I see some are for the sabbath and some are not for it. Interesting indeed.

What sayeth the scriptures? Can anyone show a passage nullifying the Creation seventh-day Sabbath? And if so, why did the followers of Jesus still keep it in accordance with the requirements of the 10 commandments?

Also can someone show a passage of scripture commanding, or indicating, that Sunday be kept as the Lord's day?

@ Huxley

Continue to hold your breath.

I have no time for deliberately confused people.

However, we still differ on some teachings which I believe you have deviated from such as your teaching on the seventh-day sabbath, conditional immortality, investigative judgment, the heavenly sanctuary and the claim that Ellen White was a divinely appointed messenger of God.

I have given enough proof that the sanctity of the sabbath is still valid, so I won't rehash the points. I am not too sure what you mean by conditional immortality, and what you're associating it with. Can you expand on it please.

As for the investigative judgment let me ask you a question. Do you believe in accordance with Paul's remarks in 2 Corinthians 5:9,

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.that every man shall appear before the judgment seat of Christ?"

Will the above judgment take place when we get to heaven, or before we get to heaven? Obviously, Christ will judge His people before He returns. Its also obvious that the life record of each person has to be judged separately. That is why Paul said "that each man may receive the things done in the body, "

As for our teaching on the heavenly sanctuary there can be no uncertainty that what we teach is scripturally unique, and biblical. The bible teaches that Christ is High Priest making atonement for us sinners. Now where is He making such an atonement? Obviously in the heavenly sanctuary as seen in this passage of scripture:

The New Testament reveals that the new covenant also has a sanctuary, just like the old covenant had its own. The new covenant has one that is in heaven. In it Christ functions as high priest "at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty." This sanctuary is the "true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man" (Heb. 8:1, 2).

At Mount Sinai Moses was shown "'the pattern, '" copy, or miniature model of the heavenly sanctuary (see Ex. 25:9, 40). Scripture calls the sanctuary he built "the copies of the things in the heavens," and its "holy places. . . copies of the true" (Heb. 9:23, 24). The earthly sanctuary and its services, then, give us special insight into the role of the heavenly sanctuary.

Now, just as the earthly sanctuary was designed to represent the heavenly, so does its day of atonement. The day of atonement was in essence a day of judgment for the camp of Israel. The blood that accumulated within the sanctuary because of the daily sacrifices held the sins of the people. Hence the sanctuary had to be symbolically cleansed on that particular day. Every Hebrew had to afflict their soul before God. It was Israel's most solemn occasion.

After Israel went into captivity under the Babylonians, their sanctuary was destroyed and its vessels and furniture confiscated. Daniel had a vision of a cleansing of the sanctuary as seen in Daniel 8:14 which SDAs view as a cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary based on the day-year principle of prophetic interpretation.

If you desire that I provide more details as to why we believe that, I am more than able and willing.

I wish you wouldn't trivialize the subject like that.

@ mantraa

Thanks for the links bobyaf.

You're welcome.

I found it all very fascinating and didn't realise that your beliefs had so many differences from mainstream Christianity, although based on the same bible.

The try to stick to the bible.

I find the Colossal-City-In-Space theory to be a bit like science fiction though (very early science fiction).

That is our way in illustrating what the prophet saw. Its more like an artist's perception of what was seen.

I did a bit a of research about your branch of Christianity and found that it began in 1863, around the same time as the Mormons and i can see a lot of similarities in the way 19th century religions came about, evolved, and have had to adapt to modern times.

We see ourselves as a movement of destiny. If you do a more thorough study you'll discover our place in the fulfillment of bible prophecy.

Were you born into your religion or were you converted later in life?

I was led into the church by my personal bible study. I started reading the bible first and accepted the sabbath and other SDA doctrines long before I went to their services. So I can safely say that God was my teacher, and it was He who led me there from age 10.

During high school however I fell away temporarily until age 19 when I was baptized. That was 32 years ago.

I have recently started looking at all the hundreds of different religions of the world, not to try to find the right one for me, but to examine the various different beliefs that people have.

Its always a good thing to be informed.

Are you a Christian Mantraa?

What does it matter what I know?

It matters to me that you get the truth about the covenant, and that is why I started this thread.

You are the one making a distinction between old and new covenant, a view which is hardly supported by the bible.

Yes there is a mighty distinction, but you don't have to agree with me.

I suppose you could start by first defining what a covenant is and how a people is said to be bound by a covenant.

I already did that.

How is a covenant similar or different from a law or legal agreement?

You said it. A covenant is an agreement.

@ Viable

@Chukwudi44
Hell fire is an event and not a place. The bible tells us that the wages of sin is death while the reward for righteousness is eternal life. The Bible did not promise two eternal lives, one in paradise and another one in hell fire as most theologians do teach today. The bible calls the fire for the destruction of sinners "Unquenchable Fire" that means fire that cannot be stopped until it completes the destruction of sinners. Isaiah prophesied about the destruction of the earth in Isa. 24;1-6. verse 6 says therefore hath the curse devoured the earth and they that dwell therein are desolate; Therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men are left. For sinners to be burning for ever and ever and ever in hell fire means, they will have immortal bodies but the bible did not mention that. Biblical example of hell fire is Sodom and Gomorrah. See Jude verse 7 , Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh, set forth for an example of, suffering the vengeance of ETERNAL FIRE.

Very good point Viable.

@ OLAADEGBU

Do you have the following verses in your Bible?

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal". - Matthew 25:46

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. - Revelation 20:10

To qualify the word punishment you'd have to understand how the wicked will be punished. It won't be roasting in hell indefinitely, but rather they will be denied being in the presence of God eternally. After the white throne judgment every wicked person would have been shown why they cannot be saved. It dawns on them what they are going to lose, and that is, being with God eternally, and living in His presence to enjoy bliss.

What would God be proving by allowing sinners whom He still loves to be roasting in hell everlastingly? Don't you understand that He is destroying them out of love? He is doing it for their own good.

When you get the time please do some research on the word "for ever". You will notice that its not always saying what you think it is saying. As soon as you do the research then I will make a comment on the last verse you mentioned.

@ Huxley

What does this say about the doctrine of old/new covenants?

Tell us what you know first, before you get my response.

@ cbjonstage

@ poster,
i must confess that dis is an interesting topic which every individual needs to know.
but where do i begin my own opinion. I KNOW THIS HAS TO DO WITH LAW OF GOD.

Old testament present us where God instructed Moses to "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments." Exo. 34: 27-28 this literally rings a bell about about what God's hates (the do's and dont's). The law given to Moses has to do with morality of the pple of Israel to live in accordance to His will but instead they break and turned their back on him thats y provided another alternative living according His standard.

Hebrews 10:15-17 clearly presents us a superb covenant which took God and His son Jesus Christ to bring to fulfilment after considering man's transgression to his laws that goes a long way to save him. He look for an alternative to REDEEM MAN FROM SIN [i][/i] because of love He has for his creation and therefore says: "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." In my own point of view, it means, before an evil scheme by Man be actualise , there is tendency of this two spirits giving man opinions, which he has to apply economic law: evaluate or making choice and forgone d other. these spirits are the spirit of God and that of the devil, i think what reads next in your mind will explain where i am going, GOD BLESS

i have a question here to ask, which typifies d kinda lifestyle d then pple of Israel was living. WHEN WAS UR LAST TIME U WERE WITH GOD ?

Thanks for your response.

You see my friend the problem was not with the covenant per se, and neither was the problem with the law of the covenant, or even the book of the covenant. The problem was with the people. It was the people who promised God that they would obey all he had said.

Was there anything wrong with God's part of the agreement? Absolutely not! Was there anything wrong with the people's side of the agreement? Absolutely yes! No sooner than Moses had gone for the law of the covenant on the mountain, that Aaron succumbed to the impatience of the people to set up an idol. The 400 or so years that they had spent in Egypt in which they had learned its ways and pagan practices were being displayed before the face of Aaron.

They in their unconverted state had failed their own agreement.

The difference with the New Covenant is that it has been made on better promises. This time around the covenant is not dependent on our promises, but on the assurance given us by God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ. Listen as Jeremiah explains:

Jeremiah 31:31-33
"31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

In this covenant God is doing everything and all we need do is to be willing. We have to use the will He has given us to allow His Spirit to work in our lives. The Hebrew people used their strength to keep the law and failed, whether through ignorance or whatever reason, but today Jesus has promised us success if only we believe. That is the first step.

If you read Hebrews Paul explains the problem. We see clearly that it was not possible for the people to live in accordance with God's divine law because of their condition. Paul says in Romans 8:3 the "law was weak through the flesh, " It was going to take more than human promises to keep the agreement.

Apart from that there was no Holy Spirit promised to them to empower them to do good, but as you are aware all that has changed under the New Covenant.

The only issue remaining now is whether or not God under the New Covenant abolished His divine law. If we fail to respond to this question honestly then our salvation is at stake. I cannot over emphasize this point. It is crucial that we persoally answer this question, and the only way to do it carefully is to search the scriptures prayerfully and diligently.

@ OLAADEGBU

I will try to summarize all that I am about to say briefly because I have to run. God's standard is holiness and perfection and whoever is to live by the Law has to make sure that he keeps them all because if you break one it is just like a ring in a chain that is broken, the whole lot falls apart.

While I agree with you that God's standard is holy and perfect, the fact is we need not worry about keeping His law. God's law is kept naturally once we experience salvation. The love that comes from the relationship motivates us enough to desire to do what is right. Our focus is not to worry about keeping the law, because we cannot do it in our own strength, but as we allow Jesus to live within us His Spirit will empower us by grace.

Jesus said that He has not come to abolish the moral law but to fulfil them, Jesus gave the proper interpretation of these laws (See Matt.5) where He said that our righteousness must be more than that of the Pharisees if we are to please the Father.

We do not disagree on that at all, but we need to realize that grace doesn't nullify our obedience to God's requirements, and that was part of the argument put forward by Jesus. He expects us to keep His commandments as He expressed in John 15:16

As Christians we have higher standards than the religious Pharisees who were under the law but if we walk in the spirit we will be free from the law of sin and death because the spirit of the law of life has set us free to do the will of God. So, if you are in Christ, you do not have to fulfil what Christ has already done all you need to do is to walk in the spirit and you will not fulfil the lust of the flesh. Read Gal.31-29 for a clearer understanding.

I am not quite sure what you mean by the above, but in either case let us deal with the issue of the covenant for now without going too far off the topic.

Remain blessed.

@ OLAADEGBU

The Law was also given to reveal the divine holiness of God.

I agree.

The gospel of the new covenant supersedes the Law because the commandments of God were fulfilled by Jesus Christ on our behalf.

It depends on what you mean by fulfill. I have a different take on that word. It certainly doesn't mean to bring an end to something if that is what you're implying. In fact it implies quite the very opposite. It means to carry out, or to execute. If I make marriage vows to my wife and I fulfill those vows, does it mean I have put an end to those vows, or does it mean I am daily executing them? The word fulfill means to fill to the full. So if one fulls a cup to the brim it means that the cup has fulfilled its capacity, and can do no more than is expected of it. Now, Jesus could have dome no more. He did what was necessary to reveal the true purpose of the law, and that is why He was hated by those who couldn't, or failed to see the spiritual side of the law. Remember Paul said that the law is spiritual (see Romans 7:14)

We have His fulfillment of the Law appropriated to us through faith.

Faith does not fulfill the law. Faith is complete trust in God, but it doesn't make void the law according to Paul. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31

That's what the New Testament is all about. Romans 10:4 says, "For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone that believeth."

I hope by the time I am through discussing with you the covenant topic that you will have a different view. Now concerning Romans 10:4 Christ is the end of the law in another sense. If you allow the law to guide you you will find Christ, because that was what the law was given to do. Now, I am not saying that the keeping of the law saves, but when a person experiences salvation he is constrained by the love of Christ to obey God's instructions. Remember it was Jesus who said, "If you love me keep my commandments" John 15:16

And that changes the basis of our relationship with God, since we can't be perfect by keeping the Law, unless you want to claim that you can keep the whole Law without breaking one.

Let me ask you a question. When Jesus returns will you be saved with any un-confessed sins? Is Jesus coming back for a spotless church? How do you ", strive for the mastery, " according to Paul if you know you won't make it? You see, the basis of the New Covenant is not about removing His law from the equation of things, but to supply the power we need to do His will. He promised to place His laws in our minds and heart, so why should I worry about failure if God is making all the promises, and working in my life? Aren't you crucified with Christ my brother? Isn't Christ living in your life?

As I proceed in this thread it will become clear as to the major difference between Old and New Covenants.

Welcome back Ttalks.

It seems you pre-empted my previous response. Its amazing how people go all over the place without first defining things.

You still have not stated what the covenant was. What is a covenant in the first place? This is where we need to begin. There cannot be a one-sided covenant. For any covenant to materialize there has to be a binding agreement between 2 or more parties.

In summary God had a plan for Israel after their deliverance. He knew they were not converted as a corporate body, yet as His custom was He desired to re-establish a covenant with the children of Israel. Follow me carefully now.

THIS IS THE COVENANT as found in Exodus 19:5, 6, "5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." Now the remaining verses clearly states the body of the covenant. That was what God proposed to His people.

Now what was the proposal of the people? Did Israel accept the proposal? Look at verse 8 - "And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD."

See how simple that was! We do not need to complicate the scriptures. That in summary was the essence was the old covenant. This covenant was seen as a marriage between God and Israel according to Ezekiel 16:8, "8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy unclothedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.", J[b]eremiah 31:32[/b], "my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD"

Most Christians often confuse the covenant with the terms of the covenant and so they take you all over Exodus and Deuteronomy showing you these words and those words. It is very simple.

Now the bible describes both the book of the covenant and the tables of the covenant. What God wrote with His own fingers are the tables of the covenant. " 9 When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water, 11 And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant." (Deut. 9:9,11)

Notice Exodus 24:7 which says, "7 And he(Moses) took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient."

So we can clearly see that the terms of the covenant and the covenant itself are different, and that the tables of the covenant, and the book of the covenant are different. The tables of the covenant was written by God, while obviously the book of the covenant was written by Moses, or one of his scribes.

Now the next stage involved the sealing of the covenant and its terms. This was done with blood as seen in these texts, "8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words." Exodus 24:8, "18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, " Hebrews 9:18-19

It should be noticed that the ceremonial sacrificial system was not as yet introduced, even after the new established covenant. That came some time later after Moses was instructed to build a portable sanctuary. The ceremonial laws were not apart of the marriage agreement, and so could not be seen as being apart of the covenant. It is crucial to notice this important truth. "22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: 23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you." (Jeremiah 7:22-23), So let it be absolutely clear that the Old Covenant was not based on laws of ceremonies, but rather the basis of obedience to God's 10 commandments. The very same ones that Moses received twice on the mount. The 10 commandments were the constitution of the covenant, and the civil laws were formed to help buffer the divine law.

The divine law defined sin, while the civil laws amplified and served as a prescription for punishment for disobedience. Soon after God introduced the ceremonial laws that had to do with temple services in order to deal with the sin problem. There had to be a way to release the sins of the people, and a way to bring reconciliation.

I will stop here for now.

@ KunleOshob

I hope you are listening to yourself as well. I never said it was wrong to worship on the sabbath, all said is that there is NO commandment in the bible to worship on that day or any other day for that matter, that deciding to worship on that day is a tradition of man.

So why would you need to see a commandment when the evidence is abundantly clear that both Jews and gentiles worshiped on the sabbath? Worshiping on the sabbath is a natural outflow of such a commandment. Are all the other moral obligations of not stealing, committing murder, and lying followed by commandments found in the New Testament?

So if you cannot point out to any explicit instruction directing worship on the sabbath i guess you should hold your piece.

And I will ask you to explain as to why would God sanctify and make holy the sabbath, if He didn't anticipate holy activities on such a day. There are two sides to the 4th commandment, and that is to rest from labour, and to keep holy the day. Now, if you can tell me how to keep a day holy, without first being holy, and getting involved with holy activities that are in keeping with the requirements of the sabbath, then I will not see the need to respond to the obvious.

Keeping a day holy does not imply going to church.

So why did Jesus go to church on the sabbath as recorded in Luke 4:16?

You can keep it holy in your house.

Of course you can, but nothing beats the blessings that come from two or three gathering in my His name. Let me invite you to visit a sabbath service and see how we worship. I believe you'll like it.

and the bible's recommendation for keeping it holy was by resting. Not going to the temple. That said ,i am not against saturday worship or sunday worship i just don't like it when preachers manipulate scriptures to suit their whims and caprices. For all i car church services can be helld on wednesday

Tell that to Paul who customarily met with church members on every sabbath. As I have said before, what better day there is to carry out holy activities than on a holy day?

I am not sure most of you will agree with me that one of the most misunderstood topics in the bible is the Old and New Covenants. Nearly most have been taught that the old covenant was the 10 commandment law, and that the new covenant contains only grace and promises, but no law.

Hence it is argued that because the old covenant has been abolished, God's law has also been abolished. This teaching should naturally lead one to stop and think for awhile, if one is really concerned about the tone of such teachings, because it naturally leads one to think that the law of God was harsh, cruel, and enslaving - that the fault of the Old Covenant was with the law. I'd just like to ask who gave the law? Did a perfect God prescribe the law? Did He anticipate any unforeseen issues surrounding the covenant? Who do we blame for the apparent issues? Well, let us see.

Before I proceed further though, I'd like anyone to define what exactly the Old Covenant was. This will be the basis for further discussions.








I'd like for us to take a good look at what exactly defines both.

Why are you not discussing the commandments given in Exodus 34, which afterall are the replacements of those in Exodus 20.

Who or what told you that they were a replacement?

It amounts to intellectual dishonesty to refuse to address this fact and bury your head in the cesspit of the bible, leaving your stinking bible arse out in the air infecting the public. These are the commandments you should be addressing:

Says who! By the way why are you so hot tempered and ill-mannered and at the same time concerned? Your insults and disrespect betray your ulterior motives.

finally Igot it the hypocrite bobbyaff is amember of the hypocrital seventh day adventist church

You didn't get me to do a single thing. Imagine your little brain couldn't even figure it out.

Listen Chucwudi44 not choosing to tell what you desired to have known is what you call hypocracy? I thought you knew the meaning of the word.

No wonder you can't even spell the word.

Ok. So it will be a very big box 375 miles x 375 miles x 373 miles, with all humans living inside it with God.

Is that how you see it? Read Revelation 21 and 22 and get a better view if it.

Will the rest of the earth be empty or will it still be full of just animals living as normal?

Is there any city you know that doesn't have a piece of land? This one will be a mixture of buildings and terra firma.

Will anyone be allowed outside the box?

That would depend on whats outside the area of the city.

Is that your idea of heaven? Living in a box?

That idea is yours not mine.

What will be the population inside the box and will they be allowed to have sex and have children?

The population will be fixed. There will be no need for procreational acts. 

It sounds like it could get very claustrophobic in there.

, Well do you plan to get there?

Not trying to be rude to you but, Have you ever asked yourself these basic questions?

I have over and over again. If you're interested you can view this written study link:

http://www.amazingfacts.org/FreeStuff/BibleStudies/StudyGuides/tabid/105/ctl/ViewMedia/mid/453/IID/2-4/LNG/en/SC/R/Default.aspx?7=A-Colossal-City-In-Space.

Or you can view the video study at:

http://www.amazingfacts.org/FreeStuff/BibleStudies/StudyGuides/tabid/105/ctl/ViewMedia/mid/453/IID/2-4/LNG/en/SC/R/Default.aspx?7=A-Colossal-City-In-Space.

I would like to address the issue of the Law of God which cannot be broken. The 10 commandments that God legislated for His people consisted of 9 moral laws and the 4th was partially a ceremonial law.

The 4th commandment was never ceremonial in nature since it was meant to be eternal. If the whole law of 10 was meant to be eternal, then how can one of its tenets be ceremonial?

Listen to what Isaiah said of the sabbath, "22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 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."

The sabbath was made for man (mankind) from the very beginning according to Jesus, "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath, " Mark 2:27

Who was the first man? Adam of course! Is it any wonder that God from the very beginning sanctified the day for the first family? It would be ridiculous for God to have sanctified a day, and made it holy, at that moment in time, and then passed on that sanctity some 3000 years after creation. So in other words, the purpose of the sabbath of commemorating God's act of creation was put on hold for the first family. They, it seemed had no part, or parcel in being active participants of such a commemoration. How ridiculous!

The decalogue was a contract between God and the Israelites and below are 9 reasons the 4th commandment was left out in the new covenant

The decalogue was not the contract. It was the basis of the contract. Without it there could have been no contract, period.

o 1. Neither the Father nor the Son made it a part of the new covenant. If they had it would be somewhere in new testament as the other 9 are.

Unless of course you're not aware that the sabbath was still being kept by God's people in the NT. Let me share some instances where it was kept.

Jesus our example took part in sabbath services- "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read." Luke 4:16.

Paul who is often quoted as introducing Sunday did the very opposite - "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." Acts 17:2

"And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." Acts 16:13.

"And he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.

Apostles taught it:
"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath." "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Acts 13:42, 44, emphasis added.

"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.

Now you show me instances where Paul met on Sundays to teach the people, whether they were gentiles, or Jewish converts to Christianity, as I have shown you above, that the sabbath was still regarded as a holy day for all, and not just the Jews. Remember I told you what Jesus suggested to His disciples before the AD70 Jerusalem destruction in Matthew 24. He suggested that they pray that their journey or flight wouldn't be on the sabbath, or during winter. Now if Jesus anticipated that Sunday would have been introduced as a basis for the New Covenant, then why in heaven's name would He show concern for the sabbath, some 40 years after He spoke those words to them? I am all ears bro!

o 2. Of all the words of Jesus on earth only 4 references are made of the sabbath Matt 12:8; 24:20; Mark 2:27-28; Lk.6:5. Jesus Christ merely taught that it was lawful to do good on this day and that no day is lord of man.

That is not we are called to prove. Unless of course you haven't grasped the reasons why He had to say those things about the sabbath. The Jewish leaders had adapted a-saved-by-works approach to the law, and that also reflected on how they viewed the sabbath. They had a twisted view of it, and not even Christ's acts of good on such a day inspired them to change their view. The fact that Christ spoke the way He did, doesn't in any way reflect negatively on its purpose. If anything He demonstrated how the day should be kept.

He did not once command any particular observance of any definite day.

He never had to! There was already one established day that He Himself kept as a custom. (see Luke 4:16)

The disciples chose the 1st day of the week because that was the day that Jesus resurrected, manifested himself to them and the out pouring of the Holy Spirit upon them consecutively.

And still you're never able to show that reality from scriptures. Until you're able to do it honestly, then save yourself the agony. Besides, important events in and of themselves cannot make a day holy, unless God gives a distinct instruction to do so. There has been only one case on the matter, and that was when He sanctified the 7th-day sabbath.

o 3. The old Jewish sabbath was part of the contract between God and Israel and a token and sign of that covenant Ex.20:8-11; 31:13-18; Ezek.20:12-20.

The 7th-day sabbath is not a Jewish institution. It pre-dated the Hebrew people. Remember it was made for mankind according to Jesus in Mark 2:27. Concerning the covenant, if the law was the basis of the covenant, then the sabbath command, being apart of the 10, is also tied into the same covenant.

The contract was not made with men before Moses Deut.5:2-3 , or with Gentiles and the church Rom.2:14; Deut.4:7-10. The sabbath was not for them.

There were different types of covenants before the Mosaic one. How do you explain what was said about Abraham that , "5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Genesis 26:5

So, if Abraham preceded Moses, and kept what Moses passed on to the children of Israel, then obviously your understanding of Deuteronomy 5:2-3 is twisted. Was Abraham a forefather to Moses? You bet he was. What Moses was saying, which has evaded you, was that that particular experience under which He delivered the covenant was far different than any other had seen or experienced.

o 4. The 4th commandment was the only one of the ten that was a ceremonial, not a moral law. It's sole purpose was to commemorate the deliverance from Egyptian bondage when Israel had no rest Deut.5:15.

Didn't I explain this to you earlier? You either seem to have short memory, or you are in denial of truth. There are two reasons why God re-introduced the sabbath, yes re-introduced. Exudus 16 proves that reality. For some strange reason you seem to harp on a phrase that you simply do not understand. How would you explain this:

In Deuteronomy 24:17, 18, God said, "Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge. , Thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing." Here God gives another reason that acts as a reminder that He God removed them from bondage. Neither the command to be just, nor to keep the Sabbath was given to memorialize the Exodus, but God told them that His goodness in bringing them out of captivity constituted a strong additional reason for their dealing kindly with their servants on the Sabbath and treating justly the strangers and widows.

So any attempt to affix a central motif for God to have given them the sabbath command spells intellectual dishonesty, if equal weight is not given to the most important reasons as recorded in Exudus 20:8-11.

It was only a type of future and eternal rest Col.2:14-17; Heb.4:1-11; 10:1. It was natural for it to be left out of the new contract when the reality of rest came of which it was a shadow Matt.11:28-29; Col.2:14-17. The physical and spiritual benefits of a rest day can be realised on any other day as well as on Saturday but Sunday had been chosen by the apostles for the reasons I mentioned above.

The sabbath preceded sin, and cannot be seen as a shadow, or ceremonial. Both institutions of marriage and the sabbath, were handed down to mankind before sin. The law of ceremonies began with Cain and Abel when both were instructed to sacrifice a burnt offering as a representation of the lamb of God. Moses simply revised it after God's people were delivered. Col. 2:14-17 simply spoke of the ceremonial sabbaths which were many. Those had nothing to do with the creation sabbath.

o 5. The 4th commandment was the only one that could degenerate into a mere form without affecting the morals of men. All others concern the moral obligations of men. It is the only one of the ten that can be done away with and still leave a moral law for men.

So if there was no moral obligation to keep it then why was it commanded to be kept holy? We might as well argue the case of the forbidden fruit in the garden. There wasn't anything wrong with the fruit was there? What went wrong was that they disobeyed. Can the sabbath command be disobeyed? Isn't it immoral to disobey God?

o 6. God foretold and promised that he would do away with the old Jewish sabbath Hos. 2:11; Isa.1:10-15.

And isn't it strange how Isaiah predicted that it would be kept in the earth made new? (see Isaiah. 60:22,23)

o 7. The prophets predicted that God would abolish the old and make new covenant Isa.42:6; 49:8; 59:21; Jer.31:31-40; 32:37-44; Ezek.36:24-38. That this referred to the new testament is clear in Rom.11:25-29; Heb.8:8-12; 10:16-18; Matt.26:28.

The only difference is that we have written in our hearts God's perfect law, and God's Holy Spirit to empower us to do that which is right. (see Jeremiah 31)

Jesus Himself promised that until heaven and earth pass, not one title or jot shall pass from the law. Has heaven and earth already passed? When last have you taken a look towards heaven? (see Matthew 5:16-17)

The rest of your responses I will ignore for lack of newness.

This is a very interesting concept.

Please tell me more about this new city on earth. I heard that it will be made of gold. Is this true?

The streets will be of gold, and the foundation will be of 12 different precious stones. Its gates will have inges of precious pearl.

How big will it be?

Big enough for all who will be saved. Revelation 22 gives an apt description of it. It says its perimeter is 1500 miles, and since each side is a perfect square, then its width is 375 miles wide; its length is the same; and its height is the same.

where will it be and will everyone live in it.

Think of that city as where God's people will live. In Isaiah we are told that we will build houses and inhabit them , and plant vinyards and eat the fruits of them. Unfortunately, only the redeemed will inherit it.

Or will there be people living outside the city.

No.

Will it be a normal city like Lagos or London with schools, banks, churches, roads, cars, shops, markets, cinemas, airports, etc.?

If you're asking if it will be a literal place, the answer is yes. It will be a real place, and we will be real people. We will have our hands and feet just the same. We will do real stuff.

Will it have gas, electricity, and a decent sewage system?

Everything will be perfect. We won't need such. God will be our light and energy. There will be no waste in that land. We will have a perfect eco-system.

Will there be a public transport system like the london underground, or buses and trains?
Will it be the only city on earth or will there be other cities? What will happen to those who are not Seventh Day Adventists?

There will be one city. Our mode of transport will be, if necessary, like angels, but don't quote me on that .

SDAs will not be the only ones saved in that kingdom. Remember salvation includes one's response to God's plan. God judges every man based on the knowledge of truth that has been available to them.

As much as I am an ardent believer that God has one consistent set of doctrines that were preserved over centuries through His chosen, I am also aware that they are many sincere Christians who are in error, and can only be judged by God based on their response to what has been revealed to them.

The SDA church is not exclusive in its approach to evangelism.

@ Chukwudi44

@bobbaff You are really ignorant of your teachings,seventh day adventist members dont beleive in the existence of hell as a permanent place of punishment for sinners.

I am convinced you're either blind, or plain stupid. This is what I declared in my post, "Yes, we believe in hell as well as heaven. We believe that hell will not carry on indefinitely, "

@ KunleOshob

Sabbath was instituited as a day of rest in the bible, there is NO commandment in the bible that says we should worship God on the sabbath day or go to any place of worship.

Are you even listening to yourself? So what better combination can we get in having to rest from our work and worship at the same time. What better day to choose to reflect on God; to commune with Him without the thought of mundane matters than the sabbath, since logically it was designed to provide rest?

Worshipping on the sabbath/ sunday is a tradition of men and not god ordained. God NEVER set any day apart for worship. I think it is myopic and carnal to subvert rest day for worship day they are two totally different things.

Really! So why did God institute the sabbath if not for holy use? If you're required to maintain holiness during a time period isn't that in itself worship? Are you even thinking of the implications of keeping a day holy? What would be the significance of keeping a day holy if you're not going to worship?

That is why Genesis 2:3 says, "3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."

If, as most will agree that the sabbath is a sign of acknowledgment that God is Creator, then what more fitting a day to celebrate that reality.

I appreciate the concept of the videographic argument that we are saved by grace alone, because that is what the bible teaches, but what I disagree with is the notion that grace forfeits obedience to God's requirements.

I personally do not push righteousness by works, or law. What I personally believe is that when a person experiences the grace of Christ it empowers them to be obedient. So the presenters have taken a different angle, while I have taken another.

For example all Christians uphold the law against adultery, otherwise your wife would become easy picking for other men in church, wouldn't she? If accepting God's grace meant overlooking stealing, murder, bearing false witness, etc, then that would not be grace at all, because grace doesn't give anyone the liscense to sin.

Listen to St. Paul as he sheds light on the subject of faith and law.

Romans 7:7 says, "7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet."

"8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead."

In other words there can be no sin without a law to reveal it for what it is, but the problem lies not with the law, but sin itself.

, "9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.


The question is what did Paul die to as a result of the knowledge of right from wrong? He died to sin, because we cannot die to sin unless we sense its sinfulness, and only Jesus is capable of providing that awareness in us through His Holy Spirit.

To prove my argument that Paul saw the importance of the purpose of the 10 commandments is seen in his next quote, "12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."

In other words they bear the very attributes of God's character in that they are good, holy, and just. attempting to isolate them doesn't help the situation, but I suspect the real issue rests with the sabbath.

The Roman Catholic church has gotten the majority of Christians to neglect one of God's requirements using the so-called abolishment of God's eternal law as as their excuse.

@ Chukwudi44

@bobbyaff, why dont you continue with burnt offerings since it also preceded the law?

Burnt offerings as you rightly know were ceremonial in nature. They pointed to the death of Christ. Now that Christ died they are no longer applicable as a part of the worship system.

There is no association between God's 7th-day sabbath and the ceremonial law. The law given to Moses on the mount was written by God's finger, while the laws of ceremonies were written in a book by Moses, and placed in the side of the Ark of the covenant.

God's divine law was placed within the ark itself showing the difference of significance. Bear in mind that the Ark of the covenant was a representation of God's throne in heaven. Moses was shown what the Ark in heaven looked like, and was instructed to build it exactly how he had seen it.

@ Chukwudi44

@bobbaff,
why dont you continue practising other aspects of the jewish law hypocrite ,no wonder you re ashamed of mentioning your church

If you were as ardent a bible student as you make out yourself to be you'd have noticed that the 7th-day sabbath was never a Jewish institution. The institution of the sabbath precedes the Jewish people. As a matter of fact even before Moses received the 10 commandments on mount Sinai, God reminded Moses to warn the Israelites to keep the sabbath which nullifies the argument that the sabbath is attached to the Old Covenant.

The Old Covenant as handed down by Moses was agreed upon after God delivered the 10 commandments on mount Sinai, hence the fact that God reminded Moses about proper sabbath keeping is highly suggestive that God still attached, and still does, spiritual significance to His holy day.

This was the instructions from Moses, in Exudus 16

"23 And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. 24 And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. 25 And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field. 26 Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none."

This is what transpired,
"27 And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. 28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? 29 See, for that the LORD hath given you the sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. 30 So the people rested on the seventh day."

Its crystal clear that the principle of God's law existed long before it was transcribed on stone tablets.

@ Seun

According to the new testament, Christians are not supposed to worry about Jewish customs.

The sabbath precedes the Hebrew people. You should know better than that. In fact both the institutions of marriage and sabbath were made before sin manifested on earth, hence the sabbath cannot be viewed as a shadow.

Let me bring back what I have explained in previous postings with regards to what has been grossly misunderstood by Sunday-keeping Christians.

Its obvious you never read my response to this text, but for the benefit of those who should read this section of the thread, I will repeat. I will also cover again 1 Corinthians 16: 1,2 as well

Acts 20:7-12

Before I begin let me lay down a principle about how the Jews and early jewish christians viewed the day in terms of when it started and finished. Its important for my explanation.

The bible teaches that each day begins at sundown and ends the next sundown. (Genesis 1:15, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31); Leviticus 23:32) The dark part of the day naturally began the day. The sabbath for them began Friday night sundown and would end on what we call Saturday night. In fact using their reckoning, our Saturday night would have really been their Sunday evening or the dark part of Sunday. The meeting recorded in Acts 20 was held on the dark part of Sunday, seeing that the dark part of a day begins the day, and what we call today as Saturday night.

Proof of that lies in this version of the New English bible whose opening line says:

Acts 20:7-12 NEB
"On the Saturday night in our assembly, , "

Every indication points to a late night meeting by Paul which lasted till 12 midnight. Paul was on a farewell tour and knew he would not see these people again before his death (see verse 25). No wonder he preached so long and normally no weekly service would have lasted so long in those days, anyway. Paul was ready to depart on the morrow.

So what about the breaking of bread you might ask. Was this any indication that that occassion was a special and normal customary gathering? Absolutely not, because the breaking of bread was never confined to a day for they broke bread every day (see Acts 2:6) With that being the case the breaking of bread has no "Lord's day" significance whatsoever. In fact there is no scriptural indication in this passage that the first day was the norm or customary gathering for early christians. Nor is there the remotest clue of a change from sabbath to the first day of the week.

1 Cor. 16:1,2

1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.

is this what you're using to show the change? , sorry but I find it funny how people see what isn't there. Anyway thee is no reference here about a customary gathering or church meeting. In fact the expression "lay by him in store" literally means form the Greek store at your house/home

In other words each christians was to save up something for the poor so that Paul woudn't waste time having to do all that when he passed through. They were written a letter from before telling them to store the stuff at home, and not at church as some would have us believe. These christiasn were sabbath keepers and that is why Paul suggested that they do some work on Sunday and make the necessary preparation. Its as simple as that. The raging famine that prevailed would no doubt have affected the poor brethren in Asia Minor. All bills and accounts were normally settled on a Sunday. Both the french and spanish bibles say the same thing about storing the stuff at home. In French it says:

" doit mettre de cote chez lui" which means "place by your side at home"

That is the solid truth my friend. Sooner or later the inevitable will unfold.

.

And since I was taught to be brief and concise I am still advocating that God had no reason to change His day of rest which points to His creative, and redemptive acts.

Neither Christ, nor any of His disciples advocated a change from the original seventh-day sabbath to Sunday. Of the 8 or so NT references to the first day of the week, not one has remotely suggested, that there has been a change.

Since Christ in all actuality was the embodiment of the establishment of the New Covenant wouldn't He have mentioned a change to have taken place before His death? By necessity any changes that were to have taken place under the New Covenant had to have taken place prior to Christ's death. That being the case then Christ would have ratified such a change with words before His blood sealed the covenant when we stop to think that no changes could have occurred after His death according to Paul in Hebrews.


In fact didn't He suggest to His disciples to pray that their flight from Roman besiege be neither in winter, nor on the sabbath? Why the concern for a day some 40 years to come? If according to the Sunday advocates that Sunday gradually replaced the original day of rest as a means of commemorating the resurrection, then why wasn't it spoken of more clearly and specifically?

Roman seige and final destruction of Jerusalem took place 40 years after Christ spoke those words. If Christ had anticipated a change, then why didn't He make mention?

In fact right through the NT more evidence is there to support the continuance of sabbath observance, and loyalty to God's 10 commandments.

Allow me to clarify the attempt of association between why God gave Israel the sabbath, and their deliverance from Egypt as often quoted as the most plausible reason for handing them the sabbath in the wilderness. If those of you were honest enough to realize that it was not unusual for God to hark back to the Egyptian deliverance as an incentive to obey other commandments, then you would have been less keen on using such an argument.

In Deuteronomy 24:17, 18, God said, "Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge. , Thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing."

Neither the command to be just, nor to keep the Sabbath was given to memorialize the Exodus, but God told them that His goodness in bringing them out of captivity constituted a strong additional reason for their dealing kindly with their servants on the Sabbath and treating justly the strangers and widows.

So any attempt to affix a central motif for God to have given them the sabbath command spells intellectual dishonesty, if equal weight is not given to the most important reasons as recorded in Exudus 20:8-11.

Col. 2:16-17

Colossians 2:16-23 (New International Version)

16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

I am sorry to say that you have completely missed the context of that passage. Paul wasn't addressing the seventh-day creation sabbath, but the feast days that were in themselves sabbath days. Bear in mind that there were more than one type of sabbath days. For example, there was the day of feast of the passover; the day of feast of tabernacles, etc, and each carried a particular significance to different participant.

Also when Paul spoke of ", do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, " do you actually think he was addressing food in a dietary sense in terms of what we eat and shouldn't eat, and that it doesn't matter what one eats? He was addressing it from sacrificial point of view. Were you aware that there existed an offering of drink and meats, and that these were all tied in with the days of festivals?

In Leviticus 2:3-4 "And the remnant of the meat offering shall be Aaron's and his sons': it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire. And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baked in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil."

Note also that Paul referred to [b]sabbath days [/b]which logically means that there were different types of Sabbaths. Most Christians have mistakingly come to believe that Paul referred to the Lord's sabbath of creation in Collosians.

Have the advocates of Catholicism disappeared? I have posted some questions which have gone unanswered? Is the spirit of lent being used as an excuse?