What Day Is The Sabbath ???

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Our FAITH is accounted for righteousness, without works! Romans 4.

Exactly. <Accounted> / "reckoned". The believer especially "is under the Law (of faith) for as long as he shall live" - PAUL'S words, not mine. There's no other Law of God; the believer therefore shall be under the Law his whole life unless God gets another law which never has been His Law.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I will pray for whatever angers you to make such a reply after quoting my personal observations on this topic. For they certainly do not have a thing to do with my perspective.
God be with you.

Flabbergasting ... <<my personal observations on this topic . . . they certainly do not have a thing to do with my perspective.>> Now I can say I have seen it all ... rain and ice cream ... it surely makes sense.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

I will pray for whatever angers you to make such a reply after quoting my personal observations on this topic. For they certainly do not have a thing to do with my perspective.
God be with you.

I had another look at your post #262 - which I at first did not read further than what I replied to. I can now see what you meant with the above. Does the rest of your post #262 justify your <perspective> now perceivable? In other words, is your view of the Sabbath truly Scriptural and should I apologise for having made the conclusion I made?

REGRETTABLY not. But it is a long story which one has to have followed to the end over the years in order to understand why I cannot withdraw what I said.

It will be better if I begin with ending of my story. You see, I also believed the Seventh Day of the week is the Sabbath of the Lord God, and I still believe it, BUT NOT FOR THE SAME REASON of long ago which was the same as your reason as well as the unbelieving Jews' reason for believing the Seventh Day Sabbath -- which is the Holy Law of God yes, BUT NOT FULFILLED by and in Jesus Christ, who "finished all the works of God on the Seventh Day" Hebrews 4:4 by having COME UP FROM the Red Sea of DEATH on the Sabbath, while his bringing up from the Red Sea of Israel was JUST THE TYPE and not the realisation of the finishing or of the blessing or of the hallowing or of the "REST of GOD", "of", and "on", and "in", and "with the Sabbath" : "of the week" in Matthew 28:1-4.

INSTEAD the Sabbatharians as far as I know, no one DIFFERS WITH THE REST OF CHRISTIANITY in <perspective> or <observation> or whatever as far as the 'keeping the Sabbath' <-topic> is concerned. Which is why I cannot say I'm sorry for what I have said.

 

[FHII]

Exactly. <Accounted> / "reckoned". The believer especially "is under the Law (of faith) for as long as he shall live" - PAUL'S words, not mine. There's no other Law of God; the believer therefore shall be under the Law his whole life unless God gets another law which never has been His Law.

No, those aren't Paul's words. He never said that. Perhaps you are paraphrasing something he said, but you'd have to tell me what that verse is.

He did say that the law was not of faith, though (Galalians 3).

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

No, those aren't Paul's words. He never said that. Perhaps you are paraphrasing something he said, but you'd have to tell me what that verse is.

He did say that the law was not of faith, though (Galalians 3).

And if you're not "of faith", you are "under the Law" and its condemnation.
Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

OR ARE YOU EXEMPTED? ARE YOU TOO GOOD TO BE UNDER THE LAW : OF GOD!?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

No, those aren't Paul's words. He never said that. Perhaps you are paraphrasing something he said, but you'd have to tell me what that verse is.

He did say that the law was not of faith, though (Galalians 3).

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

 

[FHII]

And if you're not "of faith", you are "under the Law" and its condemnation.
Romans 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

OR ARE YOU EXEMPTED? ARE YOU TOO GOOD TO BE UNDER THE LAW : OF GOD!?

This is rediculous. I have been saying all along (quite clearly) that those under Grace (which comes by faith) you are under the law. By extension, if you are of faith you are NOT under the law! I have been quite clear on that. I use direct words and cite scripture that plainly back that up.

So you want to say, "if you are not of faith, you are under the law..."; Then you give scripture that (for once) backs up your assertation; THEN you ask "are you exempted" [sic] and as if I am too good to be under the law??? Really?

No! I am not GOOD ENOUGH to be under the law! I need Grace through Faith! If I was "too good to be under the Law", that would mean I could actually keep it! All of it by the way, as it is required to do so. James, Paul and Jesus all made that point (see James 1, Galatians 2 or 3 and Matthew 5).

This just isn't making any sense.

 

[FHII]

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Ok. Thank you. So they were your words and not Paul's. This is what you said:

The believer especially "is under the Law (of faith) for as long as he shall live"

It's not saying the same thing you are! It's saying we establish or uphold or keep the law of God THROUGH faith. There is no Law of faith. We don't keep a law of faith; we keep the Law of God THROUGH faith. That means we don't actually keep the law in the flesh, but by faith it is accounted for as we did. If you need the next chapter, Paul explains that.

 

[kcnalp]

Jesus shed His Blood to give us the New Covenant. It's good enough for me! No Sabbath commands in the NT!

Hebrews 8:13
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete.

 

[Brakelite]

Those like you who reject 2000 years of Church history and tradition

Which church history? The history you imagine was one of peaceful loving sharing of gospel truths throughout that 2000 years by a benevolent institution based in Rome,? If you can show such a history I would be the first to embrace it. Unfortunately, such a history you will find only in Hollywood. I love history. It's written on rock... It cannot be altered or changed, only people's perceptions of history can. What truly took place over the last 2000 years, in every minute detail, is recorded in heaven and in some general detail even in scripture.
KJV Daniel 7
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
KJV Revelation 17
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

can never see the unfolding of truth down through the ages.

You mean the forced confessions under torture... That is what you term the unfolding of truth? Or is it...

The Sabbath debate was waged by better theologians than you

Such as what Eck used to defeat Luther in debate when with no other option available such as scripture, had to resort to tradition to lord it over Luther condemning Luther for not keeping the Sabbath according to scripture, and thus holding to Catholic church tradition. Ironic.. Now you, representing your church condemns me for keeping the Sabbath according to scripture and not cleaving to tradition. In other words, you, like Catholicism in general, places tradition on a higher level than scripture. And tradition, because it rests solely on the authority of man, in reality accords man's reasoning of higher authority than the word of God.
Now remember... Heaven understands these issues... History is written in heaven, with every detail recorded faithfully by angels, I suggest you be more circumspect in your boasts and bullying. Are you a Jesuit?

 

[Malihah]

Are you a Jesuit?

What if I was? The internet killed Adventism not me.

 

[kcnalp]

Why do people pretend to obey the Sabbath commands?

Galatians 3:10
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse;

 

[Brakelite]

Why do people pretend to obey the Sabbath commands?

Galatians 3:10
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse;

You want to talk about which specific commands? Then I'll let you know if I'm pretending

 

[Brakelite]

What if I was? The internet killed Adventism not me.

Adventism is dead? So long as I'm alive it ain't dead. So long as there's hope in the second coming, it ain't dead.

 

[Malihah]

I just keep hoping that this cursed Sabbath thread will die, but it just lives on sustained by Jehovah's 7th-day rangers from Nantucket.

 

[Brakelite]

I just keep hoping that this cursed Sabbath thread will die, but it just lives on sustained by Jehovah's 7th-day rangers from Nantucket.

The longer you vent your unreasonable hatred toward the Sabbath, the more deeply you entrench yourself in apostasy and reveal your true character.

 

[Marymog]

Nice diversion.

Not a diversion kiddo. It’s a fact that what you said was not true. Now you can’t even admit that you were wrong. *sigh*

 

[kcnalp]

You want to talk about which specific commands? Then I'll let you know if I'm pretending

Sabbath commands:
Exodus 31:15 Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

 

[Marymog]

Nice diversion. But what we were discussing is the fact that the Catholic Church was the institution responsible for changing the day of rest from the Sabbath to Sunday... As per the church's own admittance.

And once again....You said that the Catechism ‘admits’ to this change. Can you quote from the Catechism this alleged admittance so we can discuss what the Catechism says instead of what you believe it says?