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

[GerhardEbersoehn]

That’s not what scholarship actually says

You do not know <scholarship>. Get it!

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

You might especially pay attention to Galatians 4:21-31, which calls the covenant given at Sinai, BONDAGE.

For your information, Paul mentions 3 covenants 2 of were 'in bondage' ... (Ismael - Pagans because they did not receive the Ten Commandments and Sinai - Israel because they received the Law.) "By grace I am what I am" - neither of the two.

 

[marksman]

Christ is the Fulfilment of the Law. The fulfillment of the law isn't <<every act of love we do>> but the single omnipotent Divine Act of Love God had done in Jesus Christ.

Where does it say that in scripturre?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Gal 4:24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.

Gal 4:25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.

People boast they are under Abrahamic covenant; some that they are of the Mosaic covenant. But the two are one -- and, the same! Paul says "One is from Mount Sinai; she is Hagar." "Mount Sinai in Arabia corresponds to the present Jerusalem, in slavery with her children." Both are bearing children for slavery -- both Jew or Gentile but being Gentile includes all Gentiles even the Christians! NONE, neither Hagar nor Sarah, neither Abraham' nor Moses' posterity whether heathen, pagan or Christian, none are FREE IF NOT by GRACE which is (from) "above" and from nowhere beneath.

 

[charity]

'One man esteemeth one day above another:
.. another esteemeth every day alike.
.... Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
...... He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord;
....... and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.
......... He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks;
........... and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
.. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord;
.... and whether we die, we die unto the Lord:
...... whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
........ For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived,
.......... that He might be Lord both of the dead and living.
But why dost thou judge thy brother?
.. or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?
.... for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
...... For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord,
........ every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
.......... So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.'
(Romans 14:5-12)

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

2m ·
All sin is against God the Spirit, but sinning against Scripture the Holy Spirit breathed, is (the) Unforgiveable Sin.

 

[charity]

'For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty;
.. only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh,
.... but by love serve one another.
...... For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this;
........ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
But if ye bite and devour one another,
take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.'
(Gal 5:13-15)

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Where does it say that in scripturre?

ALLOVER

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

'One man esteemeth one day above another:
.. another esteemeth every day alike.
.... Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
...... He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord;
....... and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.
......... He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks;
........... and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
.. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord;
.... and whether we die, we die unto the Lord:
...... whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
........ For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived,
.......... that He might be Lord both of the dead and living.
But why dost thou judge thy brother?
.. or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?
.... for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
...... For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord,
........ every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
.......... So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.'
(Romans 14:5-12)

True.
So you got what you wanted : <<he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it>> : nothing in the end; <<he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it>> has always been an addition and of the VERY NATURE of it nothing than an addition.

But let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, every tongue shall confess to God the WRITTEN fact, "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord." "For thus DID God concerning the Seventh Day SPEAK", "ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES".

By referring to Romans 14, what have you gained to the benefit of the Sun's Day? In what to the detriment of the Sabbath OF THE LORD have you been successful? You only devised "clever ideas" in justification of yourself making feeble and IRRELEVANT excuses for your hatred and despiction of the Day that is the Rest-Day of the Almighty.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

'For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty;
.. only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh,
.... but by love serve one another.
...... For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this;
........ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
But if ye bite and devour one another,
take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.'

So this is what <Charity> reckons the Sabbath Day of the LORD GOD is for!
to lure Christians into bondage as are those <Sabbath-keepers>,
those who use the Sabbath Day - the Seventh Day -
as an occasion to the flesh, not liberty;
who use it to subvert and destroy 'true Christian' love and service;
because the Sabbath Day remembered or honoured means
that you hate and dishonour Christians who forget it,
biting and devouring and consuming them
who don't worship on the day you do
and do not "regard the day" you do, the Sabbath Day!
Therefore:- if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed YOURSELF. Galatians 5:15

 

[BarneyFife]

Yes, especially the "through faith" part.

The emphasis on "through faith" is your own reasoning. Not the Bible's.

 

[BarneyFife]

If you are looking for an explicit statement which says that the first day of the week is now the Sabbath, you will not find it, and that won't nullify what God actually did through the resurrection of Christ on the first day of the week.

It won't establish it, either.

So one must ask why John speaks about "the Lord's Day" in Revelation 1:10 (NOT "the day of the Lord" which is a period of wrath and judgment).

Where in the scriptures are we instructed to ask why in this regard?

The Lord's Day is the first day of the week, and it was first established by Christ when He returned to visit His apostles exactly eight days after His resurrection (so that Thomas would believe and call Him "my Lord and my God" and worship Him). Jesus could easily have come to visit them the next day, or any day during that week, but here is what the Bible says:

Human rationalization.

This needs spiritual discernment.

This is code for "Here come the vagueries."

No mental gymnastics are required to simply obey God and keep the Sabbath holy. To make a case for Sunday sacredness, however...

 

[BarneyFife]

Christ is the Fulfilment of the Law. The fulfillment of the law isn't <<every act of love we do>> but the single omnipotent Divine Act of Love God had done in Jesus Christ.

Which makes every act of love we do possible, however.

 

[BarneyFife]

SDAs bore me.

A sweeping generalization that probably isn't true. I suspect that you have been edified by Adventists you didn't know were Adventists. I know I have. Just as I have been edified by Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, etc.

 

[Curtis]

Those who most of all people trampled the Law of God and specifically the Sabbath Commandment underfoot and still does it with utter hate of the Messiah the Lord of the Sabbath Day Jesus Christ, were not Pagans but Israel : THEN AND NOW. Pagans never knew the Law of Moses the Law of God, not before Christians introduced them to it, which is PRESUPPOSED all through Galatians.

Read the book of Galatians. It was written to all the law keeping sabbatarians to correct their error.

Read 2 Corinthians 3 where Paul calls the ten commands the ministry of death,the letter that kills, the ministry of condemnation, that he contrasts with the new covenant law of the spirit, which gives life, not death.

Read Galatians 4:21-31 where he tells everyone who desires to be under the law, that the covenant given on mount Sinai is BONDAGE.

You do know what was given on mount Sinai includes the ten commands, right?

 

[Curtis]

Mistake, ALL <<Sabbatarians are as mean as snakes>>. Their meanness is only surpassed by Sunday worshipping Scripture defying and despising snakes themselves. Because a Scripture defying and despising snake is the devil himself right inside the Garden of Eden God's home He had made for man.

The law of love, aka the law of Christ, aka the royal law, is to love your neighbor as yourself, thus every act of kindness to a neighbor, is fulfilling that command.

Which is why the two love commands are far superior to the Decalogue, which has not one drop of love
for your neighbor in it, the only mention of love in the ten, is to love God.

Here’s something I’m going to post today in one of the forums:

THE TWO LOVE COMMANDS VS THE DECALOGUE (TEN COMMANDS)


The argument is frequently made that the two love commands just restate the ten commands, as if they are equivalent to each.other.


This is not so.


The first obvious difference is there are no days commanded to be kept in the two love commands.


But the most glaring difference between them isn’t readily apparent, but is a huge difference indeed.


So let’s compare them.


If you keep the two love commands you keep some of the ten commands, but in reality the two love commands far exceed the ten.


The ten commands - as they pertain to our relationship with other people - are negative commands: they only limit BAD behavior, by telling us what harm we CANT do to others - yet they don’t promote ANY positive acts of good will and good behavior towards your neighbor.


And they were kept out of fear of punishment - they had the death penalty by stoning, for breaking them.


Theres also not one drop of love for your neighbor found in the Decalogue. The only mention of love is towards God.


Whereas in comparison, the two love commands are positive commands, instead of negative.


If you love your neighbor as yourself, you won’t kill him, steal from him, or lie against him, etc, and therefore in effect keep 6 of ten.


But when you love your neighbor as yourself, you’ll go far beyond a mere six negative commands, that only tell you what harm you CAN’T do to your neighbor.


You won’t gossip about him for just one example - and there’s no command that says thou shalt not gossip about your neighbor.


In fact you won’t do ANY of the things that would do some kind of harm to your neighbor, which far exceeds a mere 6 limitations.


Jesus didn’t say, “love does none of the 6 things to harm your neighbor prohibited by the ten commands, therefore love fulfills the law”.


He said instead, that love does NO HARM to your neighbor, so love fulfills the law.


Get the difference?


The two love commands go far beyond the ten commands in how well you treat your fellow man - instead of limiting any harm you’d do to your neighbor to six, if you love him you won’t do ANY HARM to him in any way, shape or form.


And the two love commands also go far beyond not doing any kind of harm to your neighbor - if you love him as yourself, besides not harming him, you will HELP him in every kind of way.


If you love your neighbor you’ll mow his lawn when he breaks his leg, for just one example.


If you’re just keeping the Decalogue, you can do things harmful to him that are NOT prohibited by the 6 limitations in it, and ignore any dire needs he has - yet still pat yourself on the back for keeping the Ten commands to a tee.


That’s why the two love commands are far superior to the very limited ten commands, and they’re kept for a very different motive than fear of being stoned to death under the law.


Thus you really can’t equate the ten commands to the two love commands, nor claim that the two merely restate the ten - when in reality they are far different - as different as night and day.

 

[Curtis]

Those who most of all people trampled the Law of God and specifically the Sabbath Commandment underfoot and still does it with utter hate of the Messiah the Lord of the Sabbath Day Jesus Christ, were not Pagans but Israel : THEN AND NOW. Pagans never knew the Law of Moses the Law of God, not before Christians introduced them to it, which is PRESUPPOSED all through Galatians.

You can try to spin the facts all you want - it’s crystal clear from Paul’s words in his letter TO THE CHURCH at Galatia, he was not writing to pagans:

Gal 1:2 and all the brothers who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.

Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?

Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

Gal 3:4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?

Gal 3:5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith—

It’s really sad that you can’t face the fact that Paul’s letter to that CHURCH was to correct their common first century mistake of trying to keep the old covenant law of Moses as Christians, to the point you are forced to claim things easily disproved, such as claiming that Galatians was to pagans.

Try something different- read the entire epistle/letter written to the church at Galatia, slowly and carefully- the entire book is to you and all sabbatarians,

 

[Curtis]

You do not know <scholarship>. Get it!

You sure don’t. Ellen G. White was a proven plagiarist - not a scholar.

 

[Curtis]

For your information, Paul mentions 3 covenants 2 of were 'in bondage' ... (Ismael - Pagans because they did not receive the Ten Commandments and Sinai - Israel because they received the Law.) "By grace I am what I am" - neither of the two.

Try actually reading the passage instead of someone’s proof texts:

Gal 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?

Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.

Gal 4:23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.

Gal 4:24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for SLAVERY; she is Hagar.

Gal 4:25 Now Hagar is Mount SINAI in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is IN SLAVERY with her children.

Gal 4:31 So, brothers, we are not children OF THE SLAVE but of the free woman.

That passage is too clear to obfuscate- the mount Sinai covenant is BONDAGE.

 

[Curtis]

People boast they are under Abrahamic covenant; some that they are of the Mosaic covenant. But the two are one -- and, the same! Paul says "One is from Mount Sinai; she is Hagar." "Mount Sinai in Arabia corresponds to the present Jerusalem, in slavery with her children." Both are bearing children for slavery -- both Jew or Gentile but being Gentile includes all Gentiles even the Christians! NONE, neither Hagar nor Sarah, neither Abraham' nor Moses' posterity whether heathen, pagan or Christian, none are FREE IF NOT by GRACE which is (from) "above" and from nowhere beneath.

I’m not the one insisting on keeping an ended ceremonial day of rest that was part of an ended covenant that Paul states brought bondage and slavery.