sabbath day

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, Giller said:

Was the sabbath just given to the Jews or to all men ?

Well God gives 2 reasons for the sabbath, one is as a result of God working (creation work) 6 days, and resting on the 7th, men doing likewise (Exodus 20:8-11) , and one being as a result of God freeing the Jews from bondage in Egypt (Deuteronomy 5:12-15).

Were gentile proselytes required to keep the sabbath?

Yes they were.

Exodus 12:48-49

 

(48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one

that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

 

49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.)

 

The stranger was required to keep the law, whether it be circumcision, the passover whatever.

 

But that's talking about those who joined themselves to Israel.   It was not given to Gentiles, only to Israel.   So naturally, if one decided to become an Israelite, they would follow the same laws and customs as the native born.   That doesn't make the case that the Sabbath is given as a compulsory observance to all men.

Quote

 

And this is what Jesus says:

Mar 2:27-28

(27)  And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

(28)  Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

The sabbath was made for man, period.

 

But that is a passage that emphasizes Jesus' Lordship over the Sabbath, making Himself equal with God the Father.  That's the point.   Jesus was actually violating the Sabbath in that passage. He violated it often by doing good so as to invite conflict with the religious leaders. 
 

Quote

 

And here is more proof that when the 7th day sabbath will be re-instituted, in the millenial reign, it will be for all men.

And God is the same yesterday , today and forever.

Isa 66:23

(23)  And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

All flesh is all flesh, not just the Jews.

 

 

It is not saying that everyone is going to Israel to worship the Lord on the Sabbath during the millennium.   It's actually a manner of speech similar to saying "day in and day out" in our modern vernacular. "From new moon to new moon and from one Sabbath to another" means, "month to month and week to week."  Every month and every day, there will be a continuous flow of people coming to worship the Lord. 

[Guest Robert]

1 minute ago, Giller said:

Oh well Shiloh, you believe what you believe, it is easy to change things, and not leave them as they are.

Yes, and Jesus did exactly that.

[Guest shiloh357]

16 minutes ago, Giller said:

Oh well Shiloh, you believe what you believe, it is easy to change things, and not leave them as they are.

I am not changing anything.   You simply haven't made a very good case for the Sabbath being required for all people.

[Guest shiloh357]

4 hours ago, Giller said:

 Mark 2:23-28

 

(23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.

 

24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

 

25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

 

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

 

27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

 

28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.)

 

 

 

       What happened here, was that Jesus’ disciples began plucking the ears of corn, and the Pharisees said to Jesus, why do the disciples do what is not lawful on the Sabbath? What the Pharisees were doing here, is falsely accusing the disciples of doing that which is not lawful on the Sabbath, so what the Pharisees were saying is that the disciples were breaking the Sabbath. But was this accusation true about the disciples breaking the Sabbath? Was there an Old Testament law that forbade the plucking of corn on the Sabbath? Well the truth is no. And here is an Old Testament verse that allowed the plucking of corn.

 

 

The problem is that Jesus didn't accuse them of making a false accusation.   He didn't correct them and explain that what he was doing was perfectly allowed on the Sabbath.  He could have cited the Torah that allowed Him to do so, but He didn't.

It was a blameless violation, but a violation nonetheless.  Jesus did that more than one to incite a confrontation with the religious leaders.

In fact not only did Jesus not correct their accusation, he cited I 21 where David took and ate of  the priests' bread which also unlawful. 

The issue being raised and discussed in that passage was not about whether or not the Sabbath was compulsory on non-Jews.

[Remnantrob]

On 11/1/2016 at 3:05 AM, shiloh357 said:

Why don't you just come out and say it???  You're not the only member of the SDA cult we have had on this board.   The SDA believes that keeping the Sabbath is essential for salvation.   We have had SDA members on here before that teach it.  They ultimately teach the 10 commandments must be observed for salvation.   Some have even told us that we have to keep the dietary commandments to be saved.

I am just talking about I John 2:3-6 and I Peter 2: 21. I am addressing the texts your author raised.

That was a question about what the greatest commandment in the Bible is.  It wasn't a discussion over what commandments to keep.

 

I have to admit that I wanted to respond immediately.  The way that you speak/write to people can sometimes be viewed as condescending even if its not your intention.  So I left it alone for a day and prayed that the Lord would give me the strength to respond in a Christlike manner because at the end of the day you're my brother whether you like it or not.  Hopefully one day we bump into each other and I can give you a big hug and squeeze that stuff out of you. Now on to the accusation.  

Quote

Why don't you just come out and say it???  You're not the only member of the SDA cult we have had on this board.   The SDA believes that keeping the Sabbath is essential for salvation.   We have had SDA members on here before that teach it.  They ultimately teach the 10 commandments must be observed for salvation.   Some have even told us that we have to keep the dietary commandments to be saved.

How many sda "cult"/church members have you encountered in your life that have pushed this ideology on you? 7 maybe 10?  What you're doing is assuming you know what I think about the rest of the Christian world with regards to their salvation and sabbath keeping.  I've been on this forum long enough to know that I'm not the only SDA to come on this board and I'm sure that I won't be the last.  What is your denomination? If I had to assume it would be some sort of Messianic Jewish denomination.  Whether I'm correct or not, do you have some members of your congregation/church that are a bit extreme in their teachings/doctrines that make you wonder what's up with these guys?  If you're honest then the answer is probably yes.  But to say that it is the stance of an entire church that salvation by works is necessary to be saved without truly knowing our stance than you're no better than those who you've judged to be a cult.  I can be honest enough to say that there are some from the conservative side of my church that would agree with your assessment on salvation, but they are not the majority.  

Quote

I am just talking about I John 2:3-6 and I Peter 2: 21. I am addressing the texts your author raised.

you stated:

Quote

He uses the word, entole, which the word that John uses for the precepts and commands given personally by Jesus while on earth.   So the "commandments"  referenced are the commandments of Jesus found in the Gospels and has absolutely nothing to do with Sabbath observance.

I responded with a precept/command that Jesus had personally given to John by Jesus while on earth in  Matthew 22:35-40.  Therefore my response has some relationship to the text which you discredited as having absolutely nothing to do with the Sabbath observance.  I Peter 2 : 21 speaks on following in Christ footstep after the example he left, correct?  I don't believe that the author is taking away from the entire context of humility and suffering by restating what vs 21 says about following Christ footsteps.  Should we follow his example? Yes.  What was one of those examples...Sabbath keeping.  

Quote

That was a question about what the greatest commandment in the Bible is.  It wasn't a discussion over what commandments to keep.

What is the answer to the question of the greatest commandment in the bible?  Why is it the greatest?

[Guest shiloh357]

30 minutes ago, Remnantrob said:

 

 

How many sda "cult"/church members have you encountered in your life that have pushed this ideology on you? 7 maybe 10?  What you're doing is assuming you know what I think about the rest of the Christian world with regards to their salvation and sabbath keeping. 

 

I am not talking about what you think, as much as I am what the SDA teaches and I know what they teach about works-based salvation and the need for Baptism for salvation and all of that.  And that doesn't come from 7 people.

It's a cult based on the teachings of false prophetess, Ellen White but got its start from a another false prophet who predicted the Lord would return 1844.

The SDA claims salvation by grace through faith but then redefines what that means by adding the law into the mix.   So it is grace plus works.  What's more in the SDA cult, you don't really have assurance of salvation.  They teach that you must endure to the end to be saved and so it really depends on you being good enough.  And in the SDA cult they must follow all of the requirements of the SDA in order to be saved.  They deny the free gift of eternal life and instead tack on works as a requirement for salvation.

Quote

I responded with a precept/command that Jesus had personally given to John by Jesus while on earth in  Matthew 22:35-40.  Therefore my response has some relationship to the text which you discredited as having absolutely nothing to do with the Sabbath observance.

I didn't discredit the text of Scripture.  I discredit the way it is handled.  It is not a command from Jesus.  It is simply the fact that the Sh'ma is the greatest commandment in the Torah and the second greatest is Lev. 19:19.

Quote

 I Peter 2 : 21 speaks on following in Christ footstep after the example he left, correct?  I don't believe that the author is taking away from the entire context of humility and suffering by restating what vs 21 says about following Christ footsteps.  Should we follow his example? Yes.  What was one of those examples...Sabbath keeping.  

But an important rule of hermeneutics is that a passage cannot mean now what it didn't mean when it was written.  So you are trying to force a text that has is talking about following Jesus' example in humility to be a passage about the general imitation of every aspect of Jesus' life including the Sabbath.   That is sloppy exegesis.

Quote

What is the answer to the question of the greatest commandment in the bible?  Why is it the greatest?

It is the greatest because it encompasses the entirety of the law and the prophets.  But that doesn't mean that all of the commandments were for all people, for all time.    If you are going to use that passage out of Matthew to prove that the Sabbath is compulsory for all humanity, then you would have to be consistent with all 613 commandments contained in the Torah and that is simply untenable.

Jesus was making a general statement about the nature/character of the law.  Taking it further than that opens up theological problems even for the SDA.

[Guest BacKaran]

And just a little bit of history that's of track...

The usa was a free country and in Europe the age of enlightenment was going on. Instead of believing what the Bible says, people were now questioning it and making up new religions. So what better place then the usa which was free?

That's how come all these new religions and cults were booming in the 1800s.

One can follow the OT laws but it's not going to help with their salvation as Jesus fulfilled the law and no one is under  them any longer.

Edited November 2, 2016 by BacKaran

[Guest BacKaran]

Of course a saved soul will strive to like like Christ yet understands they won't be perfect till death or his return.

[Guest shiloh357]

5 hours ago, Giller said:

I did not think you would receive it Shiloh, even though what you say makes absolutely no sense.I

Just following the context of the passage and the arguments being made.

Quote

It is like he fulfilled the law by breaking it, wow!!! What a revelation.

I said no such thing.

Quote

Yet he did not come to destroy or break it but to fulfill it, your doctrine is not sound at all.

Jesus did not destroy the law, but He did fulfill it.  The Greek word for "fulfill" in Matt. 5:17 means to "to bring to fullest expression."   That's what Jesus did.

Quote

God required perfect obedience. 

Jesus was perfectly obedient.   But Jesus' point to the religious leaders that His departure from the letter of the law was still in keeping with the Spirit of it.   Jesus didn't disobey God's law.

Quote

But here is maybe my last question for you, according to old testament standards, when a gentile wanted to follow after God, was there as separate law for them and a separate law for the Jews ?

Well, you need to be a bit more precise.  They were joining themselves to the Jewish nation, and as such were bound by the laws of that nation.   Becoming a Christian isn't the same as becoming an Israelite.

 

[brakelite]

Is the Sabbath an obligation, that Christians should observe...is it a sin therefore if they don't? The Sabbath IS different from all the other commandments. However, being different, does not make it any less a commandment. Let me explain. In any society, even without contact with missionaries or the western world or perhaps no contact with anyone in the outside world, would over a period of time develop a code of ethics by which to live under. These will eventually develop into laws, and may very well get to a stage where they actually loosely resemble the ten commandments. Except for the Sabbath of the 4th.
There is simply no way any society anywhere could come up with such an idea. For one, it marks the week. The week is a time period which is a unique witness to creation. Every other time period known to man is based on natural cycles of either the moon or the sun or the stars. That is in fact why they were created: that they may be for signs and seasons etc. But the weekly cycle is based on nothing other than the word of God. And yet it has endured. There have been attempts over the centuries to change it; someone one time tried to implement a 10 day week, but failed.
The Sabbath is the same. It is not based upon any moral principle as such, but purely and simply on the word of God. Period. It is a commandment that comes by no other authority except by revelation. Therefore, our acceptance or rejection of it ultimately comes down to our attitude to God's authority.
Another reason why it would not be a part of any such community's law is the fact that it is a memorial. A memorial of a specific event. Again, only revelation would induce anyone to include such a commandment in any law.
But does that make the commandment any less important? Any less 'moral' to obey? As scripture says, to him who knows to do good but does it not, to him it is sin. Clearly, many Christians do not yet recognize the Sabbath, so for them it is not sin when they so disregard it. But maybe ones sin in such a case lies not in the fact that one may not be observing the Sabbath, but perhaps, and please I do stress perhaps, it lies in an unwillingness to accept something that may prove awkward or inconvenient or disturbing? Therefore one may not so diligently search for that truth or consider it so seriously? Therefore the sin lies more in the person's deliberate self inflicted ignorance. We shall be held accountable if we neglect opportunities to learn truth, when we have the Bible so readily available to us, and a far greater understanding of history. Also, I would suggest that not observing or recognizing the Sabbath may be but a symptom of a greater problem; an unwillingness to accept God's authority over man's.

Check out your concordance and count the number of times the word Sabbath appears in scripture. In both old and new testaments it echoes across the pages of the Bible from one end to the other. It is a day that is clearly very very important to God. It was a day that was instituted at creation, was intended to be continued throughout history (as the episode with the gathering of manna before Sinai shows) and was reinforced with much grandeur and fanfare from Mt Sinai. What a awesome display of God's glory and power that must have been. Lightning, thunder, earthquakes,fire and smoke, black clouds, trumpets and booming voice, no wonder Israel feared and ran away.
Yet we are led to believe that one of those commandments, the very one that God placed deliberately in the heart of the ten, one that comes by no other source but from His own lips, and written by His own hand in stone, has been done away without as much as a whimper? If the early church suddenly began ignoring the Sabbath as is supposed, where was the debate? Where was the controversy with the Jewish legalists who were all looking for the slightest excuse to malign the new movement? Why was it not an issue like circumcision? Why did not the Jews persecute the early church for defiling the Sabbath? Why is it that persecution against Christians in the first 500 years arose not from those opposed to their Sunday keeping, but to their Sabbath keeping! And that persecution came from Sunday keeping Christians. Think about that. Those Sabbath keepers, at one time a vast majority, were by the 6th century being labelled as heretics. I hear that word being echoed around these forums from time t time, aimed at Sabbath keepers, aimed at the churches they identify with....are you aware of whose history you are repeating? Whose words and accusations you are copying? At least the Roman Catholics of those days were honest. They admitted there was no evidence in scripture of a change to the day, they know who changed it...they did. But today, what do we have? We have some who observe Sunday, and claim the first day is made sacred by scripture. Some say no, we can observe any day, so long as we have one day in seven. Then others, they say no, we needn't observe any day, Jesus "is our Sabbath rest".  No wonder the church of the final days is called Babylon...confusion.

I would strongly suggest to you that the reason it never came up for any debate in those earlier years was that the early church kept the Sabbath faithfully , both Jew and gentile, and it was not an issue. And why is it an issue today? Because Jesus is coming soon. And He is calling His bride to be holy, pure, faithful, honest, obedient, and committed. That righteousness that His bride is to be adorned with is the wedding garment. It is supplied by the Groom. Sadly, many today want to wear their own garments, walking and trusting in their own righteousness, much as the Jews did in Jesus time....and we all know what happened to the one who showed up to attend the wedding but wasn't dressed appropriately.