₦airaland Forum

@ Bari_Kade

AS I have repeatedly said trying to pin SDAs to sabbath stipulations in the way they were meant for a particular experience during the Hebrews sojourn in the wilderness for 40 years, goes contrary to what Jesus said in His teaching of true sabbath observance. You have failed in your attempt to reconcile that reality.

Obviously when the command says "no work" you have taken that to include work in all its forms, What a joke! You're worse than the pharasees maaaan!

@ Bari_kade

@Bobbyaf,

I wonder if you're just interested in mere arguments when you have not been able to defend the fallacies of the SDA built around what they cannot keep. You're wasting your time trying to defend a salary scheme wrapped around the SDA excuses for breaking a Law that they pretend they're keeping, but which you have unwittingly exposed as quite to the contrary.

I see youre still hell bent on being technical and Pharasaical, huh?   You are wasting your time trying to make SDAs look bad because we choose to do good on the sabbath. If we had closed our doors you'd be arguing how legalistic we are, right?

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 10:26:39 AM
Listen, I have told you before that the principle of the law of 10 commandments has always existed, both in the Genesis dispensation as well as the Mosaic dispensation, and even in our dispensation, because those principles were meant to be eternal. The only difference is that for the first time it was transcripted on tables of stones when the author Himself wrote them with His own fingers.


You're the same person who could not find that Law in Genesis; and you're yet the very same person who could not find that Law given to Adam in Genesis! Infact, you are the same person who said that the Sabbath did not exist as a commandment in Genesis; but now, you're coming back to your convoluted statements again.

You're still confused about the law and its principles. You know that God's law was not in the written form from the beginning. It doesn't take a 6-year old to see that. As a surface reader of the bible you fail to see that the same principles of the 10 commandments as given to Moses on the mount, are the same ones that governed sin and morality in the times of the patriarchs. To make it easier for you let me show you the relationship between law and sin.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Now Bar_kade you cannot go around the plain teachings of God's word. If the law defined sin in previous times it still defines sin in our time. In other words sin has no time barrier. All men from all dispensations were subject to the same shortfalls as us in this dispensation. As far as God is concerned time doesn't change the definition of sin, nor does time change the principles that are built into His laws.

"Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." Ecclesiates 12:13.

The attempt to argue as to whether God had a 10 commandment law back in the time of the patriarchs is pointless and fruitless. As I have explained not finding a distinct passage revealing the law does't prove that its principles did not apply to the patriarchs back then. You're not in any psition to gainsay that no matter how hard you try.

If you go back to Exodus again, you will find the clear imprints of the sabbath as a LAW! Now, since you argued for the seventh-day sabbath commandment from EXODUS (and not rather from Genesis), then you're expressing an idea based on the Mosaic Law! Doing so requires that you face the stipulations of the same Mosaic Law for the sabbath. Failing to follow the stipulations actually means that you have no sabbath law earlier than Exodus.

First and foremost the sabbath law is not a Mosaic law. It is God's law! It was God who wrote it with His own fingers and delivered it to Moses on Mount Sinai. The sabbath was given to man from the beginning based on what Jesus said in Mark 2:27, 27 And He said to them,“The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

The problem you're forever faced with is being able to not confess that Adam was the progenitor of mankind, and has to be apart of that over all plan that God intended for humans to experience through keeping a sanctified day in order to celebrate His creation. That is exactly what the sabbath commandment entails. It gives us a reason as to why we should remember to keep it, and that reason is, God is Creator of heaven and earth.  

Since you cannot find a specific commandment any earlier than EXODUS for the seventh-day sabbath, there's no basis for pretending to uphold the 10 commandments in that book and refusing to adhere to its prescriptions.

We are not pretending to uphold it, we are! You too need to uphold them likewise. I can assure no harm will befall you only good. I notice you never once brought out anything positive in the Mosaic writings concerning the law, but here is a little something for you:

"And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes [commandments] ,  for our good always." Deuteronomy 6:24.

You see all along God gave them the law for their own good. If they were obedient they would have recieved the blessings, and if they failed to obey, and they had no reason not to, they would be punished. No one had a reason to disobey especially how they had been a witness to the great undisputable miracles that were wrought by the hands of their God.

God asked Moses a simple question before the 10 commandments were given on Mount Sinai, and this was the question:

Exudus 16:28  "And the LORD said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws?"

What do you gather from that Bari_kade? Its very simple. God's law is eternal and its principles are not confined to a written code. Although the bible doesn't highlight in a very specific way that the sabbath was known and kept by God's people, there is room to believe it was, based on what other passages have said about the law and the sabbath. Why else would God even speak about "how long refuse ye to keep my laws" if as you are suggesting God had introduced right there and then a sababth law? I am more inclined to think that that phrase suggests that Israel had a long history of not practising God's requirements. They were so steep in Egyptian practises that they had forgotten about their forefather's covenants, and the age-old sabbath law.

By the way please don't tell me that they called upon God because of their faithfulness. They only did so because their backs were against the wall. Listen to God's words as it describes the over all situation with the Hebrews:
 
Only two of the thousands of Israelites who left Egypt followed God fully and were able to enter the promised land of Canaan. Surely none of the men that came up out of Egypt ,  shall see the land ,  because they have not wholly followed me: Save Caleb ,  and Joshua ,  for they have wholly followed the Lord." Numbers 32:11, 12.

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 10:26:39 AM
Sins committed now, and the those committed then,  are still sins, and will always be defined by God's eternal law.

Good. The Law requires that Sabbath breakers be surely put to death - Exo. 31:14 & 35:2. Going to work on the sabbath so that you can make money for your pockets is actually breaking the sabbath. "Do good", Jesus says; but where did he excuse your salaries and getting paid for work done on the Sabbath? If the excuse for the SDA medical staff is just about a convenient exculpation to circumvent the Law, there is no reason for you to accuse anything against non-SDAs.

Note the difference! God's law says "remember the sabbath" , but Moses stipulates how the sabbath should be kept  based on the circumstances at the time under which the people found themselves. Israel's spiritual maturity was no where near where God had wanted it to be. They were a rebellious set of people who had grown accustomed to the ways of their Egyptian counterparts, and needed strict stipulations as to proper sabbath observance, until they could operate by faith. Ever wondered why Paul said they missed that rest? Wasn't it because of unbelief?

Why were there stipulations you have never addressed. YOur attempt to tie SDAs into sabbath stipulations in the exact way it was given then is once again nothing short of frivolity and blindness on your part. You're making a mockery out of God's words.

You are not Jesus Christ; and if you excuse your breaking the Law, don't try hiding under that excuse. Jesus Christ never once referred to God's Law as "ridiculous" - the very thing you have done; and I wonder what he would be saying as He reads your post denouncing God's Law as "archaic"!

I pity your ability to read and understand plain English. I never said God's law was archaic. That was meant for the stipulations that seems to have lodged in your cranium somewhere.  

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 10:26:39 AM
He said it not me. I am simply repeating what He admonished in the light of the very same stipulations the jewish leaders brought on the disciples, and Jesus Himself.

Jesus Christ did not say anything about excuses the stipulations of the Law. If he ever did, please adduce texts for that. Do not put words in His mouth to justify your fallacies.

Who is talking about excuses? I am referring to what Jesus said about doing good on the sabbath. Its you who keep harping on how SDAs break the sabbath law when they open their hospitals to help the sick. Its you who keep harping, however in vain, how SDA medical professionals work and collect pay on the sabbath so as to show how hypocritical we are.

The point is firefighters, and emergency workers, and others are all paid anyway whether or not they choose to do good on the sabbath. Let us use the case of a firefighters for example. If a one such worker recieved a call while in a church service, such a member would not have to think twice about responding to such calls, because the SDA church has already made it clear what the requirements are concerning emergency workers.

We know as SDAs that the situation isn't all that perfect in this world. What God had intended for the sabbath and humans is no longer idealistic, becaue of sin, but nonetheless realistic. Sin has wrought changes and has thwarted God's plan temporarily. While we live under God's permissive will, we must do what we are able to do given the set of circumstances. If we do the best we can do then God will make up for the rest, bu tit doesn't mean we should neglect God's divine commands.

Thats why Jesus was faced with the same problems in His time. The same jewish leaders attempted to make the sabbath look burdensome with rules after rules, most of which, if not all, were traditional.

Accusing others of being rebellious and yet breaking the Law with your excuses is not demonstrating your obedience to that Law.

WEll that is only your opinion.

I know quite well where we also debated that; and to have alleged that they are Babylon is precisely saying that those Christians are the one accused. You have not shown a good understanding of this subject before making such accusations; and that is wrong!

I don't think calling people from babylon is wrong because God has called His church to do exactly that. Those in the SDA church and those in babylon are all God's children just the same, and God doesn't love SDAs more than they, nor are we better by virtue of what we believe either. You can't knock SDAs for doing what God has commanded. As the remnant we continue what the apostles started. God has raised up the SDA church with a unique message fo rthis time, and that is to be ready and to prepare others for the judgement hour thats presntly taking place. In the mean time we must warn the world of the anti-Christ which has already established itself, and will soon bring upon this world its mark. We know God's mark or seal to be the sabbath, and we also know the mark of the beast to be Sunday which will be enforced into law sooner than you think. Thats why God says: "Come out of her my people" speaking of babylon or religious confusion.

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 10:26:39 AM
This is not my teaching, but God's.

Appending "God" to your fallacies does not make them correct.

Really now! Doubt if you know what a fallacy is even if it were staring you in the face!

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 10:26:39 AM
All this was based on the fact of what Jesus Himself said about calling His scattered sheep back to His flock or fold. You as well as I know that there are hundreds of denominations all teaching different doctrines. Besides, you of all persons could never fail to bear in mind what Jesus reminded us of in Matthew 24 about the rise of false prophets and teachers coming in His name.

False prophets and false teachers - we know how many of them existed in the history of the SDA. The SDA should not pretend to see herself as that "endtime church"; and to suppose so is to carry this debate to the appropriate thread to discuss the cults.

We are not pretending to see ourselves as such, we are the renmnant.

In all of these discourses so far, you still haven't shown anything to the point that a sabbath Law in Exodus excuses the SDA from breaking it by denouncing it as "ridiculous" and "archaic"!

We don't need to since there is nothing to show, but if it makes you feel good holding on to those archaic sabbath stipulations, then fine suit yourself. Its funny how you're not harping about those stipulations that were appended to adultery, or any other sins that were punishable by death. How come you're not crying out for those who commit adultery to be stoned to death as well? How come you're not crying out for the death of homosexuals based on the Mosaic stipulations concerning any sexual deviances?

Strange isn't it?

@ Bari_kade

Even at that, you do realize that you have blown your own arguments for the Sabbath, don't you? Asking that people should obey the seventh-day sabbath according the Law is not going to help you. That is why I asked you so many times to clearly state where you derived your law from - GENESIS or EXODUS - and you kept dodging that very question even up until today!!

Dodging you say?  

Listen, I have told you before that the principle of the law of 10 commandments has always existed, both in the Genesis dispensation as well as the Mosaic dispensation, and even in our dispensation, because those principles were meant to be eternal. The only difference is that for the first time it was transcripted on tables of stones when the author Himself wrote them with His own fingers.

Sins committed now, and the those committed then,  are still sins, and will always be defined by God's eternal law.

Your question of "acts of mercy" should not be an excuse for the huge problems you've caused by admitting to the exculpations for making money on the Sabbath day. What is of grave concern to anyone who reads your argument is that, just because people are not SDAs does not mean that you should have accused them to be "Babylon" for worshipping on Sunday. Whether by Biblical history and doctrine of the Word, the SDA got it wrong! And that is what I've demonstrated here.

Your accusing me of causing problems is tantamount to accusing Jesus of saying that it is permitted to do good on the sabbath. He said it not me. I am simply repeating what He admonished in the light of the very same stipulations the jewish leaders brought on the disciples, and Jesus Himself. Thats why I raised the idea of those stipulations that you're poinying me to in Exudus were meant for those rebellious people who didn't have the spiritual maturity to wait for the very same law that Moses went to collect from God. With their rebellious nature what else did you expect Moses to do, but to initiate stipulations so as to protect what was very important to God.  

If you were to go back to my arguments about babylon, you'd have realized that I didn't accuse persons of not being christians. Not once did I accuse person's sincerity about what they were led to believe. I accused them of being apart of a system that is seen as "babylon", or religious confusion, and that God through His end-time church is calling all those that belong to Him to "come out of her" (see Revelation 14 and 16)

This is not my teaching, but God's.

All this was based on the fact of what Jesus Himself said about calling His scattered sheep back to His flock or fold. You as well as I know that there are hundreds of denominations all teaching different doctrines. Besides, you of all persons could never fail to bear in mind what Jesus reminded us of in Matthew 24 about the rise of false prophets and teachers coming in His name.

@ Bari_kade

If you would only go through the Biblical use of the word soul, you will see why the Bible does not confuse it at any instance in their various connotations. The soul is distinct from the spirit of man; and it is not something that could be narrowed to a particular idea (such as mind) in the bigger context.

I will agree with you that the soul is distinct from the spirit of man, but it is not an entity within an entity, and that is the point I have been trying to make from day one. Its simply an expression to describe life and the being or personage of man, or beast.

The expression "there goes a precioius soul" is never used to describe an internal entity, but rather the whole person with all his faculties intact, including mind and body.

I am aware that the word soul has been seen in passages that make it appear different in meaning to what it was intended to mean initially, and so I am not sure why that is the case.

@ Bari_Kade

Just to avoid a long drawn out discussion with you I will say this much. SDA medical professionals do free work on the sabbath. We do not get paid for acts of mercy on the sabbath. Not once have you ever asked if that were the case have you?

If you have any further questions I'd be more than glad to assist you!

@ Stimulus

@Bobbyaf,


Quote from: Bobbyaf on Yesterday at 05:29:03 AM
SDA medical professionals are paid like any other persons who work.

Hypocrisy would be an understated word to describe your arguments. By that one line, you have rubbished every argument you've had in the past.

Thank God thats only your opinion.

So, the SDA get paid - like any other persons who work, right?

That is what I said!

Good. So, what happens to every other non-SDAs medical professional who works in other hospitals? What happens to non-SDA engineers who sometimes work on Saturdays and get paid for their work?

You tell me! They are not the issue. I am addressing medical professionals, not any other type of profession, since medical professionals are the only ones who are given permission to help the sick, or to attend to anyone who needs  on the Lord's day.

And oh, I many times do my shopping on Saturdays and pay the cashiers at the checking-out points for the groceries and other stuff I buy: those cashiers work on Saturdays and get paid!

Footballers get paid as well for their work in professional tournaments which they play work on Saturdays.

All those examples above are irrelevant to the point of discussion. It is never an issue as to what non-SDAs choose to do on Saturdays depending on what they know about the Lord's requirements and commands.

You have not yet dealt with the real issue have you? If Jesus said it is permitted to do good on the sabbath then who are you to think otherwise? Why try to complicate the issue? SDAs don't seem to have a problem following Christ's admonition, so why should you?   

And ahh. . . perhaps Nehemiah should not have protested to those men who brought all manner of ware so they could make money and get paid for their work; afterall, you said your own SDA medical professionals "are paid" like ANY OTHER persons who work!!

What does deliberately breaking the sabbath have to do with what Jesus said about doing good on the sabbath? I really wonder who is the object of laughter here, based on such silly reasoning?

You're such a laugh!

I'd think twice if I were you! [quote][/quote]

@ Drusilla

Bari-kade,

Okay. Your looking for a certain exemption about making money. I don't know. That can be kind of confusing.

Technically all Levites made their living from their work in the temple and that would include what they did in the temple on the sabbath, right?

Did they profane the sabbath because of working and getting paid for their work on the sabbath?

Hmmm. That is an interesting question of why they "profaned" it.

Bari_kade reasons the same technical way the jewish leaders would have in the time of Christ. SDA christians operate hospitals and clinics, and our approach to health care is far different to how its normally carried out in the secular world. It is this uniqueness that we bring to the public based on the philosophy of uniting health, education and evengilsim as one ministry, the same manner in which Christ did.

Now how would look if we closed our hospital doors to the public on a sabbath because we are SDAs? How would it look if an SDA doctor in church were to ignore a medical emergency because he is not supposed to navigate from some archaic, geographically based set of rules and stipulations?

How would Jesus have dealt with a situation of this nature if He were here in our generation? Would He have given the same pharasaical advice as Bari_kade?

Bari_kade knows he cannot side step God's words, so he looks for technicalities to promote his arguments. SDA medical professionals are paid like any other persons who work. To argue that we collect pay for work done on the sabbath is grossly inept, and only shows up deficiencies in such frivalous arguments. If that is how he debates truth he has got something coming.

@ Mekoyo

The death of JESUS CHRIST on the cross of calvary has broken all these laws, we are now free, free from the law.

That is far from the truth! Listen to what Jesus said:

Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. 19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Clear and simple isn't it?

Listen to Paul as he uplifts the 10 commandments:

Romans 7:7 "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

My friend the problem doesn't lie with God's law, the problem lies with sin. Any honest christian reading Paul's discourse in Romans 7 would readily see that the law defines sin, and serves its place. To say that Jesus' death has freed christians from obeying the 10 commandments is gross and plain dishonesty.

@ Drusilla

Actually, there are exemptions in the Sabbath Law. Jesus states it.

Mat 12:5  Or have you not read in the Law that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath and are blameless?

Even priests profaned the sabbath and the Law says they were blameless

He sees what he desires to see dear, but none can gainsay what Jesus said about how the sabbath should be seen in its true colour! Who is blinder than the one who refuses to see?

The beautiful thing is that truth cannot be hid for long. "Till heaven and earth pas not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law till all be fulfilled"

Bari_kade needs to say whether or not heaven and earth are still with us. If he is able to confirm that indeed both still exist now then what else can I say to convince him? Let him be.

Vive la verete!

See Revelation 18:4, "come out of her my people" The sooner you see your folly the better it is for you. You as well as others have tried without success to prove that Sunday became the Lord's day, and I have shown you texts after texts denouncing such error. We can go back and forth with this, but I have reached a point where I need to remove the dust from my shoes, and leave you be.

AS I have said only time will prove who is right, or who is wrong!

@ Carlosein

@babbyaf:
what do u think about the whereabouts of mary, i mean where do you think she is: heaven, hell, nowhere?

Well, since the bible has been silent on her wherabouts since the death and resurrection of Christ, I can only think that she died and went to her grave like the apostles did, being a sinner like everyone else. Unless of course you believe that Mary had no sin.

The RCC teaches that she went to heaven and is now interceding on behalf of sinners. How else do you explain the living praying to her through the usual "hail Mary mother of God, " routine? They have even gone as far as teaching that Mary is the co-redemtrix of God. In other words Mary is seen as an all-important factor in the plan of salvation.

Now you tell me where in heaven's name did they come up with a teaching like that? You desire to know the truth? The RCC has adopted pagan beliefs and have integrated those beliefs into christendome. It has been able to maintain the Roman paganism by disguising it in the garb of christianity, and unfortunately the whole of christendome is dancing to her tune, except God's chosen.

You need to open those eyes and see what is going on before the judgements of God Almighty fall on this earth. (see Revelation 16)

"Come out of her my people" God says. Be ye separate and "touch not the unclean thing"

Exactly Dru!

The soul only exists when both body and life force combine, and of course when Christ returns He will give us new bodies that will be fitted with the life force he will place in them.

Cheers!

I rest my case bari_kade because you're missing the point and confusing the whole matter with what you have come to accept as sound reasoning. I have grown accustomed to your quoting scripture after scripture that have been taken out of context.

One thing we have in common though is that time will either prove you, or I wrong. Keep your Sunday holy if you can, and I will do what the Lord expects and requires.

@ Barikade

Revelation 6:9 - "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held."

This doesn't prove that the soul isn't an expression used to describe the whole being of man. I am not certain as to why the word soul would be used in this way, but here is my take on it. If we are going to view the word soul as existing inside a body, then why would John not logically state that it was the bodies that were slain and not an entity within a body? Wouldn't it be easier to view it as the whole person being slain?

When the prophet Ezekiel said "the soul that sinneth shall die" was he stressing the internal entity of a person or was he addressing the whole person dying?

I'd rather go with the weight of evidence of what the word soul generally denotes, versus expressions I can't fully understand now, or profess to understand, but I am sure there has to be some grammatical explanation.

Well it depends on the kind of rest you're referring to, wouldn't it?

The apostle Paul says there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God. The greek construction makes it very clear that that rest was not the spiritual rest, because it is translated as "there remains the keeping of a sabbath"

Now in verse 9 we find the controversial statement as, “there remains therefore a rest for the people of God”. Every other greek word used for rest in Hebres 4 is katapausis, while the one used in verse 9 is "sabbatismos" Its the only NT use of the word for rest. Hence its understanding is crucial to what Paul is talking about when he talks about rest as stated from chapter 3:7

Now what does the noun sabbatismos mean? The writer of Hebrews in 4:3-11 states, and using quotes from Genesis 2:2 and Ps. 95:7, that the promised rest of the sabbath awaits a complete reality for the people of God. Paul explains that God's original plan for that realization failed as a result of Israel's non-belief and lack of faith. What most christians don't seem to realize is that God used the sabbath as a sign to distinguish those who were faithful from those who were un-faithful. Ezekiel also afirmed that the sabbath was meant to be a sign of God sanctifying them.

Jesus in His time demonstrated the true purpose of sabbath keeping to the jewish leaders in general.

Hebrews 4:9 concludes based on the translation of the word sabbatismos, that the experience of the sabbath rest today highlights that wider rest that is found in being obedient to Jesus' words. They interact. When one becomes a new creature in Christ under the New Covenant, one is empowered to obey God out of sheer love for Him. The love of Christ constrains us, or compells us to trust and obey. In other words the creation-commemaration experience of sabbath-keeping (sabbatismos), is a manifestation of the inner rest. True conversion leads to a natural obedience as against legalism, or having to be exact about sabbath observance, as you're and others are trying to impose.

That is why Isaiah promises that even during the earth made new God's sabbath will still remain a day for worship. Unless of course the word remain carries a different meaning as used by Paul, and intimated by the prophet.

Cheers.

@ Drusilla

I agree with you to a point, but I am not too keen on this triad idea. Let me explain. The word soul is really an expression that explains the union of body and spirit, and as you already know spirit means life force. When a person ceases to exist as you're aware, his body returns to the ground, and his "life force" returns to God.

The question that now begs to be asked, what has happened to the soul? Well, it simply doesn't exist anymore. Once there is no union of body and life force, there can be no soul. The original hebrew word nephesh denotes a being, or person. Its a word that was used by Moses to explain what happened to Adam when God blew the life force in him. The bible simply says:

", and man became a living soul" Genesis 2:7 Now the tendency is for people to confuse the meaning of soul and spirit. They are not the same thing. There are some persons who believe in the immortal soul, and believe that when a person dies, their souls wonder somewhere.

The other issue is the judgement. The apostle paul says that everyone will appear before the judgement seat of Christ, but he didn't specify when.

Have you ever really stopped to think as to what point will God judge everyone, including the believers? At what point will God judge the believers, assuming that if the believers remain true to God they would have all gone to heaven. If God doesn't judge the believers at some point before Christ returns, then when will the believers be judged? In heaven? Would it make sense for God to judge the redeemed when they reach heaven? What would be the point? Would't be logical and truthful to think that before anyone can live in the presence of a Holy God they would have to be proven worthy in the judgement?

Listen to what Jesus said: Revelation 22:12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.

If Christ is coming back the 2nd time to give every man a reward or verdict, based on their works, wouldn't it be fair to think that a judgement can only precede a verdict? Just like any court case. There has to be a trial and evidence must be brought forward, and then after the evidence has been looked at carefully, then a verdict will be announced.

That is why the bible teaches that God's judgement has already started. In Revelation 14:6 in symbolical landuage John announced that "the hour of His judgement is(has) come" Notice that it would come during the preaching of the everlasting gospel to every nation, tribe, and tongue.

Jesus also said in matthew 24 that the end would come when the preaching of the gospel becomes a witness to all nations. It really makes sense to believe that God is using the judgement to determine who is worthy or not for eternal life. It is that judgement that will determine whether or not our names are blooted out of the book of life, and that is why Jesus now stands as our advocate or defender in heaven, interceeding on our behalf.

Soon all cases will be decided, and when its over John says, Revelation 22:11, "He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.”

I have no reason to doubt that boy's experience. In Jamaica where I live people see their dead loved ones at some point or another. As to whether its their dead loved ones is quite another story. I don't believe that dead persons actually come back to the living after death, but I do believe that demons have the ability to impersonate those who died.

Bear in mind good people that there are far more demons on planet earth than they are humans. It isn't difficult for Satan to assign a demon to each person that is born. All these demons have to do is study everything about us, getting to know our weaknesses and strengths. They know all that goes on between family members, and friends, and that is why the living in their desperation are easily decieved. The demons play on our fears and depression when a close family or friend passes.

So they simply take on the looks and appearance of those who were once alive and are now dead. The demons will often time smell the same way they used to smell, or appear to be wearing the same clothes the dead persons use to wear, and so on.

This is a real and documented story of a mother who was told that her son was missing in action, and assumed dead during the vietnam war. She became devastated to the point that she consulted a medium to make contact with her dead son. She actually spoke to an apparition at the seance meetings several times, and it told her of things that were only privy to them both. That convinced her even more that the "thing" she spoke to was her dead son. She continued this activity for awhile, but not as frequently as before.

One day as she was at home she heard a knock at the friont door. Who do you think she saw standing at the door? You're correct! It was her son who was alive. She grew confused and asked about those meetings she had with him at the seance, to which he denied ever meeting with her. Who or what was this being that knew about her private and intimate moments with her son? No doubt a familiar spirit that the bible makes reference to, and which forbids contact with such beings.

You're talking about 1/3 of the heavenly hosts of good angels turned bad, that rebelled against God and who were hurled down here. These are very deceptive beings, and will do anything to obscure God's message of truth about what happens after death. Don't take it lightly!

For more enlightment please see, read, listen or view lesson 10 "Are The Dead Really Dead?" on this website:

http://www.amazingfacts.org/items/study_guides.asp

@ Bari_kade and Telly B

I have already brought it on a very long time, but you haven't noticed. Jesus said that it is good to do good on the sabbath, which no doubt will involve expenditure of energy, and work. If you understood anything in His discourse with the pharasees, you would have picked up that reality. The Mosaic sabbath stipulations as handed down to the then Israelites were for their unique geographical and situational context, and especially considering their spiritual immaturity. The scriptures must never be read with the intention to mislead the fora, but in reading one should look at the central motif for their application. That you all have failed to do, unfortunately.

Two examples were given by Jesus about how stipulations should never overide the greater good. For example Jesus made reference about the need for lifting animals out of a pit on the sabbath, if the situation called for it. Must you continue to gainsay what Jesus said, in order to pin down stipulations on those who don't need them.

He also drew reference to how David went into the sacred temple and ate the bread that were dedicated for the priests only, yet I wonder why such acts were not seen as sacrilegous. He also drew reference about those priests who worked even harder on the sabbath, than on other days.

So indeed the sabbath was made for man for his blessing and happiness according to Jesus. Indeed also Jesus is Lord of the sabbath, because He created it for mankind, including you, and only He alone has determined, and continues to determine the true purpose of the day.

Like Drusilla I believe, based on the clear biblical teaching, that when one dies his or her spirit goes back to God, while the body returns as dust in the ground.

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." Ecclesiastes 12:7.

You still haven't gotten it have you? We will see sooner or later who is in the dark or the light! Just keep in mind what Jesus said and everything will fall in place.

Well presented article TheSilent1.

Well, I am at home today and I am responding to Bari_kade's reply on the sabbath. I wonder if he  will accuse of me of breaking sabbath stipulations for even responding to a religious point of view?  

I also notice you are avoiding the words of Jesus saying its lawful to do good on the sabbath, because you very well know you cannot gainsay what the Lord has said.

Lest I forget have a happy sabbath.

Let me ask Catholics this question. Is Mary in heaven interceding on our behalf as the RCC teaches? What proof do you have that she was resurrected in the first place?

That is all!

@ barikade

Its people like you that Jesus would have rebuked about falsely representing the sabbath. Your attempt to pin down stipulations that were meant for the hebrews in a particular setting, and applying them to SDAs is nothing short of ridiculous, and you know it.

The Jewish teachers prided themselves on their knowledge of the Scriptures, and in the Saviour's answer there was an implied rebuke for their ignorance of the Sacred Writings. "Have ye not read so much as this," He said, "what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him; how he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, . . . which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?" "And He said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." "Have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple." "The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Luke 6:3, 4; Mark 2:27, 28; Matt. 12:5, 6.[/

Was David condemned for not following temple stipulations? Were the priests condemned for having to work in the temple on the sabbath? Obviously not! Why not?

If it was right for David to satisfy his hunger by eating of the bread that had been set apart to a holy use, then it was right for the disciples to supply their need by plucking the grain upon the sacred hours of the Sabbath. Again, the priests in the temple performed greater labor on the Sabbath than upon other days. The same labor in secular business would be sinful; but the work of the priests was in the service of God. They were performing those rites that pointed to the redeeming power of Christ, and their labor was in harmony with the object of the Sabbath. But now Christ Himself had come. The disciples, in doing the work of Christ, were engaged in God's service, and that which was necessary for the accomplishment of this work it was right to do on the Sabbath day.

I notice you keeep harping on my choosing to help the sick on the sabbath, as if to judge me of breaking the stipulated ways of sabbath observation, yet you do not dare accuse Jesus of sabbath breaking when He Himself asserted that it was lawful or permitted to do good on the sabbath, despite the work expended to do good. How come? I wonder who is being pharasaical about keeping the sabbath? You amaze me! 

@ Barikade

@Bobbyaf,

Although I'm very busy at the moment, I just had to come in here and make a few comments on your continued debate on this subject. You have been mixing up issues, and that is why you keep missing the point for that very reason.

, LOL, my my, Bobbyaf is mixing up issues! That was a good one!

It is always safe to keep within the declarations of Scripture and not interpolate them with human reasoning (eisegesis). And here are a few of such interpolations:

Thats subjective on your part.

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Yesterday at 07:56:28 AM
She had to have desired or coveted the forbidden fruit based on the ideas that Lucifer placed in her head. Since the fruit was forbidden her act of picking it made her a thief. She stole what was expressly forbidden.

The Bible never called Eve a "thief", nor accuse her of "stealing". Rather, the Word expressly declares her sin in simple terms as: "but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Tim. 2:14). This answers to what was recorded in Gen. 3:13 - "And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

It never had to because it was pretty obvious that she stole the forbiden fruit. If thats not stealing I don't know what it is. Surface reading isn't enough. One must look beyond for deeper meaning, and that act in itself doesn't mean one is interpolating.

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Yesterday at 07:56:28 AM
The fact that she placed Lucifer's ideas above God's brings into sharp focus the command of placing another god before the Creator God.

That again is not what Scripture declares. Eve was nowhere accused of 'placing another god before the Creator God'; and to make it sound as if that were the case is to force one's own ideas into the divine declarative. You're trying to accuse Eve of issues that even God Himself never once accused her of.

Yea, yea, yada yada yada, but the bible didn't have to be overly decriptive for any blind bat to see all that, I am simply bring ing out themes that you couldn't see, or have seen but felt obliged to complain anyway.

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Yesterday at 07:56:28 AM
The fact that Adam placed his wife before God made him guilty also of placing another god before the Creator God. And that is why the apostle James reminds us that if we break one we are guilty of all. There is a common thread that runs through the divine law.

Quite to the contrary, the Bible simply says that "Adam was not deceived" (1 Tim. 2:14). Adam simply disobeyed God's commandment; but that does not constitute a stretched meaning of his having placed his wife before God, or that he placed another god before the Creator God.

The bible simply says, and of course you don't have a mind to dig for meaning way beyond what is expected of you. Where is that gift of understanding and knowledge of the bible?

My reason for approaching the account in that manner was to show the board that God's law is eternal in its principles, and defines sin in any dispensation the same way. So although sinning was confined around the forbidden tree in the sense of doing or not doing something, there were far greater forces at work besides the act itself, that involved their minds as humans.

If one were to apply the same rule to your own case, would it be fair to say that you have placed another god before the Creator God by choosing to make exemptions to the Law of the Sabbath where the OT made no room for such exemptions?

It wouldn't be fair to even think it. Why, because your thought about how the jews might have been led to keep the sabbath in that geographical context, and how we as SDAs are asked to keep the same sabbath in our time and situation, is nothing short of ridiculous. There are so many factors that led to the kinds of restrictions and limitations in those days compared to our time. Those restrictions came at a time in Israel's experience when they were spiritually immature and stiff-necked. We now have their experience to learn from.

If it does not apply, why so? And if you can narrow the rule in your own case, why stretch it wider in applying it to Adam and Eve even though God did not once accuse them of what you just did?

See the above!

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Yesterday at 07:56:28 AM
Now how does the sabbath come into the picture of all of this? From the very beginning God had sanctified the seventh day after the six days of creation to be a holy day. The word "the" in Genesis 2:3 suggests a specific day, and not just any day. According to the Genesis account God had set apart for holy use the seventh-day sabbath, because that is exactly what the word sanctified means. Now, why would God sanctify a day immediately after creation, and not include Adam and Eve to be apart of that rest, based on what was later said in Exudus 20:8-11 as to why God set aside the day from the first place

In very simple terms, Scripture declares what God did on the seventh day - "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." (Gen. 2:3). That should not be made to read that God expressly gave Adam and Eve a divine commandment of the Sabbath Law.

At the time the sabbath was given it could not be rightly viewed as a commandment since it was given as a gift from God. Jesus said that "the sabbath was made for man, " Remember that sin had not yet manifested itself. The same argument could be said of marriage. It was introduced to both humans as well, but not as a commandment as such. After sin the specific law against adultery was enforced. Likewise a specific law against sabbath breaking was enforced.

Bear in mind too that the sabbath was not sanctified for God, but for man. God doesn't need to keep the day holy, but we need to, since keeping a day holy as God expects requires that we too must live holy lives.

I have always agreed that keeping the sabbath, or the moral law fo rthat matter cannot make a person holy, but when a person is holy by God's sanctifying grace then that one will keep God's holy requirements. In our sanctified walk with Jesus Christ we must strive for holiness.

I have not come across any Scripture that says God gave the Ten Commandments to Adam and Eve

Not in the manner you're expecting to find them. However, their principles did exist for both humans as well. They might not have been pronounced, but they certainly defined sin then. Absence of proof doesn't conclude proof of absence. The lack of the written code doesn't mean that principles against evil couldn't have existed. All I am saying is that when we look at the principles that govern the moral law of God today or whenever they were encoded, and look at the decisions that faced both Adam and Eve then, we can clearly see the same line of principles back then.

I raised the issue of Eve becoming Adam's god because that is exactly what happened. He placed his wife before God's command and will. He was selfish and only thought about the possibilty of losing his precious Eve. As if God couldn't mak ehim another woman. He knew what she did with the fruit. He was forced with a decision to stand for God or die with Eve, and he chose the latter. Thus he sinned, not because he was decieved, but because he chose Eve over God. Eating the fruit was just the act, but his ability to judge correctly was affected by his selfish love.

When they sinned, neither Adam nor his wife Eve were once accused of being thieves or having stolen anything. While Eve was said to have transgressed; it is reported that Adam was NOT deceived (1 Tim. 2:14). Nowhere did God accuse them of having broken the Ten Commandments; so it is unreasonable to read one's biases into the express declarations of Scripture.

John says that "sin is transgression of God's law" , obvioulsy there can only be one law whose set of principles existed nonetheless. Some 3000 years after that set of principles were transcripted on tables of stones to serve as a guide to a rebellios set of hebrews.

In Deuteronomy 5 when Moses reiterated the Ten Commandments, he specifically mentioned that the Law was given to Israel and to none else: "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." (vs. 2-3).

Its obvious that that covenant was not the same that was made with previous patriarchs in times past. Its also obvious that God had called no other nation but that of the hebrews, but that act in and of itself doesn't prove that the sabbath was only confined to them. Its always dangerous to quote out of context. God didn't make that covenant with none other because that covenant was unique. Never before had God given His law on tables before. We could argue that there were so many things that were unique to that experience of recieving God's law under such thunderous and majestic display, that Moses had to sink it in, This was no ordinary experience comparatively speaking with reference to any experience before this one.

Again, the fact that the Sabbath Law was not given to other nations is emphasized in Deut. 4:6-8 -- "And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?"

The fact that others didn't have the statutes and judgements of God as given then didn't mean that other nations were not supposed to know about them. It can be easily argued that God intended to do it one step at a time, together with the fact that God wanted them to see how special a vessel they were for having the divine oracles of God.

I am of the view that God is no respecter of persons, and He loves all races of people. I also believe that God intended to use israel as a vessel of His light and truth to reach the gentiles who were afar off, and who needed to come to a knowledge of God. Look at Nineveh for example. God sent Jonah to warn them of His impending judgements, and they repented and served God. Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon eventually repented and served the God of heaven.

Israel failed then to be that witness. God has drafted the very gentiles into the olive tree along with the faithful hebrews to now preach the gospel they should have preached.

The covenant that was made with Abraham was meant for all races, It said that all tribes of the earth would be blessed through the seed of Abraham, being Christ. In fact he himself was not even a jew, but the father of all nations.

When Moses in Exo. 20:8-11 gave the Sabbath Law to Israel, he explained its basis as pointing to God's sanctifying that Day after He had created the world. Not once did Moses hint that the Ten Commandments were given previously to anyone; nor did Moses explain any of the other 9 commandments on God's creative activity.

The sabbath was not new to the children of Israel before Sinai. God tested them about proper sabbath keeping with manna. See exudus 16, 22 And so it was, on the sixth day, that they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for each one. And all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. 23 Then he said to them, “This is what the LORD has said: ‘Tomorrow is a Sabbath rest, a holy Sabbath to the LORD. Bake what you will bake today, and boil what you will boil; and lay up for yourselves all that remains, to be kept until morning.’” 24 So they laid it up till morning, as Moses commanded; and it did not stink, nor were there any worms in it. 25 Then Moses said, “Eat that today, for today is a Sabbath to the LORD; today you will not find it in the field. 26 Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will be none.”

Logically the sabbath was not just invented at that point in time for Moses to have expected them to be so careful. Moses reminded them about the nearness of the sabbath, and chose to prepare them for it. Obviously, they had forgotten its importance in Egypt to have needed a reminder.

27 Now it happened that some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather, but they found none. 28 And the LORD said to Moses, “How long do you refuse to keep My commandments and My laws? 29 See! For the LORD has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let every man remain in his place; let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

Notice what God said to Moses about keeping His laws and commandments? How long refuse you to keep my laws implies that the sabbath command as some suggest was not just invented for the manna experience. In other words if this were the very first time that Moses was implementing the sabbath command then the phrase "how long refuse ye to keep my laws" would have been an unreasonable one. That would be like a sudden imposition on a people who were not familiar with sabbath keeping to just up and start keeping a day just like that. Thos who knew better were expected to do better, but their long sojourn in Egypt and after exposing themselves with the Egyptian practises, made them spiritually negligeble.

After the Ten Commandments were given, they were also explained in detail as to their stipulations in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. That is where the question of stipulations come into the pciture. And when you outline every precept of the Law or Ten Commandments, you will begin to see how utterly impossible it is for anyone to be justified by the Law - whether in the past, present or future (Rom. 3:28 & Gal. 2:16).

That was explained already, and as for being justified by the law SDAs don't teach that. We know that only grace can save, but we also know that the law points out sin. Once again your use of Paul's writings is ou tof context because you always fail to show how Paul qualifies each of his arguments surrounding the law.

Not in all cases does Paul address the moral law. Sometimes he deals with issues surrounding the ceremonial laws that were being forced upon the gentile christians by the jewish converts to christianity, who felt that salvation somehow had to do with rituals and ceremonies. Don't confuse us with them.

@ barikade

(a) their worship emphasizes creation - the OLD creation.

Yes its old but that doesn't mean that God doesn't want it remembered. Listen as david reminds us of that fact, 2 The works of the LORD are great, Studied by all who have pleasure in them, 4 He has made His wonderful works to be remembered, [b]Ps. 111[/b]

The Psalmist continues, in chapter 19:, 1 The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. 2 Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard. 4 Their line[a] has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world.

Its clear as day that God's work in all its forms were meant to be remembered. Since the seventh-day sabbath is a memorial of the works of creation God expects us to keep it in accordance with His requirements. God's unchanging law like Himself demands it.

It is for this reason that they should look unto Jesus, who brought in a better hope; so that through the Redemptive titles of His blood, we may now be called the children of God; and rightfully address God as FATHER.

All that is good and appreciated by me, and I totally agree with you that we must look to Jesus, but that doesn't change the fact, that it was Jesus Himself who said that whosoever teaches men to break any of His father's commandments, including the sabbath command would be called least in the kingdom. Jesus said not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until heaven and earth pass away first, and all be fulfilled. No one can get around the simple and straightforward teachings of Jesus. It doesn't matter how many texts you bring to the fora to support erroroneous teachings. Truth will always win over error.

That is why when we celebrate the Lord's Supper, we do it in remembrance of HIM ("this do in remembrance of ME" - 1 Cor. 11:24 & 25 ).

What better day to celebrate it than on God's holy and dedicated day of rest and worship called the seventh-day sabbath. There is absolutely no text that supports the notion that Sunday was the new dedicated day for celebrating the Lord's supper.

We are not here speaking of remembering a day as Moses commanded Israel ("Remember the Sabbath day" - Exo. 20:8 ).

It was not Moses who wrote the 10 commandments, but God Himself on Mount Sinai. It was never Moses who blessed and sanctified the creation sabbath which was placed in the centre of the decalogue, and that is the crux of the matter that all Sunday-gathering christians have missed. Moses simply reminded them what they had already heard from the mountain.

This again should remind us of Paul's caution that Christians should not be judged in respect of these festivities: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, of the sabbath days" (Col. 2:16).

Not at all. It refers only to the sabbaths which were "a shadow of things to come" and not to the seventh-day Sabbath. There were seven yearly holy days, or holidays, in ancient Israel which were also called sabbaths. These were in addition to, or "beside the sabbaths of the Lord" (Leviticus 23:38), or seventh-day Sabbath. These all foreshadowed, or pointed to, the cross and ended at the cross. God's seventh-day Sabbath was made before sin entered, and therefore could foreshadow nothing about deliverance from sin. That's why Colossians chapter 2 differentiates and specifically mentions the sabbaths that were "a shadow." These seven yearly sabbaths which were abolished are listed in Leviticus chapter 23.

You're such a comical character. Hear you "challenge" anyone to offer answers to your weak assumptions and yet YOU ran away from the 17 challenges I offered in the other thread. Even when you tried to play tennis with history in this thread, stimulus was on hand to set your misconceptions straight.

I don't mind being called comical for Christ, but the challenge is yet to be met. If anything those so-called 17 challenges were nothing short of the twisting of the scriptures to prove nothing. Its easy to quote scriptures, its quite another matter to use them in context. So far none of you have used scriptures in context to support your Sunday doctrine, but instead I have presented straight forward references to show that God's holy, spiritual, laws are fixed in time and eternity. Is it any wonder Daniel predicted that the "little horn" power would think to change God's times and laws. You're just being used as a pawn for the RCC to push their agenda of Sunday sacredness globally. I hope to God for your sake that your eyes will be opened soon enough.

I haven't read so many people arguing for a "CHANGE" of sabbath observation from Saturday to Sunday. What we have consistently been speaking of here is that "the Sabbath Law was NOT made for Christians" - and rather not about what day it should be observed by Christians at all.

And I suppose the disciples and apostles weren't christians, and that they didn't keep the sabbath? I gave you so many obvious and indisputable references that I now am beginning to wonder if you're amnetic. Let me refresh your memory a bit:

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." Acts 17:2.

"Paul and his company , went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down." Acts 13:13, 14.

"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.

The "them" in the phrase ", went in unto them" consisted of jewish and gentile christians. There were no separate places of worship. You should recall that it was Saul the persecutor who hauled some of those same christians from the temples before his conversion. The Greeks mentioned above were not jewish so what would they be found doing in a jewish place of worship, were it not for the fact that it was their custom as well to celebrate the seventh-day sabbath of rest. Listen:

"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

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

The apostles in the early New Testament church not only obeyed God's Sabbath command, but they also taught the converted Gentiles to worship on Sabbath. Never once do they refer to Sunday as a holy day.

@ Thesilent1

I read your contribution and there are several things you mentioned that I have not come to grips with. You have categorised the plan of salvation into dispensations as it affected different peoples in different times.

I am of the understanding that the "grace of God hath appeared to all men" according to Paul's letter to Titus. Grace and law were and are inseperable sets of principles during the course of history up to the very present. This is really the crux of the matter. Once persons see the connection between sin, law and grace then a large part of the confusion will have evaporated.

Before sin manifested there was no need for grace, but sin could not have been defined without the principle of the  law as Paul rightly teaches in Romans 7:7,  What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

How different was Paul from Adam and Eve in terms of being saved from sin through grace? No one is different as far as being saved from sin is concerned. So, patriarchs, jews, christians, or whoever have all sinned and come short of God's glory, and all were subject to only one brand of salvation through God's grace.

The OT doesn't say much about the moral law as it existed in principle before sin manifested, and not much was said about it either during the period of the patriarchs, except of course up to the time when Moses recieved it on Mount Sinai. Hence persons assume that there could not have been a law per se, but in reality and for all practical purposes there had to be a set of principles that would define for both Adam and Eve, and all the others who came after them, as to what constituted sin. Sin does not operate in a vacuum, and can only be committed when another set of principles are trangressed. For example why would the Genesis account relate Abel's death as the first murder if there were not a principle against taking one's life? So even though the account didn't mention it the 10 commandments in another era did. It defined it in words for the first time.

Sin as far as God was concerned was not a mere picking of the forbidden fruit. Their act of sin costs the Son of God His life. Their sinning had to do with disobeying a direct command from their Creator. Before Eve could have picked that fruit she had to think about the reasons Satan gave her for wanting to disobey a direct command. She had to have desired or coveted the forbidden fruit based on the ideas that Lucifer placed in her head. Since the fruit was forbidden her act of picking it made her a thief. She stole what was expressly forbidden. The fact that she placed Lucifer's ideas above God's brings into sharp focus the command of placing another god before the Creator God.  The fact that Adam placed his wife before God made him guilty also of placing another god before the Creator God. And that is why the apostle James reminds us that if we break one we are guilty of all. There is a common thread that runs through the divine law.

Now how does the sabbath come into the picture of all of this? From the very beginning God had sanctified the seventh day after the six days of creation to be a holy day. The word "the" in Genesis 2:3 suggests a specific day, and not just any day. According to the Genesis account God had set apart for holy use the seventh-day sabbath, because that is exactly what the word sanctified means. Now, why would God sanctify a day immediately after creation, and not include Adam and Eve to be apart of that rest, based on what was later said in Exudus 20:8-11 as to why God set aside the day from the first place. Lets see the account:

8 “ Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

Have you noticed the phrase "for in six days, "? This was the reason given why God intends for His people to also rest. In other words God wants us to rest in order to celebrate with Him His act of creating. Each time His people rest, including peoples from all dispensations, in accordance with His request, we commemorate His act of Creatorship, and pay Him due recognition. Adam and Eve were the progenitors of all races. They began mankind and all those who follow them are called mankind.

Jesus comes along in the NT and tries to redefine the true purpose of the sabbath, and made a profound statement like this,

"the sabbath was made for man"

You and I kow that the word "man" is used generically to mean mankind which includes not just males, but females.

Now why would anyone limit that word mankind to the jews? Why would God from before sin manifested itself, institute the sabbath, and set it aside as a holy day, and then wait for almost 3000 years after creation to specifically hand it to a bunch of hebrews in order for them to define its purpose, and to live out those purposes?  Why the hebrews? Could it be that through the hebrews God would re-inact its true purpose that was intended for all mankind, and that by entrusting them with His divine oracles they in turn would evangelise the pagan world who had lost all sight of a Creator-God? Is there a relationship betwen the creatorship of God and the sabbath?

To argue that Christ came to abolish the creation sabbath, as opposed to the other ceremonial sabbaths, and to establish another day to commemorate His resurrection is also vain and pointless. There has never been a commansd to celebrate His resurrection by utilising Sunday, nor has there ever been a command from Christ or His disciples to nullify His holy day. I challenge any one to honestly reveal one text that points to a change from sabbath to Sunday. Not one of the eight NT references to the 1st day of the week have  given any such command to keep that day in celebrating the resurrection.

My detractors know it, but are too afraid to confess it. Either that or they are still in darkness.

Sabbatarians should realize that there are NO EXEMPTIONS NOR EXCUSES in the Sabbath Law;
therefore they should not cheat on this, but STRICTLY observe the law of the Sabbath according
to the STIPULATIONS outlined in Scripture.

The apostle James says if you break one you're guilty of all. Every true christian should be concerned about all 10 of God's holy precepts, and should strive to be obedient to all of them.

You're making out the Lord's day of rest to be a burden largely due to your misunderstanding of its context and application, by stressing stipulations that were fitting for the time in which those stipulations were given. Any reasonable thinker should know by now that not every sabbath stipulation that was designed for a particular situation can still be expected to apply now.

SDAs don't need to make excuses for seeing the real purpose of the sabbath, of which purpose you have not been able to fully grasp based on your view of why God instituted the sabbath from the very beginning. The scriptures have made it abundantly clear as to God's purpose and plan for the divine institution. Whatever importance is applied to the marriage institution would obviously apply to the sabbath since both are edenic.

I am satisfied with what Jesus said and not you. His voice alone merits my attention, not yours. If He said that the sabbath was made for mankind, then we as SDAs are included in that plan and purpose. It would be nice if you could open your eyes to such glorious truth, but alas your choice is yours to make.

"Whoever says, 'I have come to know him,' but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist; but whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says, 'I abide in him,' ought to walk just as he walked" (1 John 2:4-6).

"Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19).

Cheers!

Many Sunday observers argue that the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week dates back to Jesus and His apostles. They assert that Sunday observance replaced the seventh-day Sabbath for most Christians as early as the first century A.D. and became a fixed custom by the mid-second century. Therefore, they urge that all Christians today should regard the seventh-day Sabbath as a Jewish institution that should not be observed. Since Sunday was the first day of creation week (Gen. 1:5) and the day on which Christ rose from the dead (Matt. 28:1-10; Mark 16:1-9), it should be observed as a day of Christian worship and rejoicing in accordance with the custom of the early Christian fathers. In fact, Sunday keepers argue that observance of the seventh-day Sabbath is a highly legalistic custom that is thoroughly consistent with those Jewish ceremonial practices abolished when Jesus died on the cross.

This theory raises a whole series of questions in regard to the teaching of the New Testament and the testimony of history. Did Jesus change the day from the seventh to the first day of the week? Did the apostles urge that Sunday be observed as a memorial of the resurrection of Christ? Did they themselves observe Sunday as a special day of worship? Was first-day worship a substitute for Sabbath worship for most Christians as early as the second century A.D.? Was the Sabbath regarded by early Christians as a purely Jewish institution with no significance for followers of Christ? What does history have to teach us regarding the reason for the change of the day from the seventh to the first day of the week? These questions are vital for Christians today! If it happens to be unscriptural and unhistorical that Sunday observance was initiated by Christ and the apostles, those who argue so strenuously for it today are supporting a non-Christian practice. If Jesus and the apostles observed the seventh-day Sabbath, and Sunday keeping crept into the Christian Church over a period of centuries as pagan ideas and practices became more and more acceptable, those who reject the Sabbath today are spurning one of Christ's commandments and are, therefore, in grave danger of being rejected by God.

To be a Christian is to believe and act as Jesus did (John 14:15; Rev. 3:21; 12:17; 14:12). To profess faith in Christ while rejecting aspects of His teaching and refusing to live and worship as He instructed is to be guilty of serious sin. "Whoever says, 'I have come to know him,' but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist; but whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says, 'I abide in him,' ought to walk just as he walked" (1 John 2:4-6).

We will begin with the Scriptures and then turn to history for the answers to the questions we are asking. A much more complete discussion of the Sabbath-Sunday question can be found in the book edited by Kenneth A. Strand, The Sabbath in Scripture and History (Washington, DC.: Review and Herald, 1982).



DID JESUS AND THE APOSTLES CHANGE THE DAY OF WORSHIP FROM THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH TO SUNDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK?

The word Sunday or Saturday are not found in the Bible. In the New Testament the first day of the week is mentioned eight times. In none of the eight instances is the first day said to be a day of worship, never is it said to be the Christian substitute for the Old Testament Sabbath, and never do the texts suggest that the first day of the week should be regarded as a memorial of Christ's resurrection. Let us briefly consider each of the eight New Testament passages that mention the first day of the week.

Matthew 28:1, "After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake. . . ." Jesus was crucified on Friday. He rested in the tomb over the Sabbath and rose early on Sunday morning. The verse indicates that the women disciples returned to the tomb at the very first opportunity after the death and burial of Jesus. Because the Sabbath came so soon after His burial, they could not approach the tomb again until after sundown on Sabbath evening. (The Sabbath began at sundown on the sixth day and ended at sundown on the seventh day; compare Lev. 23:32; Neh. 13:19; Mark 1:21, 32) Early Sunday morning was the most convenient time for them to visit the tomb.

Mark 16:1, 2, "When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb." Mark records the same events as Matthew with the additional information that the women visited the tomb early on the Sunday morning for the express purpose of anointing Jesus' body with spices.

Mark 16:9, "Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons." This verse simply records that, after His resurrection early on the Sunday morning, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.

Luke 23:54 ­ 24:1, "It [the day of Jesus' death and burial] was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning. The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment. But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared."

The Sabbath came a few hours after Jesus' death on the cross. The women disciples "rested the sabbath day according to the commandment" (Luke 23:56, KJV). Then very early in the morning of the first day they visited the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus. The fact that they observed the Sabbath rest is sufficient indication that Jesus had never attempted to change the day or to suggest that after His death the first day would replace the Sabbath. Writing years after the event, Luke gave not the slightest hint that, even though the women disciples of Jesus observed the Sabbath, such a practice was no longer expected of Christians. He simply recorded that the Sabbath day "according to the commandment," which Jesus' followers were careful to observe, was the day after the crucifixion day (Friday), and before the resurrection day (Sunday).

John 20:1, "Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb." Mary Magdalene visited the tomb early the first day of the week. Nothing is said of Sunday as a day of worship or rest.

John 20:19, "When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you.'"

On the evening of the first day of the week the disciples were assembled behind locked doors "for fear of the Jews." Jesus appeared to them at that time. The passage does not say that henceforth Sunday was to be the day for worship. Since it was the evening of the first day of the week that Jesus appeared to the disciples, it was after sundown. According to Jewish reckoning this was actually the beginning of the second day (Monday; compare Gen. 1:5, . A week later when Thomas happened to be present, Jesus met with the disciples again (verse 26). But, writing years later, John records nothing regarding Sunday as a day of Christian worship. John's narrative gives no warrant for regarding Sunday as a substitute for the Sabbath or as a day to be distinguished by Christians above any other day of the week. And there is no indication in the passage that Sunday should henceforth be observed as a memorial of Christ's resurrection.

Acts 20:7, "On the first day of the week, when we met to break bread, Paul was holding a discussion with them; since he intended to leave the next day, he continued speaking until midnight."

Since the meeting was held at night on the first day of the week, it may have been Saturday night. According to Jewish reckoning, the Sabbath ended and the first day of the week began at sundown of the seventh day. If it were Sunday evening, the event gives no suggestion that Sunday should be observed as a day of worship. The following verses record that Paul preached a sermon on Thursday. The next day after the meeting recorded in Acts 20:7 (Monday), Paul and his party set sail for Mitylene (Acts 20:13, 14). The following day (Tuesday) they arrived opposite Chios (verse 15). The next day (Wednesday) they passed Samos (verse 15), and the day after that (Thursday) they arrived at Miletus (verse 15). The elders of the church of Ephesus met Paul at Miletus, and he preached to them (Acts 20:16-36). Because a Christian service was held on Thursday, do we conclude that Thursday is a day for regular Christian worship replacing the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath? A religious service on Sunday, Thursday, or any other day certainly did not make that day a replacement for the seventh-day Sabbath or a day of regular Christian worship and rest. There is no special significance in the disciples breaking bread at this first-day meeting, for they broke bread "daily" (Acts 2:46). We are not told that it was a Lord's Supper celebration, nor are we told that henceforth Sunday should be the day for this service to be conducted. To read Sunday sacredness or Sunday observance into Acts 20:7 is to do violence to the text.

1 Corinthians 16:1, 2, "Now concerning the collection for the saints: you should follow the directions I gave the churches of Galatia. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put aside and save whatever extra you earn, so that collections need not be taken when I come. And when I arrive, I will send any whom you approve with letters to take your gift to Jerusalem."

These verses may be literally translated from the Greek as follows: "And concerning the collection for the saints, as I instructed the churches of Galatia, so also you do. On the first day of the week let each of you place (or 'lay') by himself, storing up whatever he might be prospered, so that when I come there might be no collections." (Italics supplied.) The phrase "by himself" (par' heauto), followed by the participle "storing up" or "saving" (thesaupizon), rules out the possibility that this is a reference to an offering taken up in a worship service. The Christian believer was to check his accounts on Sunday and put by at home the money that he wished to give to Paul for the support of the church. When Paul arrived, then the offerings of each individual would be collected.

None of these eight New Testament references to the first day of the week (Sunday), provides any evidence that Jesus or His disciples changed the day of worship from the seventh to the first day. Nor is the first day of the week represented as a time to memorialize the resurrection of Christ. Whatever special significance was given to Sunday in the later history of the church, it had no basis in the teaching or practice of Jesus and His apostles.

As pointed out in the previous chapter, Jesus instructed His disciples to observe the Sabbath after His death (Matt. 24:20). Jesus' instruction was incorporated into His interpretation of Daniel 8 (compare Matthew 24:15 ff.). Daniel predicted that the work of the little horn power would continue until the setting up of God's kingdom (Dan. 8:25). Hence, Jesus' instruction to flee from the little horn power was not confined to Christians at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). Toward the end of time, during the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21, of which earlier tribulations were a type or preview, God's people will be obliged to flee again. Jesus' instruction that we pray that our flight will not be on the Sabbath day emphasizes His will that we engage in only those activities on the Sabbath that are consistent with worship and spiritual rest.

The record of the book of Acts (chapters 13, 16­,18) establishes that the apostles consistently kept the Sabbath day as a time for worship and fellowship. This observance was not merely a means of meeting the Jews in the synagogue on their Sabbath day. In Philippi, Paul and his companions met for worship by the riverside. Luke says, "On the sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed [or "thought" or "assumed" : Greek nomizo] there was a place for prayer. . . ." (Acts 16:13). The apostles selected a place by the river that they thought would be appropriate for their Sabbath worship service, and there they prayed and witnessed for their Lord.

Jesus and the apostles kept the seventh-day Sabbath and instructed others to do likewise.

DID THE APOSTLE PAUL REJECT THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH?
Despite the evidence that Jesus kept the Sabbath (Luke 4:16) and encouraged His followers to do the same (Matt. 24:20), and despite the evidence that Paul customarily observed the Sabbath (Acts 13, 16, 17, 18), some Bible students focus on certain passages in Paul's writings as supposed evidence that he sought to do away with the seventh-day Sabbath. The two passages that are usually presented are Romans 14:5, 6 and Colossians 2:13-17.

The Romans passage in context reads as follows:

"Welcome those who are weak in faith, but not for the purpose of quarreling over opinions. 2. Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables. 3. Those who eat must not despise those who abstain, and those who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat; for God has welcomed them. 4. Who are you to pass judgment on servants of another? It is before their own lord that they stand or fall. And they will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make them stand. 5. Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds. 6. Those who observe the day, observe it in honor of the Lord. Also those who eat, eat in honor of the Lord, since they give thanks to God; while those who abstain, abstain in honor of the Lord and give thanks to God" (Rom. 14:1-6).

The above reference isn't suggesting that the importance that God placed on the seventh-day sabbath be lessened in any manner, because in truth and reality it had nothing to do with the seventh-day sabbath that is found in God's ten commandments. The above reference had to do with the jewish festival days that were themselves different types of sabbaths. It was these days that jewish christians argued about as to which one of those days carried more significance, even though they were more or less shadows, or types of the kind of ministry of Christ. Like the rite of circumcision, these sabbaths were still being pushed as being significant by overzealous jewish christians as opposed to the gentile christians whom they saught to influence.

The truth is the observance of sunday crept in christian circles because of the overriding pagan practises. The Sun god was honored on the first day of the week, and that day was dedicated by the Roman pagans. When Constantine the pagan sought political power his strategy during the 4th century was to win the hearts of everyone including christians. What better way to unite the fragile state of Rome than to marry paganism with christianity. Smart politician wasn't he?

Constantine eventually regulated in 321 AD that no work should be done on Sunday, except work involving those of the farmers and agriculturists.

We now summarize this article by reiterating that Jesus and the apostles observed the seventh-day Sabbath. There is no evidence in the New Testament for Sunday as a day of rest and worship. The New Testament nowhere invites or instructs Christians to observe Sunday as a memorial of Christ's resurrection. The apostle Paul did not attempt to abolish the seventh-day Sabbath. He consistently observed it. The Sabbath was neglected and depreciated in second-century Rome and Alexandria. Sabbath observance was progressively replaced by Sunday observance in the centuries that followed. But time and tradition to not abolish the law of God. Jesus said, "Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:19).

Purpose of God's commands
God's Word tells us that His commandments are never burdensome (1John 5:3). They are not meaningless or arbitrary. They were given to humanity in love from a God of infinite wisdom and knowledge (Isaiah 55:8,9). They were given to be a benefit to mankind, bringing blessings when obeyed (Deuteronomy 4:40; 5:29,33). These commandments include God's Sabbath. It is a day of rest and refreshing, given to man by the One who designed and created mankind. It is a time for physical, emotional and spiritual renewal.

God knew that we would need this time to nurture and strengthen a right relationship with Him. Part of the Sabbath command reads, "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, " God tells us to take care of our ordinary work and concerns on the other six days, leaving our time and our minds free to properly worship and obey Him by observing the Sabbath. When we are free to focus our minds and thoughts on God's way and purpose, the Sabbath truly becomes the blessing and delight God intends it to be (Isaiah 58:13,14).

On this seventh day of each week, we should cease from our own work and allow God to work in us, building and nourishing our relationship with our Creator.

Jesus
"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

Jesus
"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthew 19:16-17

Jesus
"But pray ye that your flight be not in winter, neither on the Sabbath day." Matthew 24:20.
Jesus asked his disciples to pray that in the flight from the doomed city of Jerusalem they would not have to flee on the Sabbath day. This flight took place in 70 A.D. (40 years after the Cross).

His Followers
"And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Luke 23:56

Paul
"And Paul, as his manner was went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures" Acts 17:2

Paul And Gentiles
"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 came almost the whole city together to hear the Word of God." Acts 13:42, 44.

Here we find Gentiles in a Gentile city gathering on the Sabbath. It was not a synagogue meeting in verse 44, for it says almost the whole city came together, verse 42 says they asked to hear the message the "next Sabbath."

John
"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." Rev. 1:10 (Mark 2:28, Isa.58:13, Ex.20:10, Clearly show the Sabbath to be the Lord's day).

Josephus
"There is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the Barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day hath not come!" M'Clatchie, "Notes and Queries on China and Japan" (edited by Dennys), Vol 4, Nos 7, 8, p.100.

Philo
Declares the seventh day to be a festival, not of this or of that city, but of the universe. M'Clatchie, "Notes and Queries," Vol. 4, 99

The early christians according to historical writers showed that the sabbath was kept until the time before the decree against it, by the Roman authorities. The question is if Jesus or His disciples had given a command to cease from keeping that institution, then why would early christians after the death of Christ continue to keep it?

@ Stimulus

The statement was made by you - so you should be in a better position than anyone else to understand your own context and then offer comments - which you have.

I didn't check the link so I would not have known I made that statement, but in any case it was made within context. I need not go over what was already discussed and explained by me.

However, if you go back to the Law of the Sabbath, there was no provision made at all for any kind of work. As we have seen, the Bible clearly says that "no manner of work" should be done on the sabbath (with the possible exception of what every man may eat on that very day - "that only may be done of you", Exo. 12:16).

I need not go back to the law of the sabbath to fully explain in what context that law was given, unless of course you can explain why God would deliberately give a sabbath that was meant to be difficult to keep, rather than being a blessing as it was intended from day one. Thats yours to explain.

God designed that its observance should designate them as His worshipers. It was to be a token of their separation from idolatry, and their connection with the true God. But in order to keep the Sabbath holy, men must themselves be holy. Through faith they must become partakers of the righteousness of Christ. When the command was given to Israel, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy," the Lord said also to them, "Ye shall be holy men unto Me." Ex. 20:8; 22:31. Only thus could the Sabbath distinguish Israel as the worshipers of God.

Its easy for anyone to quote the law of the sabbath, with a pharasaical intention, but quite another thing to understand the context in which true sabbath keeping lines up with its objective.

Going to work as a professional in healthcare is directly contravening the Law of the Sabbath, even if excuses are often made around this under the guise of "doing good". Jesus only exposed their own hypocrisy, rather than make any reference to any stipulations for the law of the Sabbath to work as a professional!

I don't believe so! Jesus kept the sabbath and He did good on the sabbath. He healed the sick on the sabbath, but not once did He fail to show by example how the true purpose of the sabbath was to be fulfilled. He said it was lawful to do good on the sabbath, meaning that the sabbath still had its purpose and that apart from worshiping and resting on that day in question, one could still reflect that purpose in doing good, even if it means expending some degree of energy.

What would we attempt to prove by closing our hospitals on the sabbath? What would a SDA doctor prove if he didn't attend to a sick person while in church service, if such a person became ill? What if such a doctor had to take that sick individual to a hospital, and would it make a difference if we used our own hospital?

There are other professional careers that 4get_me has highlighted as well:

1. NEPA (PHCN) staff

2. transport workers

3. Police

4. Television and Radio staff

5. Airport Authorities

6. Stock Exchange Traders

7. Newspaper agencies. . . etc.

We have SDAs working in these areas but normally they are given exemption from working during sabbath hours.

Where do you fit in these "professionals" if you can afford to find a leeway for your own health/medical professionals? Now remember that whatever excuse one may give (such as the one you offered), these would still fall under the "making and earning a living" activity - they are working for their pockets, whether professionals doing good or not! Whereas the Law says that no manner of work was to be done on the sabbath!

Its not as difficult as you're making it out to be. SDAs are taught right from wrong. If one finds himself in a career that forces him to have to choose between being obedient to God or man, then its time to go find another profession or job. SDAs have a choice like anyone else. If some fail to obey God rather than man then its up to them and their God.

In the first place, the SDA is not God; and if they've been using the Sabbath as a cover for their wrong teaching, we can challenge that.

I wonder who instituted the sabbath, God or the SDA church? Just listen to yourself how ridiculous you can get. Besides, you dare not challenge God's truth for it always wins, but you're welcome to try but bear in mind you will fail.

I came with an open mind to the Scriptures - but an alert mind against the SDA biases, thank you. If you were to drop your own biases, you would long have answered bari_kade's questions and not rather have evaded them with the same accusation you whipping up here.

I am not that easily fooled. Neither you nor barikade have defended yourself in a manner thats worth it. Rather than insult I'd prefer if you show humility and a contrite heart, and only then will you begin to learn truth from error. A proud heart has no space for knowledge of God's truth for this time.

You would only wish my points were futile; but be that as you may, the fact that the SDA has failed to follow the stipulations of the Sabbath Law makes their noise in this regard an exercise in futility.

Of course your understanding of those stipulations, and the context in which they were given is yet to be demonstrated. Merely quoting some text from the OT in order to escape the larger reality of sabbath truth, won't help neither in the short or long term. You have a lot to learn, but mark my words you will one way or the other.

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 03:44:43 PM
What about the sin of adultery, bestiality, homosexuality? Are those laws still applcable today? Things and times have changed haven't they?

A clever way to circumvent why the SDA has tried to conveniently "change" the stipulations of the Sabbath Law? The point is simple: the Sabbath Law was not made for Christians.

But you still haven't answered the question about how God is dealing with adultery and homosexuality today have you? In the OT the sin of adultery, bestiality, homosexuality, and sabbath breaking were all punishable by death. The fact that God isn't striking down anyone dead in this day and age should tell you something, shouldn't it?

God never gave the laws to become a shackle, but a guide. The ones who were stoned back then knew better but rebelled anyway, and any open rebellion back then left unchecked in that particular circumstance would have led to more rebellion. The last thing on God's mind was to kill or destroy His people, but sin had to be kept in check.

The stipulated laws with their attending death penalties only became a problem to a set of spiritually immature stiff-necked people. Those who are obedient don't see them that way just as how SDAs don't see the sabbath as a shackle. We rejoice in the freedom that Christ has brought in helping us to understand the true purpose and blessing that God intended for the sabbath, and those who keep it respectively.

Interesting piece of video indeed!

The strange thing though is that Islam will have to bow under the Anti-Christ system, although it doesn't seem possible now. How it does look is that the peoples of Islam will stop at nothing to see the whole world becoming Moslems.

So we are subject to a lot of information out there that can be overwhelmingly confusing. And it all appears to be true to some, or for now the majority from both the Moslems and the christians.

The video brought out a point about the Moslems believing that the anti-Christ will lead the jews and christians alike. In a sense that is true. In actual fact the true anti-christ will come from the realms of christianity, or what we call christianity. Unfortunately what we percieve christianity to be today is a far cry from what Christ intended for it to become. I know I will be taken to task for saying that, but so be it.

Listen to what the bible says about the influence of the anti-christ:

Revelation 13:3,4, And all the world marveled and followed the beast. 4 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?”

There is no question. It says the whole world will be led by the system and I dare say that will include Moslems as well. Whether or not they are inclined to accept it is quite another story, and time as well as history has already shown that the bible can be trusted on this matter.

But the crucial matter is how to define and reveal the true anti-christ. This is where Satan tries to ubscure the truth. He sends out his false prophets to decieve the masses.

The common bond that will unite the world under the system, excepting of course the true believers, would be the mark. Once again there are confusing teachings concerning the mark because in truth and in fact if one doesn't know how to identify the beast, or anti-christ, then how would one be able to identify the mark?   One must precede the other for all logical purposes.

Only history can confirm prophecy. Two major prophets have spoken of an end-time anti-christ at length, and these are:

a) Daniel

b) John

Daniel spoke about the anti-christ from the perspective of world kingdoms. In chapter 2 he introduces 4 kingdoms including Babylon, being the first, which would have been followed by three others in the order that history has revealed them.

In Daniel 7 he does the same thing using animals as symbols, but this time he goes into more details about the 4th kingdom, and a power(;ittle horn power) that would arise from the 4th kingdom. It is this power that we need to identify carefully, because if we don't we would have made the gravest mistake in our lifetime.

So in essence Daniel saw the kingdoms in this order:

1. Babylon (605 BC - 539BC)

2. Media-Persian (twin kingdom) but mostly called Persia being the dominant of the two. (539BC- 331 BC)

3. Greece (331 BC - 168 BC)

4. Rome ( 168BC - 476 AD)

What came after Rome or the 4th kingdom had Daniel very concerned and this is how he described it, 7 “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, exceedingly strong. It had huge iron teeth; it was devouring, breaking in pieces, and trampling the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. 8 I[b] was considering the horns, and there was another horn, a little one, coming up among them[/b], before whom three of the first horns were plucked out by the roots. And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words.

In Daniel 2 the four metals represented 4 kingdoms, while the 10 toes represented the broken fragments of Rome which we call europe today. In Daniel 7, three known animals and one un-identified creature represented the same world kingdoms. The un-identified creature had 10 horns which also represented the 10 smaller kingdoms or states that would come after Rome's demise.

Notice something else. Daniel spoke of another 11th horn, that had a mouth and eyes of a man, "And there, in this horn, were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking pompous words."

Daniel continued, 19 “Then I wished to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its nails of bronze, which devoured, broke in pieces, and trampled the residue with its feet; 20 and the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up, before which three fell, namely, that horn which had eyes and a mouth which spoke pompous words, whose appearance was greater than his fellows."

The angel explains the vision to Daniel, "The fourth beast shall be  A fourth kingdom on earth, Which shall be different from all other kingdoms,  And shall devour the whole earth,  Trample it and break it in pieces. 24 The ten horns are ten kings Who shall arise from this kingdom.  And another shall rise after them; He shall be different from the first ones, And shall subdue three kings. 25 He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, Shall persecute the saints of the Most High, And shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand For a time and times and half a time.

So this is it. Clear as crystal. The 11th horn power that came from the 4th beast, and that grew up among the 10 horns, or european kingdoms, would uproot three kingdoms and persecute God's people, and think to change, or attempt to change God's set times and laws.

History has made it abundantly clear who and what this 11th horn power is. Ever wondered why the Roman catholic organization has attached the word Roman to its name. Ever wondered when the Roman pontifs came off the scene after rome's demise who ruled europe? This little horn, as we shall have occasion to notice more fully hereafter, was the papacy. The three horns plucked up by the roots represented the Heruli, the Ostrogoths, and the Vandals. The reason for their removal was their opposition to the teachings and claims of the papal hierarchy.

Daniel beheld this power making war upon the saints. Has such a war been waged by the papacy? Millions of martyrs answer, Yes. Witness the cruel persecutions of the Waldenses, the Albigenses, and Protestants in general, by the papal power.

Likewise three arian powers or nations that upheld such teachings were completely anhilated from the map. No where are they to be found. The papacy ensured under the leadership of the pope that anyone teaching anything other than what the church stood for would be crushed.

I don't desire to take up too much time going into details, but one thing is sure all signs are pointing to the RCC as the "little horn power" History cannot lie. Today we see how the RCC is conducting its business. Its false and pagan teachings are fying in the faces of the truth of the bible, and God's true and chosen have a duty to call attention to such abominations and blasphemies.

While we do not condemn christians who gather in her midst we must condemn its teachings, and call out God's people from among them. The heed to come out of spiritual babylon is very much alive today as when it was first announced.