes referred to as the Apostolic Decree

Since the Apostles were being led by the Holy Spirit... there is no biblical evidence that New Covenant believers were required to observe Saturday Sabbath.

This is also evident because Jesus never instructed His followers to observe Saturday sabbath nor did the Lord's teaching thru His Apostles require observing Saturday sabbath.

Considering all this, the modern day judaizers and the seventh day adventists are clearly wrong on this issue in trying to convince Christians that it's a sin to not observe Saturday sabbath

<Saturday sabbath>---what's that? Never seen it in Scripture. Must be your creation. How arrogant can you get, not even the devil tried something like it.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Jay Ross said:
The Covenant that God was referring to in Jer 31:31-34 was the same covenant that was entered into at Mt Sinai

False doctrine!

God said He was making a New Covenant... that that's what He did whether you accept it or not.

Give - quote - the Scripture WHERE, book, chapter and verse, <God said He was making a New Covenant...> Big Boy Johnson, you are a fool! You are a coward. Because you know or you don't know WHERE, book, chapter and verse, <God said He was making a New Covenant...>WHICH GOD DID SAY INDEED! Unless then you are not a fool nor a coward, give - quote - the Scripture WHERE, book, chapter and verse, <God said He was making a New Covenant...>.

 

[Spyder]

Jay Ross said:
The Covenant that God was referring to in Jer 31:31-34 was the same covenant that was entered into at Mt Sinai

Give - quote - the Scripture WHERE, book, chapter and verse, <God said He was making a New Covenant...> Big Boy Johnson, you are a fool! You are a coward. Because you know or you don't know WHERE, book, chapter and verse, <God said He was making a New Covenant...>WHICH GOD DID SAY INDEED! Unless then you are not a fool nor a coward, give - quote - the Scripture WHERE, book, chapter and verse, <God said He was making a New Covenant...>.

I guess I don't know what you mean by "same covenant." Yahweh, Himself, said it was a new one. Hebrews chapters 8 thru 10 describe it.

If you are simply saying that both covenants require people to live by faith, that is true.

 

[Jay Ross]

I guess I don't know what you mean by "same covenant." Yahweh, Himself, said it was a new one. Hebrews chapters 8 thru 10 describe it.

If you are simply saying that both covenants require people to live by faith, that is true.

There is a difference between "neos" new with respect to age, and "kainos" new with respect to condition, i.e. it looks like new again because it has a "neos" coat of paint. In other words, what was once seen to be old has been renewed so that it is fresh for us to have and understand.

The translators have only used the word "new" for both Greek words in the New Testament and so the nuances of each Greek root word is lost to us when we read the translations. So, what is said to have been refreshed, "kaenos" is only translated as "new" which in my opinion leads to a wrong understanding.

We need to meditate on God's words and seek out the original contextual meanings rather than the English meaning of today.

Shalom

 

[Spyder]

There is a difference between "neos" new with respect to age, and "kainos" new with respect to condition, i.e. it looks like new again because it has a "neos" coat of paint. In other words, what was once seen to be old has been renewed so that it is fresh for us to have and understand.

The translators have only used the word "new" for both Greek words in the New Testament and so the nuances of each Greek root word is lost to us when we read the translations. So, what is said to have been refreshed, "kaenos" is only translated as "new" which in my opinion leads to a wrong understanding.

We need to meditate on God's words and seek out the original contextual meanings rather than the English meaning of today.

Shalom

Yes, I think that translators have done harm to the words of God by imposing their doctrines on the pages of text. However, even when I look at the Hebrew interlinear bibles, I find the word "new."

chadash: new
Original Word: חָדָשׁ
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: chadash
Phonetic Spelling: (khaw-dawsh')
Definition: new

I guess it is a matter of perspective. Once could say that the Covenant of Moses was revamped, but I see that accepting the O.T. definition of "new" causes no harm to scripture.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

guess I don't know what you mean by "same covenant." Yahweh, Himself, said it was a new one. Hebrews chapters 8 thru 10 describe it.

22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
25See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: 26Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. 27And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29For our God is a consuming fire.

I meant WHERE, i.e., verily at and with and as and when and where God first spoke the "New Covenant". And it was not in Hebrews 7:12 or Hebrews 8:8 or 13, but WHERE "Jesus was the Mediator of the NEW Covenant", WHERE AND WHEN HE "spake on earth", but they "refused Him that spake on earth"-- which was at every instance in Scripture WHERE God "established everlasting covenant" Ezekiel 16:60-62. "I WILL NEVER BREAK MY COVENANT." Judges 2:1.
Jeremiah 31:31 "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that a New Covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah I will make: 32 Not according to when I made the covenant with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt -- which covenant of mine although I was an husband unto them they broke, saith the LORD.
33 But This shall be The Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days saith the LORD, when I will put My Law in their inward parts (instead of their waywardness), and write it - My Law - in their hearts, where before, when God took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, they “refused Him” as “an Husband to them”, "I will be their God and they shall be My – God’s - People. 34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
This is all, Old Testament SCRIPTURE about God’s Faithfulness and enduring and unconditional love! THIS IS WHERE, verily, at, and with, and as, and when, God COVENANTED, first SPOKE and in the beginning of the revelation of Himself in OLD=Testament WITNESSED to his mercies and grace in Jesus Christ. God NEVER has been the God of any ‘old covenant’, the idea is vanity, and blasphemy, the reflection of the filth filling the hearts and inward parts of the Dispensationalist Antinomians.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

You are a disappointment not getting who I am right.

You are over reacting to be so disappointed... are you like slipping in to deep depression or something?

Is there somebody we can contact for you?

 

[Jay Ross]

You are over reacting to be so disappointed... are you like slipping in to deep depression or something?

Is there somebody we can contact for you?

I am just so glad that you have no idea how to respond to what I post confirming that you are a spent force on this forum and no longer relevant to any discussion because of your bile against other members.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

I am just so glad that you have no idea how to respond to what I post confirming that you are a spent force on this forum and no longer relevant to any discussion because of your bile against other members.

blah, blah, blah... you spend too much time listening to the devil.

I hope you get the help you need, I really do.

 

[Illuminator]

I think we can see the truth of the matter...

The "Great Controversy” Shackles Adventist Theology

Since the 1911 edition over a 100 years ago, it has not been updated in any form. Thus, the book that historically had been the pace-setter for Adventist theology has become dormant, effectively freezing Adventist theology in its tracks. What this situation has fostered is a perpetuation, and in some instances codification, of many 19th and early 20th century EGW understandings of our world and our place in it which some believe should not be “disturbed.” Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, the book’s subject and viewpoints beg for engagement, both inside and outside the church. There are several issues arising from the GC that have defied, and continue to defy, settlement within the church, periodically erupting into open conflicts.

17 May 2018 - SPECTRUM - a Seventh Day Adventist publication

Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, perhaps the best Adventist scholar, wrote:

The earliest documents mentioning Sunday worship go back to Barnabas in 135 and Justin Martyr in 150. Thus, it is evident that Sunday worship was already established by the middle of the second century. This means that to be historically accurate the term “centuries” should be changed to the singular “century.” This simple correction would enhance the credibility of The Great Controversy, because it is relatively easy to defend general Sabbath observance during the first century, but it is impossible to do it for the second century.​

I. When Did Sunday Worship Begin?

The first of the claims I want to look at is White’s assertion that all of the early Christians kept the true Sabbath for the first centuries of Christianity:

In the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians. They were jealous for the honor of God, and believing that His law is immutable, they zealously guarded the sacredness of its precepts.

(Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 52).

So that means that at a bare minimum, we should see every single Christian worshiping on Saturday for at least two centuries (since “first centuries” must mean at least two). Now read what St. Justin Martyr wrote in 150 A.D., in his First Apology:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings [the Greek word here is Eucharist], according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.

But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn [That is, the day before Saturday]; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration. First Apology

So well within the first centuries of Christianity, Sunday worship was practiced. And notice that Justin doesn’t describe this as some innovation, either. He’s explaining to non-Christians what basic Christian practices look like, and Sunday worship is already the norm for “all” in 150. For someone alleged to be a prophet, White’s unable to present the truth on even this basic fact about the Sabbath.

In other words, the alleged prophet’s words are true, if you change the words. This sounds like a polite way of conceding that Ellen White was a false prophetess.

continued...

 

[Illuminator]

But what about Bacchiocchi’s claim that while Sunday worship existed in the second century, it didn’t exist in the first? He’s making an argument from silence. This is a common tactic I’ve seen used by Protestants in defending their views. If you show that Ignatius believed that the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Christ in 107 A.D., they’ll respond that the Church must have taken a symbolic view until 106. Of course, this sort of argumentation is ridiculous. If you’re going to make an argument from silence, the strongest argument is that no change in doctrine or practice happened — because if a change of doctrine had happened, we’d see evidence. If Christians suddenly (globally) started worshiping on Sunday instead of Saturday, wouldn’t someone have mentioned that somewhere?

White’s second claim is that it was the emperor Constantine who changed Christian worship from Saturday to Sunday. This is from p. 53 of the book I just quoted, The Great Controversy:

In the early part of the fourth century the emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a public festival throughout the Roman Empire. (See Appendix). The day of the sun was reverenced by his pagan subjects and was honored by Christians; it was the emperor’s policy to unite the conflicting interests of heathenism and Christianity. He was urged to do this by the bishops of the church, who, inspired by ambition and thirst for power, perceived that if the same day was observed by both Christians and heathens, it would promote the nominal acceptance of Christianity by pagans and thus advance the power and glory of the church.

We already know that this is false: that Christians were already worshiping on Sunday well before Constantine. But what’s interesting is that White had a second and contradictory prophesy. You see, she also claimed that it was the big, bad pope, not Constantine, who changed the date from Saturday to Sunday. So, for example, in Early Writings of Ellen Gould White, we read her description of an vision she claims to have had in 1850:

The pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to the first day. He has thought to change the very commandment that was given to cause man to remember his Creator. He has thought to change the greatest commandment in the decalogue and thus make himself equal with God, or even exalt himself above God.

From this, she learns that the pope is the Antichrist. In an earlier “vision” from 1847, she recounts:

I saw that the Sabbath was not nailed to the cross. If it was, the other nine commandments were; and we are at liberty to go forth and break them all, as well as to break the fourth. I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the Pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws.

It’s tempting to leave it there: she’s clearly a false prophetess. Seventh Day Adventists believe in the Saturday Sabbath because of White’s scholarship and prophecies. Both are demonstrably false. She had no idea what the history of the Sabbath actually was, and changed her story as she went along.

What I found shocking is that, once against, Adventist scholars are aware that White was wrong both in her scholarly work, and in her prophesies, yet they gloss over it. This is Bacchiocchi again:

Surprisingly even some of our leading evangelists believe, on the basis of Ellen White’s statements, that Sundaykeeping began in the early part of the fourth when church leaders urged Constantine to promulgate in 321 the famous Sunday Law.

This popular view has exposed our Church to much undesirable criticism. Non-SDA scholars and church leaders like Dr. James Kennedy, accuse our church of plain ignorance, by teaching that Sundaykeeping began in the fourth century, when there are irrefutable historical evidences that place its origin two centuries earlier.

I have spent countless hours explaining to Dr. James Kennedy and to professors who viewed the recent NET satellite programs, that this popular Adventist view is not reflective of Adventist scholarship. No Adventist scholar has ever taught or written that Sunday observance began in the fourth century with Constantine. A compelling proof is the symposium The Sabbath in Scripture and History, produced by 22 Adventist scholars and published by the Review and Herald in 1982. None of the Adventist scholars who contributed to this symposium ever suggest that Sundaykeeping began in the fourth century.

So, once they examine the evidence, even Adventist scholars realize that White is full of it. Obvious question: if that’s the case, why remain Adventist?

The entire Seventh Day Adventist church is discredited, because it:

• (a) declares Ellen White a prophetess, when she was clearly not;
• (b) declares her writings as an authoritative source of truth, when they clearly are not; and
• (c) continues, as its distinctive mission, is to celebrate the Sabbath on the Seventh Day, Saturday. Even the church’s name is based on this mission… yet the mission is founded on junk history, false prophesies, and bad Scriptural exegesis.

It’s not as is White was wrong on some minor details. She got the basic facts about the core doctrine of Adventism all wrong, and obviously so. It’s long past time for Adventists to ditch Ellen White and come home to orthodox Christianity.
source

 

[Jay Ross]

blah, blah, blah... you spend too much time listening to the devil.

I hope you get the help you need, I really do.View attachment 42255

Your gas lighting and deflecting from your spiel of put downs without substance speaks loudly to the members and shouts that you are irrelevant on this forum.

Goodbye troll Johnson

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Your gas lighting and deflecting from your spiel of put downs without substance speaks loudly to the members and shouts that you are irrelevant on this forum.

Goodbye troll Johnson

See ya... don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya!