Why I keep the Sabbath FYI.

[kohelet]

I have presented my point in the first post, and I have not seen anything written here that refutes it by the word of God. Thanx for your time and hope you get better soon.

Thanks, gotime. I'm on the mend.

You summarised your point at the end of your post like this:

The law only serves to remind us and point us to why we should be keeping the Sabbath.

That's it, right? The "why" was because God made the day holy. I've done little but refute this idea, though, from the Bible. Let me say it again. God made the Sabbath day holy at creation but didn't establish it as a perpetual memorial at that time. This came later, at Sinai. This is borne out by the word of God, there being no evidence in it that Adam, Eve or anyone else observed the Sabbath until the time of Moses. It's really not all that difficult.

Gotime, you have to defend the Fundamental Beliefs, we understand that. But this belief isn't based on anything we find in Scripture. I see that this idea appears in Mrs White's writings. It's a furphy, my friend. Or does Mrs White trump Scripture?

 

[Magenta]

Funny how you never quote all of what I have actually said, lol. And when you do...you still resort to your emotional responses and ignore what is actually said.

Here it is again:

So show Scripture that (1) teaches "God did not instruct Adam and Eve in regards to sin and sacrifice, and (2) how your doctrine nullifies something that threads it's way from the Garden to Calvary.

Were the coats of skins from animals...did animals die to cover their sin?

It's a very simple question.

God bless.

Why should I quote all of your nonsense? It has nothing to do with me, and I explained why already, but you pretend otherwise, further displaying your dishonesty. Your attempts to deflect from the fact that you reject what Scripture plainly states, and have me defend things I never said in the first place, are ridiculously pathetic.

The point is that you reject what Scripture plainly states.

 

[james57]

Thanks, gotime. I'm on the mend.

You summarised your point at the end of your post like this:

The law only serves to remind us and point us to why we should be keeping the Sabbath.

That's it, right? The "why" was because God made the day holy. I've done little but refute this idea, though, from the Bible. Let me say it again. God made the Sabbath day holy at creation but didn't establish it as a perpetual memorial at that time. This came later, at Sinai. This is borne out by the word of God, there being no evidence in it that Adam, Eve or anyone else observed the Sabbath until the time of Moses. It's really not all that difficult.

Gotime, you have to defend the Fundamental Beliefs, we understand that. But this belief isn't based on anything we find in Scripture. I see that this idea appears in Mrs White's writings. It's a furphy, my friend. Or does Mrs White trump Scripture?

According to an sda spokesperson in a debate on youtube mrs white cannot trump scripture, scripture must be preeminent.
It was put to the sda spokesperson mrs white early on denied Jesus was God and had to be persuaded to change that view by other members of her church, which she did. This was not denied to be the truth

 

[Magenta]

Funny how you never quote all of what I have actually said, lol.

Another one of your lies. Proof:

While we do not have a direct statement in Scripture we can, by balancing Scripture be sure that God did in fact tell them how they were to receive atonement and remission of sins.

We see Abel, as JL states, bring a sacrifice (implied in "and the fat thereof"), just as we see Noah, Abraham, and Job offer up sacrifice. This is simply the Old Testament provision for remission of sins and atonement for sin that was provided until that which was better came. That is the sacrifice of Christ. In every Age sacrifice for sin has an offering, and it always involves death. The provision of the Old Testament is as stark a contrast to the Sacrifice of Christ and the remission of sins it brings (complete) as the physical life manna provided is to eternal life bestowed through the True Bread of Heaven, that is...Christ.

God told them, lol, though He did not "tell us" in a direct statement. But the principle is still there.


God bless.

I stand by my statement. The text does not say anything to the effect that God told them to sacrifice anything to pay for their sin. God covered their sin. Period. Scripture says: The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. It does not say God told them to do it at all, and it is wrong, plain and simple, to say He did.

As anyone can see, I quoted your whole post. Click the little arrows beside your name to take you to the original post, with my response, quoting your full post, directly below it.

 

[gotime]

Thanks, gotime. I'm on the mend.

You summarised your point at the end of your post like this:

The law only serves to remind us and point us to why we should be keeping the Sabbath.

That's it, right? The "why" was because God made the day holy. I've done little but refute this idea, though, from the Bible. Let me say it again. God made the Sabbath day holy at creation but didn't establish it as a perpetual memorial at that time. This came later, at Sinai. This is borne out by the word of God, there being no evidence in it that Adam, Eve or anyone else observed the Sabbath until the time of Moses. It's really not all that difficult.

Gotime, you have to defend the Fundamental Beliefs, we understand that. But this belief isn't based on anything we find in Scripture. I see that this idea appears in Mrs White's writings. It's a furphy, my friend. Or does Mrs White trump Scripture?

Sorry but there you are wrong. I don't believe this because I have to defend the fundamentals. I do because I can see it plainly in the Bible. But as I said my OP states why the Sabbath began at creation and as I see it that is not difficult to see and understand.

Ps Part of the reason I eventually became a SDA was when God convicted me and showed me the Sabbath through my own personal studies.

I have showed in the OP that the commandment serves as a reminder not an institution.

 

[kohelet]

According to an sda spokesperson in a debate on youtube mrs white cannot trump scripture, scripture must be preeminent.
It was put to the sda spokesperson mrs white early on denied Jesus was God and had to be persuaded to change that view by other members of her church, which she did. This was not denied to be the truth

I'm sure that would be right, James. Her views would influence interpretation of Scripture, though, I'm sure. In this particular example, the SDA view is so clearly at odds with Scripture, that this can be the only explanation.

 

[james57]

I'm sure that would be right, James. Her views would influence interpretation of Scripture, though, I'm sure. In this particular example, the SDA view is so clearly at odds with Scripture, that this can be the only explanation.

Hi
I completely agree with you on the Sabbath issue. But in accordance with what Paul wrote, I have no issue with anyone wanting to observe a specific day of the week ad a set Sabbath, the problem is when they insist everyone else must do the same
Someone in Thi thread who believes all should observe a Saturday Sabbath accepts in romans 14:5 Paul is stating in reality on this issue a person is free to observe a specific day as a Sabbath or consider every day alike. This means the person charged with being the chief exponent of the new covenant is being ignored in favour of what is written under the old covenant, there is no way around that
That is an extremely serious mistake to make in my view and not one Tha could possibly be holy spirit inspired.
Have your Sabbath day by all means, but do not contradict the person charged with being the chief explained of the new covenant to the world by insisting everyone must follow what you choose to do

 

[P1LGR1M]

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

Funny how you never quote all of what I have actually said, lol. And when you do...you still resort to your emotional responses and ignore what is actually said.

Here it is again:

So show Scripture that (1) teaches "God did not instruct Adam and Eve in regards to sin and sacrifice, and (2) how your doctrine nullifies something that threads it's way from the Garden to Calvary.

Were the coats of skins from animals...did animals die to cover their sin?

It's a very simple question.

God bless.

Why should I quote all of your nonsense?

Because if you did, and then responded to it, you wouldn't continue to make false and ridiculous posts like this, and you wouldn't seem as someone that has no answer.

You can start here:

Originally Posted by Magenta

What I don't understand is why you say God's Word says something it does not,

What is understood is that you are denying a Bible Basis, just as Sabbath Keepers deny a very simple truth by disregarding everything we must consider on the matter.

It has already been acknowledged that we do not have a record of "God tell Adam and Eve to sacrifice a lamb to pay for their sins," but...

...we don't take that to the extreme that (1) God never instructed Adam and Eve in regards to sacrifice for sins, and (2) that God completely covered Adam and Eve's sin by making coats of skins, and (3) that Adam, Eve, or anybody for that matter understood the Protoevangelium.

The Gospel was a Mystery to the Old Testament Saints, and in those Ages the means of remission of sins was through the vicarious deaths of animals.

This is bad as trying to maintain Sabbath Keeping by (1) poining out the Sabbath was declared holy and we do not have a record that is is ever said not to be (though we are told specifically we are not liable for keeping the Covenant of Law, which command of Sabbath Observance falls under, and (2) by ignoring specific teachings that follow (namely instruction directly to the Church in doctrinal matters) the Law.

Originally Posted by Magenta

nor do I understand why you will not acknowledge the very plain and simple fact that what you said was wrong,

Because it is not wrong from a New Testament understanding. It is only wrong in the sense that we do not have a record of God telling them, but as has been pointed out, neither do we have a record of Abel and Cain being instructed either, but we see Abel commended for his offering, and Cain's rejected. From a New Testament perspective we can deduce that, just as the rest of the Old Testament illustrates, what is going on is failure of one to obey the will of God in regards to offerings, and obedience by another.

You are demanding the very thing Sabbath Keepers demand...a shallow perspective not taking into account everything relevant to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Magenta

aside from any conjecture you might like to make.

It's not conjecture.

Christ's Sacrifice, which I will remind you not one Old Testament Saint understood (because it was mystery, secret, and the hidden wisdom of God), is contrasted to Abel's here...


Hebrews 12:24

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]24 [/SUP]And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


We know Abel was not sacrificed for the remission of sins, so the obvious issue in view is the sacrifice Abel offered.

As mentioned before, we see the shedding of blood (death) is a Bible Basic in regards to sin and remission of sins:


Hebrews 9:22

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]22 [/SUP]And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.


The writer of Hebrews could balance the Old Testament because he was aware of that which was revealed to us in the First Century, which previous generations were not privy to. He could say that Christ's Sacrifice was better than those offered under Law and before Law (which is what he does many times in this Epistle), whereas the Jews under Law were in danger of returning to the sacrifices of the Law.

And the danger the Jews were in, of returning to a mindset that placed the Law and it's services on a par with Christ and even worse, elevated them above His Sacrifice...is the same danger some Sabbath Keepers run the risk of.

And it is concluded the same way you deny that God never told Adam and Eve about sacrifice for sin, sin, death, and the temporary remission of sins gained through the provision of God in that Age.

But probably the worst thing is to say that "God covered their sins" with those coats of skins and present it as...that was it. Those skins were hardly the "end of the story" for Adam and Eve, that was just the beginning of a long line of sin in which sacrifice as we see it in the lives of the most notable characters of the Ages was the only means of remission.

Originally Posted by Magenta

God did not ask them to sacrifice anything to pay for their sin.

You go too far. You are making those coats of skins some kind of once for all sacrifice which cannot be supported by Scripture in any way.

Abel offered up from his flock and his offering was respected, Cain of his works and it was not respected.

And that sin was present is seen in Abel's murder.

Did the coats of skins cover that murder?

Originally Posted by Magenta

He covered them.



He covered that initial sin. That doesn't negate an entire Old Testament Record of offering up sacrifice.

That Age is unique in that the Law was not given, so we distinguish between that Age and the Age of Law, where sacrifice for sin is set down in specificity.

But we can say that vicarious death is an Old Testament Standard that consisted of animals dying in the stead of the sinner.

But you are denying this is the case for Adam and Eve. And we know that is not the case...because God made coats of skins for them, not coats of leaves, not coats of moss, not coats of polyester...skins.

Originally Posted by Magenta

That is plain and simple stated in the Word,



Just like keeping the Sabbath is God's will for New Covenant born again believers is plainly and simply stated in the Word of God, right?

So say Sabbath Keepers.

And these conclusions are derived from ignoring the Whole Counsel of the Word.

Originally Posted by Magenta

and that is the very fact that points forward to Jesus,

I would agree, but...they didn't know that.

It was mystery not yet revealed.

Even after the Cross many had to be warned of trying to merge the two Covenants. Galatians and Hebrews are specific to this error.

Originally Posted by Magenta

not them making some sacrifice to pay for their sin,



Saying that sacrifice for sins under Old Testament standard "paid for sins" is in error, that has already been acknowledged.

Those sacrifices were, like the coats of skins, a temporary covering of sin. Only Christ's Sacrifice paid the penalty of sin for those He vicariously died for.

That does not mean we dogmatically state that the coats of skins "covered" their sins in any kind of finality. They were fallen human beings and would have had to offer up for sins themselves. Their children were obviously aware of this, Abel being obedient, so we do not see it as "speculation" that Abel was following what God had told them. And it does not matter if God told them through their parents, directly, or even through a cousin far removed, we still see the revelation as having GOd as the Source.

Originally Posted by Magenta

which is not stated nor even hinted at.

That is true, it is not hinted at, it is a conclusion drawn from balancing Old And New Testament revelation.

Just like the conclusion that it is okay if a weak brother or sister thinks Sabbath Keeping is what God commands, as long as they don't judge others for thinking they misunderstand Scripture and draw conclusions of exclusion, meaning they exclude all relevant revelation on the issue.


God bless.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

It has nothing to do with me,

It has everything to do with you.

"Me" is apparently the only one in your little world.

and I explained why already,

You have explained nothing.

Going around calling people liars is not explaining, lol.

but you pretend otherwise, further displaying your dishonesty.

I have tried to show you why I found your statement in error, yet you think semantics and theatrics is the way to discuss an issue.

Your attempts to deflect from the fact that you reject what Scripture plainly states,

I not only showed why I believe Scripture makes it clear that vicarious animal death is simply the provision of all Old Testament Economies.

And have boiled down the discussion to a few simple question which you refuse to answer, which I will post again at the end of this post.

and have me defend things I never said in the first place, are ridiculously pathetic.

Quote me doing that.

The point is that you reject what Scripture plainly states.

On the contrary, I present a basic Bible principle that you are rejecting with your statement, and the only thing I reject is your attitude and penchant for emotional response.

Here are the questions again, which in two posts you make it a point to call me a liar, but never answer the questions:


Here it is again:

So show Scripture that (1) teaches "God did not instruct Adam and Eve in regards to sin and sacrifice," and (2) how your doctrine nullifies something that threads it's way from the Garden to Calvary.

Were the coats of skins from animals...did animals die to cover their sin?

It's a very simple question.

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Another one of your lies. Proof:

As anyone can see, I quoted your whole post. Click the little arrows beside your name to take you to the original post, with my response, quoting your full post, directly below it.

And if they track the discussion they will also see there is quite a bit you have not addressed.

And if they also consider the responses, they will see that you will not address the points raised.


God bless.

 

[oldthennew]

PROVERBS 30:12.
There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.

 

[P1LGR1M]

PROVERBS 30:12.
There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.

Proverbs 26:28

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]28 [/SUP]A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin.



God bless.

 

[KohenMatt]

its amazing how some people will stick to the law of Moses, which no man could keep...hence the need for Christ to come on the scene....and try convince others to do so...you deny Christ and his sacrifice and bringing in of the new covenant one built on better promises.... if we are to keep the sabbath as they did in the old testament...why do we need the blood of Christ, i can just go sacrifice a ram or something...nay nay nay you vipers you deceive many...and comparing apples to oranges.. "Sabbath Keeping" and "Consuming Blood".... laying burdens on the very elect. If i am to keep the sabbath according to the law of Moses how should i go about it....where do i find the ashes of the red heifer? how do i go about preparing as they did? do you keep the sabbath as it was custom? there is more to it than just taking a day off.

The first chapter of Isaiah starting in verse 10....

Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom, give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.
To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of beasts; and i delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs or of he goats.
when ye appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, i cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting
your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them
And when ye spread forth your hands, i will hide mine eyes from you; when ye make prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

you want to keep the sabbath go ahead, but you cannot command it upon new testament believers, scripturally.

Guety,

Take an honest look at the motivations and applications for many of us Sabbath-keepers. Very few of us are trying to keep it perfectly because we know we can't. And our desire to do keep the Sabbath/Law has nothing to do with our salvation or standing before God, so our obedience doesn't come into conflict with Jesus' sacrifice.

Most of us here keep the Sabbath/Law out of response to the gracious salvation given to us, not in order to earn it. Our obedience or lack thereof, has nothing to do with our stance before God. It is simply a way to honor Him with every action. Just as all Christians seek to be obedient to the Holy Spirit's leading on a daily basis, so it is also with the Law.

Just wanted to share that because oftentimes, all Sabbath/Law keepers get lumped into a particular doctrinal group that is inaccurate.

 

[KohenMatt]

You Sabbath Keepers have got such a little knowledge of history. Do you not know that there does exist historical evidence of very early Christians worshipping God on Sundays?
Do you not realize that something extraordinary happened 2000 years ago and that "something" caused radical changes such as worshiping God on Sunday, drinking "blood" as part of Holy Communion, treating Jesus as God, treating Holy Spirit as God and so on
May be if I quote a scholar it will help you
John Shelby, visiting lecturer at Harvard Divinity School, writes: “….these were Jewish men and in the Jewish tradition the most sacred part of the whole tradition was that God was one, nothing could stand in the presence of God and yet there was something about it, whatever it was, so powerful and so overwhelming that these Jewish men had to expand their definition of God so that it was big enough to include Jesus of Nazareth, and they were no longer able to look at Jesus of Nazareth without seeing him as part of who God is..…something big and powerful actually happened to produce this change.…that God was reconceived to be not just one person but to include Christ, that lives of both Jesus’ disciples and his family were radically transformed, that Sunday became the new Holy day rather than the Jewish Sabbath, that content of the gospel message became Jesus himself, that Jerusalem became the center of Christianity and that leading members of the anti-Christian religious establishment became followers of Christ ….All of this is historical data that begs for an adequate explanation ……”

Actually tik, I'm full aware of those truths and readily accept them as fact. But there are a couple of different things being implied here. As much as I support and promote the Sabbath, that is different than a day of worship. I have zero problem with people worshipping on a Sunday. In fact, I love to see people worship together EVERY day of the week. It's the idea that God changed the Sabbath to Sunday that I take issue with, and fortunately there are not many here who do.

 

[Grandpa]

Guety,

Take an honest look at the motivations and applications for many of us Sabbath-keepers. Very few of us are trying to keep it perfectly because we know we can't. And our desire to do keep the Sabbath/Law has nothing to do with our salvation or standing before God, so our obedience doesn't come into conflict with Jesus' sacrifice.

Most of us here keep the Sabbath/Law out of response to the gracious salvation given to us, not in order to earn it. Our obedience or lack thereof, has nothing to do with our stance before God. It is simply a way to honor Him with every action. Just as all Christians seek to be obedient to the Holy Spirit's leading on a daily basis, so it is also with the Law.

Just wanted to share that because oftentimes, all Sabbath/Law keepers get lumped into a particular doctrinal group that is inaccurate.

Doesn't it bother you that you say you keep the sabbath but admit that you can't really keep it perfectly?

If you can't keep it perfectly then you can't keep it at all. Like if I said I am a do not murder keeper. But I can't keep it perfectly. What would that make me???

Since that is obviously the case how do you call yourself a sabbath keeper? Isn't that a lie?

Or do you only call yourself a sabbath keeper to identify the group you belong to?

 

[KohenMatt]

Doesn't it bother you that you say you keep the sabbath but admit that you can't really keep it perfectly?

If you can't keep it perfectly then you can't keep it at all. Like if I said I am a do not murder keeper. But I can't keep it perfectly. What would that make me???

Since that is obviously the case how do you call yourself a sabbath keeper? Isn't that a lie?

Or do you only call yourself a sabbath keeper to identify the group you belong to?

It doesn't bother me at all because I've never said I did keep it perfectly, nor would I expect anyone else to. Keeping it "perfectly" isn't the point of the Sabbath. Perfection to anything God tells us to do isn't the point; it's fellowship with God.

So no, I don't think I can keep the sabbath perfectly. I don't believe I have to keep any part of the Law perfectly. So there is no lie being said.

 

[Grandpa]

It doesn't bother me at all because I've never said I did keep it perfectly, nor would I expect anyone else to. Keeping it "perfectly" isn't the point of the Sabbath. Perfection to anything God tells us to do isn't the point; it's fellowship with God.

So no, I don't think I can keep the sabbath perfectly. I don't believe I have to keep any part of the Law perfectly. So there is no lie being said.

If you don't think you can keep the sabbath how can you call yourself a sabbath keeper? Its a LIE if you say you keep the sabbath but you don't. You can't see that?

And perfection absolutely is the WHOLE point of what God tells us to do.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

 

[Grandpa]

You say it is to honor God. But if its a lie how does that honor God?

Are you just pretending?

 

[KohenMatt]

If you don't think you can keep the sabbath how can you call yourself a sabbath keeper? Its a LIE if you say you keep the sabbath but you don't. You can't see that?

And perfection absolutely is the WHOLE point of what God tells us to do.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

If you want to think that when I say Sabbath "keeper" I mean to say I or anyone else should keep it perfectly, then that is your own semantic interpretation. Would you rather I say "Sabbath-Observer"? Would that make you feel better?

And yes, Jesus tells us to be perfect. Are we? No. And I'm not going to pretend otherwise. The only "perfection" I have is the way God sees me through the sacrifice of Jesus.

You say it is to honor God. But if its a lie how does that honor God?

Are you just pretending?

Again, your misunderstanding.

 

[Magenta]

So show Scripture that (1) teaches "God did not instruct Adam and Eve in regards to sin and sacrifice, and (2) how your doctrine nullifies something that threads it's way from the Garden to Calvary.

"The text does not say anything to the effect that God told them to sacrifice anything to pay for their sin. God covered their sin. Period. Scripture says: The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. It does not say God told them to do it at all..." this is what I said, and what you have been arguing against all along.

My doctrine? You really don't have a clue. I have clearly stated that God's Word does not say something and you ask me to show you where it does say that. Your request is ridiculously nonsensical, and shows how asinine you are being. What you need to do is show the Scriptures that have God making Adam and Eve sacrifice any number of animals to pay for their sin, and instructing them in the purpose of sacrifice, which is what you have been defending. No great walls of text showing things that came later, with other people. Just the Scripture that has God telling Adam and Eve they must make the sacrifice to pay for their sin, and instructing them in the purpose of sacrifice. What cult teaches this perversion of Scripture you are pushing here?

And if they track the discussion they will also see there is quite a bit you have not addressed.

I prove you wrong when you said I never do something, but instead of correcting yourself and maybe even apologising for the deception you were caught in, you cling to your position.

And if they also consider the responses, they will see that you will not address the points raised.

Until you admit the fact that Scripture says one thing and you twist it beyond recognition and claim it means something else, what you call the points you raise are immaterial for reasons articulated multiple times. Somehow you have completely failed to grasp that as the point of our exchanges, despite my directing your attention there repeatedly. I'm sure anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence could figure that out. Let's get back on point.

You deny what Scripture explicitly states.