Sabbath-Keeping

[zeke25]

You obviously have failed to understand that a vegetarian diet is the best, most healthy diet for humans, and happens to be what God ordained in the Garden of Eden.

Do you know what true bondage is? Having your chest cavity split open, your leg split open, and having a vein removed from the one and placed as a bypass in the other. Or, having to go to Dialysis every two days because your kidneys no longer work. Or, having to stick yourself multiple times a day to test your blood sugar because your pancreas no longer works. Or, suffering irreparable brain damage due to a stroke and having to rely on others to take care of your most basic needs. I could go on and on about all this bondage to which eating animal protein leads, but doing so would be pointless for someone like you who is determined to be convinced of error.

Obviously, you've never heard of Blue Zones, so I'll have to explain to you that there are 5 of them located around the world in which the population living in them has been identified as far more healthy and longer living than the rest of the world population. Four of them are comprised of genetically similar inhabitants, BUT THE FIFTH, WHICH IS THE ONLY ONE IN THE UNITED STATES, IS LOCATED IN LOMA LINDA, CALIFORNIA, AND IS COMPRISED OF A COMPLETELY GENETICALLY DIVERSE POPULATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS who live far longer and healthier that the rest of the population, which is undeniable proof that disease has very little to do with genes and much to do with lifestyle choices. So, while you are bashing people for the "bondage" of their diet choices, make sure you health insurance is paid up good, because though you claim the Bible gives you a license to eat whatever you want, the emergency room in which your lifestyle choices will land you, will for you be a sad rebuke. How do I know? It's happening all the time, brother.

In keeping with their contemptous attitude toward God and Christ, the SDA continues to exalt the false prophetess Ellen White and their man-made church business. This is all the while they should be exalting God and the grace He has given the world through His Son Yahoshua the Christ and His shed Blood for the washing away of our sins.

Their Loma Linda experience is not an airtight story. Much comparison research would need to be done by an non-prejudice group of researchers, This has not been done. There are many nonagenarians and centenarians in the country and world that have nothing to do with the SDA. I lived in Carmel, California, for a season and nonagenarians were commonplace. The California coast has always been a very healthy place. I witnessed to a man of 89 and he accepted Christ, he is now 91. Until six months ago, he rode his bicycle 5 miles per day. Where was this, on the California coast and it wasn't in Loma Linda and he wasn't SDA.

My own Dad, who smoked 1 to 2 packs of cigarettes per day until he was 55, and drank alcohol like a fish even longer, is now 89 years old. He works out at a gym and on a track at least one day per week, and he works as a volunteer optical assistant in a military facility one full day per week. He has done this for over 20 years. I visited his work place in the last couple of months. I was amazed at his energy level. And he doesn't look 89 at all. I had to take a nap there while he worked.

Will the SDA ever tell you about their love affair with Hitler and Nazi Germany? Look it up yourself, the internet has caught up with them finally. I knew about it ahead of time. Next, Phoneguy, you might try bragging about this one.

I would prefer to discuss doctrine, but you keep exposing yourself. But, then again, you failed miserably on all fronts long ago, not having Scriptural support, regarding any doctrinal issues we have discussed.

James 4:6 KJV, "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."

Hebrews 4:10 KJV, "For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his."

Romans 8:2 KJV, " For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ [Yahoshua] hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

Zeke25

 

[Keeth]

Keeth,

It grieves me how thoroughly you proved my point. You have posted a muddled presentation of confusion.

Zeke25

I understand why it would be confusion to you. You reject some of Christ's words and testimony, thus you must claim confusion. Either the words of Christ are truth, and the Apostles support the same, or they are not and the Apostles and all others are free to contradict them. This is pretty simple, it can only be confusing to those who would make it so out of necessity.

In keeping with their contemptous attitude toward God and Christ, the SDA continues to exalt the false prophetess Ellen White and their man-made church business. This is all the while they should be exalting God and the grace He has given the world through His Son Yahoshua the Christ and His shed Blood for the washing away of our sins.

Their Loma Linda experience is not an airtight story. Much comparison research would need to be done by an non-prejudice group of researchers, This has not been done. There are many nonagenarians and centenarians in the country and world that have nothing to do with the SDA. I lived in Carmel, California, for a season and nonagenarians were commonplace. The California coast has always been a very healthy place. I witnessed to a man of 89 and he accepted Christ, he is now 91. Until six months ago, he rode his bicycle 5 miles per day. Where was this, on the California coast and it wasn't in Loma Linda and he wasn't SDA.

My own Dad, who smoked 1 to 2 packs of cigarettes per day until he was 55, and drank alcohol like a fish even longer, is now 89 years old. He works out at a gym and on a track at least one day per week, and he works as a volunteer optical assistant in a military facility one full day per week. He has done this for over 20 years. I visited his work place in the last couple of months. I was amazed at his energy level. And he doesn't look 89 at all. I had to take a nap there while he worked.

Will the SDA ever tell you about their love affair with Hitler and Nazi Germany? Look it up yourself, the internet has caught up with them finally. I knew about it ahead of time. Next, Phoneguy, you might try bragging about this one.

I would prefer to discuss doctrine, but you keep exposing yourself. But, then again, you failed miserably on all fronts long ago, not having Scriptural support, regarding any doctrinal issues we have discussed.

James 4:6 KJV, "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."

Zeke25

As is usually the case, the diversionary tactic of bringing up EGW is introduced by one claiming we exalt her, even though they themselves are the ones who must always bring her up since they are not doing very well with scripture alone.

I am not a vegetarian, though I was once and could be if someone prepapred vegetarian food for me all the time. I will not deny the fact that it is a healthier life style, just because I am not presently observing it. The fact that some people will live long lives regardless of eating, drinking, and smokng in an unhealthy fashion does not disprove scientific facts. Or do you now deny that smoking and drinking heavily are bad for you, just because your dad is an unusual case.

As far as your lie about SDA's having a love affair with Hitler, how about a little more info, or a link to the internet site you gleaned this info from. Let it be examined. If some SDA's were involved with Hitler, this does not mean that the denomination approved of it, or that the rest of us are Hitler lovers. Get a grip. I openly condemn all and any SDA's that may have been involved with or in any way shape or form cooperated with Hitler. So would and will our denomination as well, if need be.

If you would prefer to stick to doctrine, then you would have. Instead, you have chosen this trash, as a diversioanry tactic, and or attempt to belittle your opponents rahter than address the issue before us.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Upp,

If they could only see the blessing God has given them through you. Someone, who has much more patience than I, to continue to reason with them for the salvation of their immortal souls.

Thanks Zeke! Unfortunately I see the same behavior over and over again. Initially they try to pretend that their doctrine is "scriptural" because the preachers and teachers they bend their ears to provide them with long lists of comma-delimited bible verses that they think defends their stance. But the fact of the matter is that not one of these verses stands by itself without doing one of the following:

1) Ignoring context (such as which Coventant we are under, sheesh!!)

2) Adding to scripture something that isn't there

3) Having a dependency on some kind of logical argument (where "logical" is something that agrees with their own persuasion), or

4) Failing to harmonize with the rest of scripture.

If ANY proponent of SDA theology disagrees with the above then I would actually LOVE then to challenge me and go into details about why they do. As it is, when they realize that they cannot, they ALWAYS make some kind of sweeping statement about how they have "already dealt with my questions", or that I am "not willing to listen", and so on and so on.

Where are the brave soldiers of the sabbatarian army that can take a propper stand in defending their claims? I don't want to appear so arrogant and blunt, but I have been challenging them for years now and not even one of them seem to wants to see this thing through to completion - which from my perspective would be for them to answer the simple, fundamental questions I pose without "going beyond what is written". Not one!

 

[Keeth]

Thanks Zeke! Unfortunately I see the same behavior over and over again. Initially they try to pretend that their doctrine is "scriptural" because the preachers and teachers they bend their ears to provide them with long lists of comma-delimited bible verses that they think defends their stance. But the fact of the matter is that not one of these verses stands by itself without doing one of the following:
1) Ignoring context (such as which Coventant we are under, sheesh!!)
2) Adding to scripture something that isn't there
3) Having a dependency on some kind of logical argument (where "logical" is something that agrees with their own persuasion), or
4) Failing to harmonize with the rest of scripture.
If ANY proponent of SDA theology disagrees with the above then I would actually LOVE then to challenge me and go into details about why they do. As it is, when they realize that they cannot, they ALWAYS make some kind of sweeping statement about how they have "already dealt with my questions", or that I am "not willing to listen", and so on and so on.
Where are the brave soldiers of the sabbatarian army that can take a propper stand in defending their claims? I don't want to appear so arrogant and blunt, but I have been challenging them for years now and not even one of them seem to wants to see this thing through to completion - which from my perspective would be for them to answer the simple, fundamental questions I pose without "going beyond what is written". Not one!

Pardon my bluntness, but what a load of dung. Bring it right here. I'm not going back to see what you have already said, bring it here now. When I address what you bring forward, let us see who begins ignoring what the other says, or the scriptures presented because they have no answer for the same.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Here is a classic and most interesting example of how you debate. Where did you learn this technique?

What technique? I responed to your points! How is that a "technique"???

Claiming I am saying one thing which is obviously Biblically erroneous, while completely ignoring or twisting what I did say.

Well please state exactly what you think I "twisted". Again, all I did was respond to your points. So with the "new" list of point you provided here, which you think is evidence for you claim that I am twisting your beliefs, lets examine what they are:

•Those who walk after the flesh cannot obey the laws of God. How do I know this? Romans 8:5-8. Check it out.

And did I somehow disagree with this verse? Did I imply that you weren't aware of it?

If so, then use quotes (have you heard that before?) to point it out! If not, then I think it is clear and obvious who is doing the twisting here. I don't need to "check out" a verse I in no way disagree with, so why the false implication?

•Those who are led by the Spirit have the righteousness of the law fulfilled in them by that self-same Spirit. How do I know this? Romans 8:4. Check it out.

See above!

•Those who are under the law are not those who are obeying it, but those who are disobeying it, those who cannot obey it because they are walking in the flesh, with carnal and fleshly results. How do I know this? Galatians 5:17-21. Check it out.

Not only have I "checked it out", I also responded to it in my previous post. I left it up to you to prove that being "led by the Spirit" was synonymous with "keeping the law", where "law" in this case is the Mosaic law. Rather than doing so you simply repeat your claim as if I hadn't responded to it. Why Brakelite, why?

•Nowhere in any of my posts on this forum have I even hinted at any Christians obligation to observe the Mosaic law despite your strawman argument to the contrary.

Well if you weren't hinting that the 10 commandments were not part of the Mosaic law, or were somehow detached from that law and therefore implicitly carried on to the New Covenant, then I will concede that I have been appealing to a strawman. How does that sound to you? Otherwise I am not quite sure what "strawman" you are referring to...

What I have said is that all men everywhere is obliged to obey God's eternal law of ten commandments.

And all I am saying here is that that is something you are yet to provide scriptural evidence for.

Scripture, on the other hand teaches us that not only was the law of Moses NOT given to anyone else than the Jews (Ps 147:19-20), it specifically points out that the sabbath commandment was not know to the patriarchs (Deut 5:2-4).

Despite this, SDAs continue year after year contradicting scripture!

In order to defend this, you have to clumbsily pretend that "Oh, the commandment was there.. but unfortunately no one knew about it.. I guess...".

You guys just don't know when to give up!

Nor have I suggested that walking in the Spirit results in the keeping of the Mosaic law. What I have said and I am sure you could find it if you looked hard enough was, quote: Walking in the flesh is set in contradistinction to walking in the Spirit, with opposite results. How do I know this? Compare Galatians 5:19-20 with Galatians 5:22,23. Check it out.

Well if that is that case then... what exactly is your point?? Who among us doesn't agree that "Walking in the flesh is set in contradistinction to walking in the Spirit, with opposite results"?

Now if the righteousness mentioned so often above that we receive as a result of walking in the Spirit does not result in our keeping of God's commandments then what else could mean the expression, Mt 1:21

Mt 1:21 does not say that "He will get us to keep the 10 commandments"! It says he will "save us from our sins"! So why construct a false conclusion and pretend that there is no other alternative? We are not saved by being "sinless", we are saved through faith in Christ. Please learn the difference!

Despite your repeated assertions to the contrary, and claims and lies that Sabbath keepers are attempting to be justified by their own efforts in obeying God's commandments, the aforementioned scriptures reveal incontrovertibly two things:
•it is quite impossible for anyone to observe any commandment without the power of God radically changing the mind, the heart, and the will, and that includes you.
•it is quite impossible for anyone walking in the Spirit having been radically changed in mind, heart, and will, to disobey the commandments of God. For the man or woman of faith, the commandments become promises. They become creative words of power in the mind and heart of the believer. Just like at creation when God said "let there be light"...so He also says 'Thou shalt not steal...thou shalt not commit adultery...thou shalt not covet...thou shalt not have any other god before Me....thou shalt not take my name in vain... remember to keep holy My Sabbath day (the man or woman who has not that faith, the commandments are not promises, but impossible targets, and they forget.
How do I know this?
Hebrews 4:17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
5:1 ¶ Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
2 For 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.
3 For 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.
4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.
5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.
6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

Obviously, since Hebrews 4:17-5:6 does not support your claims, you do not "know" what you think you know. Where do these verses make any mention of any ability to keep the 10 commandments? They don't! Where do they claim that the sabbath commandment somehow magically turned into a "promise"? They don't. Scripture does not give us the kind of poetic licence you seem to think it does. The "promise" to enter God's rest was described in the PREVIOUS chapter - chapter 3 - to enter the "promised" land, where the Jews were to enjoy "rest" - a rest they rejected by grumbling against God and inciting his anger. And if you took the time to read Hebrews 4 carefully then you would have noticed that it is not speaking about a weekly sabbath, but about something that goes way beyond that.

2 Cor. 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Again, not the slightest mention of keeping the 10 commandments...

We do not keep the Sabbath, or any other of the commandments because we are striving to attempt to obey God in our own fleshly strength. As the Bible so clearly points out, that is impossible!

Exactly! Which proves, according to your logic, that we are not keeping the commandments, and are therefore still under the law - which contradicts what Paul wrote when he said that we are NOT under the law. You cannot have it BOTH ways!!
The ONLY theology that makes sense is that we are no longer under the Mosiac law, which INCLUDES the 10 commandments, but are under a NEW covenant that takes our weaknesses into consideration and FULFILLS the obligations we otherwise would need in order to please the righteous demands required by God. If God was giving us the SAME commandments as he gave the Jews at Sinai then he would be showing favoritism if the punishment for not keeping those commandments was different! That is NOT what he is doing! He is providing us with the same kind of commandments that he gave BEFORE Sinai - the same kind of faith-based gospel - that if we BELIEVE in him and follow his faith-based commandments, then we will be saved, just as they would have been had they not rejected the gospel.

The only way anyone can keep any commandment is by being radically changed by the power of the living God through the action of the Holy Spirit in the minds, hearts, and souls of the believing repentant child of God. God makes them righteous. God makes them obedient. God makes them holy. God makes them like His very own Son!!! There is no other way this can be accomplished!!!
How do I know this?
Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 ¶ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
This is how we obey. This is our testimony. This is the power of the gospel.

And of course, nothing in your comments, nor in the verses provided, show that we are under the Mosiac law. So in other words, I agree with what you say here, and with the verses you have given, but what I don't agree with is your conclusion that it shows in any way that we are under a law that scripture teaches us we are not under. It is that simple!

Pardon my bluntness, but what a load of dung. Bring it right here. I'm not going back to see what you have already said, bring it here now. When I address what you bring forward, let us see who begins ignoring what the other says, or the scriptures presented because they have no answer for the same.

Well its kind of funny that you claim that what I say is a "load of dung", and yet you cannot be bothered to "go back and see what I have said"!

And to top it all off you want me to "bring it right here". Bring what??? I have responded to YOUR posts as well as ALL OTHERS! I have also CHALLENGED each and every one of you to support your claims without going beyond what is written, without adding to scripture, and without contradicting it!

NONE of you has been able to meet that challenge.

And NOW you ask me to "briing it on".

Don't be so lazy! If you have a point, or a disagreement with me, then go back and lay it out, using quotes, using scripture.. instead of just presenting some kind of BLURRY challenge to me to "bring it on".. !!

I think I am going to crack up soon...

 

[zeke25]

Thanks Zeke! Unfortunately I see the same behavior over and over again. Initially they try to pretend that their doctrine is "scriptural" because the preachers and teachers they bend their ears to provide them with long lists of comma-delimited bible verses that they think defends their stance. But the fact of the matter is that not one of these verses stands by itself without doing one of the following:
1) Ignoring context (such as which Coventant we are under, sheesh!!)
2) Adding to scripture something that isn't there
3) Having a dependency on some kind of logical argument (where "logical" is something that agrees with their own persuasion), or
4) Failing to harmonize with the rest of scripture.
If ANY proponent of SDA theology disagrees with the above then I would actually LOVE then to challenge me and go into details about why they do. As it is, when they realize that they cannot, they ALWAYS make some kind of sweeping statement about how they have "already dealt with my questions", or that I am "not willing to listen", and so on and so on.
Where are the brave soldiers of the sabbatarian army that can take a propper stand in defending their claims? I don't want to appear so arrogant and blunt, but I have been challenging them for years now and not even one of them seem to wants to see this thing through to completion - which from my perspective would be for them to answer the simple, fundamental questions I pose without "going beyond what is written". Not one!

UppsalaDragby,

What it boils do to is that the SDA has another gospel, not the gospel of the Bible. Some there might be Christians but they are being fed a diet of confusion.

As I pointed out to Phoneguy in post #399, they have taken the things of the Bible and perverted them: the ten commandments table of stone, the golden calf, Gideon’s ephod, & the brazen serpent. These are examples. And it is easy to see how the Hebrews took these things through the centuries and turned something good that God intended into something perverted. Those who follow the gospel of man and cannot move from the physical into the spiritual will do it every time.

And, Keeth has yet to understand anything I said in post #415. He keeps coming back talking about all sorts of confusion that has nothing to do with what I said to him.

It’s like you and I are going to a baseball game and invite them. We show up with our bats, round baseballs, and gloves and they show up with their footballs, helmets, shoulder pads and whatever. We’re not playing the same game. We showed up at the baseball diamond and they showed up at the local gridiron football field. They haven’t a clue.

So, we’re never going to communicate effectively. This is the brainwashing they’ve been through. It has seared their minds and they don’t know how to break from it. Lord, knows we have tried. But I’ve seen this with the Hindus, JW’s, LDS, RCC, HRM and others. They have been cemented into another gospel and cannot break free to discuss the gospel of the Bible.


We revere the Scriptures and trust the Bible. They don’t. They use the Bible as a convenient springboard to launch their made up doctrines. This is why they seldom address the Scriptures we give them. If it contradicts their pre-chosen doctrines, then they ignore it. Because to them it is not important.

Zeke25

If you would prefer to stick to doctrine, then you would have. Instead, you have chosen this trash, as a diversioanry tactic, and or attempt to belittle your opponents rahter than address the issue before us.

Touche.

Do your own research. I'm not interested in pursuing this line of dialogue. You want to tout your virtues of longevity (with many questions unanswered), so I threw you a maggot infested bone in return. In a nutshell, Hitler shut down all Christian churches in Germany. But the SDA decided to find out what they could do to have their denomination exempted. They found out that all they had to do was pledge to support the government and sing its praises. It worked. They were allowed to reopen their doors when others could not.

When the tsunami of 12/26/2004 swept hundreds of thousands to their deaths and wiped out entire towns. It turns out that many Islamic Mosques were not sweep away. They immediately claimed that allah protected them. But the construction and shape of the buildings are what protected them. So every beneficial thing that happens is not the measuring rod we use to determine God's benevolence. The Bible tells us we will know them by their fruit. Fruit is not tsunami resistant buildings nor longevity.

But here is the part you missed, as always. No one should be glorying in their church or denomination or leader of choice. Instead, they should be praising God for his mercy and grace and longsuffering, and most of all His salvation provided through Yahoshua's shed Blood.

Zeke25

 

[brakelite]

The righteousness of God is imputed through belief in the resurrected Son. Through the Spirit given we love God above all and love others as ourselves. This is walking in the Spirit. Diet or other observances are not required of His children in the new covenant. If one chooses to follow ascetic practices because of the weakness of their faith, this is allowed, yet they are not to judge others who do not.

Good health practices and Sabbath keeping ascetic practices?????????? You have so much to learn.

Quote Zeke.....No one should be glorying in their church or denomination or leader of choice. Instead, they should be praising God for his mercy and grace and longsuffering, and most of all His salvation provided through Yahoshua's shed Blood.

I agree entirely. So why do you continue to bring up denominational references? We aren't. Oh, and like Keeth, although I recognize the advantages of plant based diets (which science lately is in harmony with) I have never been a vegetarian. I am the only Christian in my family. I think it would be unfair and an unnecessary burden to place upon my family a demand for change on account of just me. If we do one day change our current patterns, it wouldn't be because of any religious affiliation or demand. Just a simple lifestyle choice which would be of benefit to us all. Its a desperate person who resorts to demonizing vegetarianism as a weapon to prove the validity of their arguments. Pathetic really.

Quote Uppsala.....And of course, nothing in your comments, nor in the verses provided, show that we are under the Mosiac law. So in other words, I agree with what you say here, and with the verses you have given, but what I don't agree with is your conclusion that it shows in any way that we are under a law that scripture teaches us we are not under. It is that simple!

There you go again. Either you simply don't get it, or you are deliberately twisting what I am saying to you. I agree with you. We are not under the Mosaic law. And that is precisely my point. As Paul says, those who are under the law according to Paul's letter to the Galatians are those who by practice are walking in the flesh and revealing the fruits thereof. They are under the law. Read again Galatians 5:18-21. Now if you were accusing us (hopefuly with evidence) of idolatry or witchcraft or seditions or heresies or envyings, murders, drunkeness etc, then certainly, we would then be under the law, because we would then stand condemned of sin. But no, you are accusing us of keeping the Sabbath. Mmmmm. So why is it that you and others continually accuse us of trying to get you to be under the law by obeying the commandments when being under the law is to be in a place of condemnation? Those obeying God's commandments by the grace of God are not under any law. Neither the Mosaic, or God's. Why? Because they are in Christ Jesus, and therefore are not under condemnation. If they weren't in Christ Jesus they wouldn't be able to, in fact wouldn't even be interested in, keeping any of God's commandments. Oh, and BTW, before you jump up and down in protest and claim I am boasting of keeping the commandments in order to be free from condemnation, don't bother.

Quote Uppsala.....Obviously, since Hebrews 4:17-5:6 does not support your claims, you do not "know" what you think you know. Where do these verses make any mention of any ability to keep the 10 commandments? They don't! Where do they claim that the sabbath commandment somehow magically turned into a "promise"? They don't. Scripture does not give us the kind of poetic licence you seem to think it does. The "promise" to enter God's rest was described in the PREVIOUS chapter - chapter 3 - to enter the "promised" land, where the Jews were to enjoy "rest" - a rest they rejected by grumbling against God and inciting his anger. And if you took the time to read Hebrews 4 carefully then you would have noticed that it is not speaking about a weekly sabbath, but about something that goes way beyond that.

If God says to you "Uppsala, you shall not steal". You have a choice. Either you believe God, or you don't.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

As Paul says, those who are under the law according to Paul's letter to the Galatians are those who by practice are walking in the flesh and revealing the fruits thereof. They are under the law. Read again Galatians 5:18-21.

And just as I pointed out, that is NOT what Paul says, but rather what YOU say.

If that really was what Paul was saying then I don't doubt that he would have said it in the say way that anyone else would have said it. But your theology requires redefining what "Paul says" so that it matches your doctrine.

Galatians 5:18-21 says absolutely nothing about "keeping the law". What it does say is that those who "follow the Spirit" are not under the law. So why not stick to what scripture actually "says", instead of trying to redefine it?

Now if you were accusing us (hopefuly with evidence) of idolatry or witchcraft or seditions or heresies or envyings, murders, drunkeness etc, then certainly, we would then be under the law, because we would then stand condemned of sin. But no, you are accusing us of keeping the Sabbath. Mmmmm.

Rubbish! Where did I "accuse" you of keeping the sabbath?? You are the one who seems to be CLAIMING that you keep it, (although I am quite sure that you don't, which PROVES, according to your own logic that you are still "under the law") but please don't try to rub your unfounded persecution complex in my face! What I am doing is using scripture to expose flaws in a theology that contradicts the Gospel - which teaches us that we are no longer under the Mosaic Covenant. If you on the other hand can provide scriptural evidence that we are still under that law, or that the 10 commandments were NOT a part of that covenant, then please do so!

Oh, and BTW, before you jump up and down in protest and claim I am boasting of keeping the commandments in order to be free from condemnation, don't bother.

Uh.. why on earth not???

Isn't that what you claim to be doing? If not, then again, according to your logic, you are still under the law!

If God says to you "Uppsala, you shall not steal". You have a choice. Either you believe God, or you don't.

And what makes you think I wouldn't believe what God said to me? Commandments have nothing to do with "beliefs". Promises, on the other hand, do.

God never promised anyone that they would be able to keep the 10 commandments. What he DID promise us is that we would be justified by faith!

Now since I have done you the courtesy of adressing your points, then why not adress mine?

I never seem to be able to get any of you do do so.

All you ever seem to do is come back with attempts to find flaws in what I say, rather than respond to the questions I have been posing to you. Why is that?

 

[Axehead]

These are great reads by Peter Cohen, a Messianic Jew on the topic of the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath. Well worth your time to read them.

The Ten Commandments and the New Covenant

Remember the Sabbath Day

Man made doctrines which are the foundation of one's entire spiritual walk, are difficult to let go of because one has become "secure" in them and the opposite of security is fear. However, true security is only found in truth. And we are to rest in Him our truth, security and peace.

 

[zeke25]

These are great reads by Peter Cohen, a Messianic Jew on the topic of the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath. Well worth your time to read them.

The Ten Commandments and the New Covenant

Remember the Sabbath Day

Man made doctrines which are the foundation of one's entire spiritual walk, are difficult to let go of because one has become "secure" in them and the opposite of security is fear. However, true security is only found in truth. And we are to rest in Him our truth, security and peace.

Hello my friend,

I hope you don't mind if I disagree with your assessment of Peter Cohen. I started to read his articles and came up with multiply red flags. Here is what I found.


Critique of “Remember the Sabbath” by Peter Cohen, 10/5/12.

Peter Cohen said: “Luke recorded that: On the first day of the week we came together to break bread (Acts 20:7).”

I do not consider a lone Scripture enough to establish a doctrine. The entourage was departing the following day. Gathering together on Sunday could have logically been the best time to meet prior to their departure, with no regard as to whether or that day had any other significance.

This being said, let me get to the real issue. Acts 20:7 is a corrupt translation in the KJ. The Textus Receptus says that on “one of the Sabbaths”. Most are not aware of the significance of this statement, including translators. Back up and read in Acts 20:6 that the Feast of Unleavened Bread had just occurred. At this time they begin to count seven perfect sabbaths (that is Saturdays) to Shauvot. “One of the Sabbaths” is merely referring to one of those seven sabbaths. Which one is not specified but it may easily have been the first one. So, they actually met on a Saturday.

Cohen said: “Paul gave instructions to the believers at Corinth that on the first day of the week they should set aside a collection for the needs of the church: On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made (1 Corinthians 16:2).”

This is a grasping for straws and coming up empty. Paul was not establishing a day of worship with these instructions. No mention is made of when these funds would be handed over.

Cohen said: “The apostle John referred to this unique day of worship on the first day of the week as “the Lord’s Day”. Though some dispute this, history bears testimony to the fact that the largest part of the church of Jesus Christ, from its earliest inception, came to regard the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day, representing a new day on which to gather for worship.”

No Scripture reference is given here, and for good reason. I’m not trusting Cohen or his scholarship in the least at this point. Every thing he has said here is just speculation and a repeat of oft told old wive’s tales.



Cohen then quotes Eusebius, a bishop of the RCC, as further evidence for Sunday worship. I’m not buying it. Eusebius may have said it extensively, but he was saying it in regards to Christ’s resurrection being on a Sunday. Wow! That’s a mouth full. If Eusebius didn’t even know that the resurrection was on Saturday, then nobody should ever listen to this guy. And apparently, Peter Cohen, believes the same as Eusebius. Is Cohen an RCC spy or Jesuit or what?

At this point I stopped reading Cohen’s tripe. I’ve better things to do with my time.

Axehead, my disdain is for Cohen. Please do not take it that I mean you in any way.

Zeke25

 

[Phoneman777]

In keeping with their contemptous attitude toward God and Christ, the SDA continues to exalt the false prophetess Ellen White and their man-made church business. This is all the while they should be exalting God and the grace He has given the world through His Son Yahoshua the Christ and His shed Blood for the washing away of our sins.

Their Loma Linda experience is not an airtight story. Much comparison research would need to be done by an non-prejudice group of researchers, This has not been done. There are many nonagenarians and centenarians in the country and world that have nothing to do with the SDA. I lived in Carmel, California, for a season and nonagenarians were commonplace. The California coast has always been a very healthy place. I witnessed to a man of 89 and he accepted Christ, he is now 91. Until six months ago, he rode his bicycle 5 miles per day. Where was this, on the California coast and it wasn't in Loma Linda and he wasn't SDA.

My own Dad, who smoked 1 to 2 packs of cigarettes per day until he was 55, and drank alcohol like a fish even longer, is now 89 years old. He works out at a gym and on a track at least one day per week, and he works as a volunteer optical assistant in a military facility one full day per week. He has done this for over 20 years. I visited his work place in the last couple of months. I was amazed at his energy level. And he doesn't look 89 at all. I had to take a nap there while he worked.

Will the SDA ever tell you about their love affair with Hitler and Nazi Germany? Look it up yourself, the internet has caught up with them finally. I knew about it ahead of time. Next, Phoneguy, you might try bragging about this one.

I would prefer to discuss doctrine, but you keep exposing yourself. But, then again, you failed miserably on all fronts long ago, not having Scriptural support, regarding any doctrinal issues we have discussed.

James 4:6 KJV, "But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble."

Hebrews 4:10 KJV, "For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his."

Romans 8:2 KJV, " For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ [Yahoshua] hath made me free from the law of sin and death."

Zeke25

Zeke, they're called "Blue Zones" and the comparative research can be found in "Everywhere Else Zones". If you are still unconvinced, then read about the China Study and the work of Dr. Colin Campbell. The vegetarian diet is the optimal diet for humans and is why SDAs, especially those in Loma Linda, are far healthier than the rest of you "Freedom in Christ" Christians who think we are at liberty to eat whatever crawls across you plate.

BTW, I see you still refuse to pluck up some courage and boldly state publicly that we may break the same Ten Commandments that you claim no longer apply to us. What a monumental rebuke to such a ridiculously contradictory doctrinal position that is.

 

[Phoneman777]

Thanks Zeke! Unfortunately I see the same behavior over and over again. Initially they try to pretend that their doctrine is "scriptural" because the preachers and teachers they bend their ears to provide them with long lists of comma-delimited bible verses that they think defends their stance. But the fact of the matter is that not one of these verses stands by itself without doing one of the following:

1) Ignoring context (such as which Coventant we are under, sheesh!!)

2) Adding to scripture something that isn't there

3) Having a dependency on some kind of logical argument (where "logical" is something that agrees with their own persuasion), or

4) Failing to harmonize with the rest of scripture.

If ANY proponent of SDA theology disagrees with the above then I would actually LOVE then to challenge me and go into details about why they do. As it is, when they realize that they cannot, they ALWAYS make some kind of sweeping statement about how they have "already dealt with my questions", or that I am "not willing to listen", and so on and so on.

Where are the brave soldiers of the sabbatarian army that can take a propper stand in defending their claims? I don't want to appear so arrogant and blunt, but I have been challenging them for years now and not even one of them seem to wants to see this thing through to completion - which from my perspective would be for them to answer the simple, fundamental questions I pose without "going beyond what is written". Not one!

Immortal souls? The Bible says God alone hath immortality and that we "seek for" immortality, but the serpent is the one who said, "Ye shall no surely die."

 

[zeke25]

BTW, I see you still refuse to pluck up some courage and boldly state publicly that we may break the same Ten Commandments that you claim no longer apply to us. What a monumental rebuke to such a ridiculously contradictory doctrinal position that is.

Phoneman,

I still see you are unable to focus and stick to the subject. And, that you refuse to address the Scriptures given in this post because you do not believe the Bible, because you think it is a Romanish corruption. How clueless you are. I always wonder, for those like you that do not believe the Bible, how is it that you can pick and choose your Scriptures that you like, and the ones you don't like are the corrupted ones? A very hypocritical approach indeed. But what else can one like yourself do, after all, already on this thread you have mocked the grace of God.

Zeke25

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Immortal souls? The Bible says God alone hath immortality and that we "seek for" immortality, but the serpent is the one who said, "Ye shall no surely die."

Um... and???

Did I say anything at all about "immortal souls"???

Oh I see.... I guess what you are desparately trying to say here is that I am advocating a theology that says that is is quite alright to sin and that death would not be a consequence of it. The usual SDA cop-out in other words - you are the ones promoting righeousness whereas everyone else promotes sin!

Don't be so easily deceived!!!

What you need to do is LISTEN for once, instead of contantly trying to twist my words in order to suit your theology! What you need to do, if you have a ligitimate point to make against me, is USE QUOTES and prove me wrong by lining up my claims with scripture...

Neither have you done so, nor have you addressed the questions I posed to you. Why Phoneman?

Please let us all know.. instead of trying to impress us with all these cheap and subtle insults designed to suggest that we who are critical of SDA theology are working for satan and promoting sin, whereas you (of course) are gallantly fighting on the side of God. If that really was the case then you would not be contradicting the Gospel of Christ, would you? Don't twist things around! Be honest and deal with this issue appropriately! I have asked you a number of specific questions, to which I expect specific answers. If you think that I am of the devil then I guess that you are entitled to believe so, but at least have the honesty of admitting that you cannot answer my questions!

I have never, even once, on this thread, or in this forum, or anywhere else .. suggested that it is OK to sin. So please try that argument out on someone else!

 

[Axehead]

Hello my friend,

I hope you don't mind if I disagree with your assessment of Peter Cohen. I started to read his articles and came up with multiply red flags. Here is what I found.


Critique of “Remember the Sabbath” by Peter Cohen, 10/5/12.

Peter Cohen said: “Luke recorded that: On the first day of the week we came together to break bread (Acts 20:7).”

I do not consider a lone Scripture enough to establish a doctrine. The entourage was departing the following day. Gathering together on Sunday could have logically been the best time to meet prior to their departure, with no regard as to whether or that day had any other significance.

This being said, let me get to the real issue. Acts 20:7 is a corrupt translation in the KJ. The Textus Receptus says that on “one of the Sabbaths”. Most are not aware of the significance of this statement, including translators. Back up and read in Acts 20:6 that the Feast of Unleavened Bread had just occurred. At this time they begin to count seven perfect sabbaths (that is Saturdays) to Shauvot. “One of the Sabbaths” is merely referring to one of those seven sabbaths. Which one is not specified but it may easily have been the first one. So, they actually met on a Saturday.

Cohen said: “Paul gave instructions to the believers at Corinth that on the first day of the week they should set aside a collection for the needs of the church: On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made (1 Corinthians 16:2).”

This is a grasping for straws and coming up empty. Paul was not establishing a day of worship with these instructions. No mention is made of when these funds would be handed over.

Cohen said: “The apostle John referred to this unique day of worship on the first day of the week as “the Lord’s Day”. Though some dispute this, history bears testimony to the fact that the largest part of the church of Jesus Christ, from its earliest inception, came to regard the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day, representing a new day on which to gather for worship.”

No Scripture reference is given here, and for good reason. I’m not trusting Cohen or his scholarship in the least at this point. Every thing he has said here is just speculation and a repeat of oft told old wive’s tales.



Cohen then quotes Eusebius, a bishop of the RCC, as further evidence for Sunday worship. I’m not buying it. Eusebius may have said it extensively, but he was saying it in regards to Christ’s resurrection being on a Sunday. Wow! That’s a mouth full. If Eusebius didn’t even know that the resurrection was on Saturday, then nobody should ever listen to this guy. And apparently, Peter Cohen, believes the same as Eusebius. Is Cohen an RCC spy or Jesuit or what?

At this point I stopped reading Cohen’s tripe. I’ve better things to do with my time.

Axehead, my disdain is for Cohen. Please do not take it that I mean you in any way.

Zeke25

Hi Zeke,

Hope all is well with you. Let me take a closer look at your objections and reference Cohen's writings that I posted. I was reading his writing zeroing in on one particular thing . Right now, I just finished a very long post in Queen of Heaven and am tired. Will get to it as soon as I can.

Axehead

 

[Phoneman777]

Hello my friend,

I hope you don't mind if I disagree with your assessment of Peter Cohen. I started to read his articles and came up with multiply red flags. Here is what I found.


Critique of “Remember the Sabbath” by Peter Cohen, 10/5/12.

Peter Cohen said: “Luke recorded that: On the first day of the week we came together to break bread (Acts 20:7).”

I do not consider a lone Scripture enough to establish a doctrine. The entourage was departing the following day. Gathering together on Sunday could have logically been the best time to meet prior to their departure, with no regard as to whether or that day had any other significance.

This being said, let me get to the real issue. Acts 20:7 is a corrupt translation in the KJ. The Textus Receptus says that on “one of the Sabbaths”. Most are not aware of the significance of this statement, including translators. Back up and read in Acts 20:6 that the Feast of Unleavened Bread had just occurred. At this time they begin to count seven perfect sabbaths (that is Saturdays) to Shauvot. “One of the Sabbaths” is merely referring to one of those seven sabbaths. Which one is not specified but it may easily have been the first one. So, they actually met on a Saturday.

Cohen said: “Paul gave instructions to the believers at Corinth that on the first day of the week they should set aside a collection for the needs of the church: On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made (1 Corinthians 16:2).”

This is a grasping for straws and coming up empty. Paul was not establishing a day of worship with these instructions. No mention is made of when these funds would be handed over.

Cohen said: “The apostle John referred to this unique day of worship on the first day of the week as “the Lord’s Day”. Though some dispute this, history bears testimony to the fact that the largest part of the church of Jesus Christ, from its earliest inception, came to regard the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day, representing a new day on which to gather for worship.”

No Scripture reference is given here, and for good reason. I’m not trusting Cohen or his scholarship in the least at this point. Every thing he has said here is just speculation and a repeat of oft told old wive’s tales.



Cohen then quotes Eusebius, a bishop of the RCC, as further evidence for Sunday worship. I’m not buying it. Eusebius may have said it extensively, but he was saying it in regards to Christ’s resurrection being on a Sunday. Wow! That’s a mouth full. If Eusebius didn’t even know that the resurrection was on Saturday, then nobody should ever listen to this guy. And apparently, Peter Cohen, believes the same as Eusebius. Is Cohen an RCC spy or Jesuit or what?

At this point I stopped reading Cohen’s tripe. I’ve better things to do with my time.

Axehead, my disdain is for Cohen. Please do not take it that I mean you in any way.

Zeke25

At least you are honest in arguing against Sunday sacredness. Now, will you be take your position that we are not obligated to keep the Ten Commandments one step further by publicly stating that we may break the Ten Commandments?

 

[Phoneman777]

Phoneman,

I still see you are unable to focus and stick to the subject. And, that you refuse to address the Scriptures given in this post because you do not believe the Bible, because you think it is a Romanish corruption. How clueless you are. I always wonder, for those like you that do not believe the Bible, how is it that you can pick and choose your Scriptures that you like, and the ones you don't like are the corrupted ones? A very hypocritical approach indeed. But what else can one like yourself do, after all, already on this thread you have mocked the grace of God.

Zeke25

It is you who keeps shifting the focus, first to criticism of optimal, Biblical dietary restrictions and then to some ridiculous claim that SDAs aligned themselves with Hitler. The original topic was the Sabbath of the Ten Commandments, remember?

Of course I believe the Bible, just not false interpretations of it by people who claim we may ignore the Ten Commandments but will not publicly state that we may break them. When will you cease from such a ridiculously contradictory belief and choose one side or the other?

 

[zeke25]

At least you are honest in arguing against Sunday sacredness. Now, will you be take your position that we are not obligated to keep the Ten Commandments one step further by publicly stating that we may break the Ten Commandments?

Phoneguy,

That's a totally whacked out statement. I'm not arguing against Sunday sacredness. I'm not on a crusade. Sunday and Saturday are the same thing, two days in a week. I've already made my position clear regarding the teaching of the Torah. Go back and look at it. It tells you the truth. Nothing is made up, as your theology is because you have no Scriptural support.

Here's what I support. A community should have 7 bible studies per week, one each day. That way, those who want to gather together and study together can pick their day and have a good time and fellowship together. To each his own. No day has any spiritual significance over another.

If you could break free from the prison your mind is in, I might continue to talk. But right now it is a waste of time. It's like I'm trying to explain what an elephant looks like to a blind man.

Zeke25

 

[zeke25]

Phoneman & his clan,
The reason I brought up the SDA and Hitler is so that you could be informed. A wise man would walk out of that denomination and never look back, except that you must agree with their compromise. They played the whore to Hitler. Your association with them is enough to spiritually condemn anyone who participates in their evil doings, even those that date back to Nazi Germany, now that you have been informed. Before this, your ignorance can be repented of. But now, are you repenting to God and leaving them behind? You condemn the RCC so much for their sin, are you going to be a hypocrite and stay with the SDA? If so, then you better apologize to the RCC.
Zeke25

 

[mjrhealth]

It is always intruiging to read these " arguements" about keeping teh sabbath. When was it that Gentiles came under the law, and which day is the Sabbath, is it Saturday or Sunday. Now for you to keep teh sabbath you must rest, if you go to church, go to work. light a fire, cook or do any strenuos excercse you have broken the sabbath, and the law and you must now pay the price. We all know what that is" death". there is no other price. Do you think that by keeping the sabbath you are pleasing to God or can possibly add another point to your salvation. No you cant EARN your way to God. See I am pleasing to God because my faith is in His Son, my Faith is in Him not in my wotks, I am pleasing to God because of what jesus did, not because of anything I can do. I cannot out do God, works is simply slapping Christ in the face and saying " it was not enough I can do better than you"..

The gentiles never had teh law, it was never given to us, we came to Christ at His ressurection through faith by Him. the law condemns it can do no other, waht is it God spoke,

Hos 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

How many burnt offering will you place before Him??

In all His Love