₦airaland Forum

@TV01,

TV01:
I am not linking giving to salvation. But as I have repeatedly said God blessing, like God saving is not predicated on anything man does.

In Scripture, the two concepts - God's salvation and man's giving - are not connected by that kind of analogy. God's grace to save us is not predicated on anything man does; but His blessing in finances is certainly a matter of how man responds in his giving to Him.

TV01:
Yes, I believe God can and does bless when believers give, but you don't have to give in order to be blessed, and if you are blessed because you give, it doesn't have to be in kind, multiples or here and now.

The idea that "you don't have to give in order to be blessed" is, unfortunately, not what Scripture teaches (at least, not what I read in Scripture, rather). Now, so that I don't act presumptously, may I ask that you help me offer biblcal texts for your persuasion as highlighted in the quote above.


Thanks.

Hi @chatykrew,

chatykrew:
My answer is simply Gal 5:16 - Walking in the Spirit by faith, He (the Spirit) - who spoke through Jesus Christ that sining against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven - will keep all those that are sealed with Him for the day of redemption  from sining against him.

If you go by what Jesus Christ Himself stated, you'll find that sinning against the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as blaspheming against the Holy Spirit - they are two different things; and that is what bari_kade has repeatedly been calling attention to!

Jesus did not say that anyone who sins against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. He did not state it so. Please read Mark 3:29 again: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation."

Believers are capable of grieving the Holy Spirit when they do not yield to His leading (Eph. 4:30); and believers sometimes find themselves falling into several of the sins outlined in Gal. 5:16-21. But are they all the same thing as BLASPHEMING the Holy Ghost?

I think many people often miss the point by confusing this issue - and that is why the restlessness in many hearts. I'm certainly not advocating that we should sin against the Holy Spirit merely because sinning is distinct from blaspheming. I'm certainly not making any excuses for any sin at all. But confusing this issue is getting us nowhere.

Good people, make unu hear the Word: if you're a believer, rest your heart on His precious promise - for Jude 1:24 says that He "is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy"!

TV01,

TV01:
Could I refer you to the post immediatey after yours (by D.baddie). That gives what I feel is a very true, quite concise picture of "God in Christ-centric" giving.

In which case you both got it wrong. Please refer to my concerns in my rejoinder to his post. "God in Christ-centric" giving is not a question of effecting my salvation (sovereignly accomplished by Christ alone) by my giving (which is my response in worship).

TV01:
God's blessing is not predicated on anything man does, neither does it require man to do anything. That is not to say that God cannot or does not bless giving. But even this is not necessarily in kind, in multiples and on demand, It is in a manner, time and place of God's choosing.

You haven't said anything fresh or otherwise from what drew my question to what you stated earlier:

to always believe that giving engenders a multiplied return in kind. It is simply not bourne out by scripture or practice.

The fact is quite the opposite of your persuasion. Please go through the various relevant verses again and see if you're not mistaken. Is it true that man doesn't have to do anything in order for God to bless him financially - as far as giving is concerned?

TV01:
I am in no way disavowing God's blessing givers, my point is to highlight what I see as an unscriptural and unhealthy error (man-centric) preached in some circles, that God is somehow bound to bless in kind in multiples and in this age to mans giving. That notion reduces giving to a ritual or a work. It's why religionists love the notion of a tithe (be that mandatory or more subtlely by ascribing benefits to the act).

I think most readers would agree with me that you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you clearly stated that giving for multiplied return is "simply not bourne out by scripture or practice." Then again you're stating that in no way are you disavowing the very same thing that Scripture bears out! Let me simplify it:

    (a) does Scripture teach that giving does not produce any blessing in return?

    (b) does Scripture teach that giving produces a blessing in return (multiplied or however)?

In other words, you're saying yes to two contrasting positions:

            yes to (a) - Scripture says NO

            yes to (b) - Scripture says YES

See, TV01, before you go off about what men teach in any circle at all, could I ask that you focus on what you read in Scripture? I think that default position of quickly interpreting this subject with ideas that it is mandatory might be the reason why you seem to be contradicting your position.

Again, I may be reading you wrongly; but I'd appreciate a simply outline on the present concern.

Thanks.

@D.baddie,

[quote author=D.baddie link=topic=272.msg1205369#msg1205369 date=1181905020]c'mon, my salvation's been paid for![/quote]I don't think anyone's making the inference that tithing or any other type of giving secures salvation. That kind of reasoning is a deflection to the simple question of whether or not one tithes or gives; and I'm glad that Hnd-holder has stated the question again to you in simple terms.

Horus:
Where is the Racism here??
Talking about color is racism??

Try not pretending that your racism can be washed by that one line earlier quoted. Your racism runs thick in the body of your inputs and the other articles you reposted from the racist websites from where you fetched them. It's even worse to pretend innocence for what you very well know you've done.

Horus:
NOBODY is "black" or "white",we use this words because people have been programed by the dictionary classification,instead of saying Caucasian or Negroid or African,but look at the FACTS:did you ever see someone with skin like the WHITE SNOW
Where is the racist hate in this statement??

If you knew that nobody was white or black, there was no need to have used such terms in speaking of anyone. Such idiosyncrasies further accentuate the pretended "FACT" of your ignorance, whether or not people are programmed one way or the other.

Get done with racism - it will make you a slave older than the 500 years if you continue that ignorance.

Horus:
NOBODY IS WHITE AS SNOW.The Caucasian have a pinky skin Not White as SNOW
Just look at the FACTS not the words.

Another apology from your embarrassing "FACTS" now, not so? If you can't get done with racism, your FACTS-now-turned-ignorance will not help your arguments.

You have always spoken of BLACK people as well in derogation of WHITE people - and that's the FACT. If nobody is "black" or "white", your racism is even further embarrassed.

The subscript here is this: asking me to "look at the FACTS and not the words" is the very ingredient that leaves racists as slaves to their own arguments. Get done with it.

Then what exactly are you saying? I've noticed your inclination to disavow the point; but pardon me if I misread you.

Horus:
NOBODY IS BLACK.Melanin is BROWN and go from pale BROWN to dark BROWN.
Just look at the FACTS not the words.

The "FACTS" are now so embarrassing to you that your black has become brown. You didn't remember this FACT of your ignorance when reposting the articles you plagiarized before, not so? Sample them:

"This is why we need to continue our crusade to decolonize the minds of the original genetic template (black people) to see through the nonsense propagated by white people to flatter themselves."

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-54745.96.html#msg1137352

I've given you a simple advice: "get done with racism. It embarrasses your IQ and belittles your existence."

cuju:
DONT EVER make the mistake of not marrying a God fearing man no matter how much in love you think you guys love each other. Marriage is different from courtship.

Courtship is rehearsal. After that phase, reality comes home packaged in marriage; and only then the sugar dissolves.

Wey thesilent1?

Horus:
Theorie is IGNORANCE,i deal with FACTS only.The true Semites or Shemites are of the brown race

Oh, I see. So, your previous "FACTS" were ignorance afterall; and now it is no longer black but brown!     It is this kind of blackbrown racist ideology that would make guys like you slaves to "the leprous cursed seed of Canaan (caucasian)" (as you called them).

Horus, get done with racism. It embarrasses your IQ and belittles your existence. Period.

Al Raheem:
I learned that any tru believer can actually feel free to help God keep his property clean by pickin up all trash around the temple in less than 3min. Instead of waiting on God to blow the wind @ it. Even a passer by should care to do it.

It doesn't have to be around the temple alone. I hope the preacher who told you that was not trying to solicit free labour for his empire!

We should all care for our environment - and that involves and includes every other place as well.

Hi TV01,

TV01:
You are reading "giving & recieving" as between the giver and God. That is at best debatable. It makes at least as much sense to read it as between giver and receiver. That is standard Pentecostal thinking, to always believe that giving engenders a multiplied return in kind. It is simply not bourne out by scripture or practice.

Just curious. Let me ask you this question: are you saying that any and all 'giving' has nothing to do with God blessing the giver in return for his giving?

Horus:
The true Semites or Shemites are of the brown race

So, has it become an issue now of the B.R.O.W.N. race? Whatever happened to your B.L.A.C.K. racist theories?

@Telly B,

Telly B:
Lol. . . I worry for that guy sometimes. He's brilliant IMHO; but perhaps, he might have made nyabinghi wonder about being worked up or developing cold feet!

Okay, I'm sure he was teasing, lol.

You no well! The thing wey dey worry you no get name!



@mrpataks, I just dey kampe!

@redsun,

redsun:
There is no sin,the only sin you have is your conscience,

I hope all's well with you? On the one hand you said there's no sin; and then immediately following that you admit the only sin. Was that supposed to be a manifestation of the dregs that you haven't gotten over yet from the "white-man-this-and-that"?

Dude, make una forget this embarrassing black racist theories. They have never carried us anywhere. God welcomes everyone, irrespective of skin colour; and the sooner we understand that, the better it would be for body and soul.

kissobehi:
Man only lost this gift after his fall. Since then, any extra ordinary problem solved is classified as a "miracle". Is it not trite that Jesus told his followers that even they could do greater works than he?

Greater works than "these" - not greater works than "he" (did).

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father" (John 14:12).

No man can do greater works than what the Lord Jesus Christ accomplished on the Cross; nor can any man compare his work to the High Priestly work Jesus now does.

kissobehi:
He was aware that this element was ingrained in all men and women, but one has to be able to connect to the source from whence it came from. The one who created all things is well aware of the complexities to human comprehension and thus has provided a solution for all problems

How many of such "miracles" or "works" have you done? It is not "ingrained". And if God has not bestowed that gift on anyone, any so-called "ingrained" element is a pretence and a farce.

@bari_kade,
Bo my bros, I appreciate your replies to babs' noise. If I were around when he popped his usual drivel online, I would not have bothered responding; but you did well all the same, especially because in the Muslim mindset a Jew is a Christian.


@oyb,
How bodi? I hope you still dey look for more hints in the encyclopedia to make Jesus a jihadist! And oh, BTW. . . I forgot to remind you: as has already been said, pope Urban was a latecomer by 460 years after the Muslim invasion!!

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
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.

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

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?

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.

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!! 

You're such a laugh! 

babyosisi:
Haven't you heard 9/11 was orchestrated by Christians and Jews?
They'll be pasting it soon,just wait

I know. . . I was only being mischievous to have forgotten that 7/7 in London was actually a Christian thing. The Media (as usual) came up with their propaganda and confused the whole thing to blame it on the wrong people to make it sound like an Islamic problem!

Infact sef, it was Jews who sneaked into northern Nigeria (as they usually do) and caused the several riots that left the blood trails. The reason why Christians in Nigeria did not see this is because al-Taqiyya is again a Christian tenet!

In Spain and Indonesia, the Media was at it again blaming Muslims for certain "Christian" elements who chanted Allahu Akbar as they blew up innocent civilians. Why are we pretending as if these have not been orchestrated by Christians? 

Infact, I'm so sorry to have been pretending that Usama bin Laden was a Muslim. He was actually a Coptic Jew in the Orthodox Church! 

Bottomline - there's no Jihad in the Qur'an. Nothing in that book or even in the Hadiths suggests Jihad. Jihad started when one Quraish-Jew declared that the Torah was lost and the Injil can no longer be found! Or. . . am I still mixing it up? 

br222:
good is always depicted as white and bad as black,

That is a sad recycling of an age-old misconception; and it is not true.

Have you heard of a "white lie"? I tried to make out its meaning and found that in the Azeri language, it means a "blatant lie!"

Have you also heard the expression: "black is beautiful"?

In some instances, you find that 'black' has often been expressive of some very manageable experiences; such as "he just blacked out!" Which would mean that he lost consciousness! _{Ask those who often lose consciousness by trying to pass off misleading info!}

We all know what the expression "black sheep" represents - a person who is a disgrace and an embarrassment to his family or group. Black people who don't like to hear or read it have clamoured for a change in language where black is no longer black.

I wonder what would happen if they heard or read about the expression: "in the black"? I guess they would smile and forget about their quarrels; because that expression describes success! For example, I understand my boss when he says: "Good to know that we're in the black since the beginning of this month!" He's a white man; but he uses that expression to mean that our company has been successful and profitable since the year began! 


But then, there are other colours, too. . . so let's not cheat by narrowing this between black and white people. 

I personally haven't seen a "blue" person; but I think that when you see someone with blue eyes, you just have to appreciate the beauty it depicts in them. Or again, if you're ever called a blue-eyed boy/girl even though your eyes are as black as CAPO paints, then relax: it is only an expression that means you're highly favoured by someone in authority! 

However, if we speak of someone appearing out of the blue, we're in trouble - because that would be quite unexpectedly! 

Let's come back home for a minute and chew on this one: if you get into a brawl, it won't matter the colour of your skin if someone gives you a black eye and leaves you beaten black and blue! Do I have to explain that one? 

On the whole, "Black" and "White" can also be cooperative terms that everyone welcomes; such as when we say: "I want everything in white and black!" That is, I want to see it clearly stated!

See? At least we can appreciate the fact that speaking colourfully can also mean that some would rather see themselves with a feeling of inferiority complex. Let's just put this racist discolouration behind us once and for all! It doesn't matter what colour anyone wants Jesus to be, so long as they don't lose sight of what He came to offer every person regardless of race: SALVATION by grace!!

Me, I be real Black Yoruba man. . . and my favourite food is amala! Don't ask what colour that is - just come home closer and enjoy it with gbegiri! 

twitch:
@bab666

in a medium such as this you cannot thrive with your propaganda,the Host of Zion,will crush you and your serpentine nature.

Was this prophetic?

Bill Gates is a convert to the Black Jesus movement!

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
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.

The apostle James would certainly not have asked Christians to be yoked by the stringent Law of the Sabbath with all of its stipulations and then make room for what you call "exemptions".

Bobbyaf:
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.

My premise is simple enough: you cannot change even one stroke or tittle of the stipulations of the Sabbath Law and regard it as no longer applicable - that would be both hypocritical, scandalous and rebellious. Since you have been arguing for the Sabbath Law, you should aim to keep it in exactly as the Law prescribes; and not re-design it to suit any 21st century whims.

Bobbyaf:
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'm not the one arguing for the Sabbath Law or making excuses for it. Rather, you've severally offered excuses for those 'professionals' who go to work to make money for their pockets under the guise of 'emergent' cases. My reasoning has been consistent from the onset:

1) I warned that it was needless to reharsh a well-rounded debate from another thread since you've been unable to answer the germane questions raised there;

2) If you must argue for the Law of the Sabbath, then you would have to adhere to its stipulations and make no excuses for the convenient and selective practices of the SDA;

3) If you're arguing for a Sabbath Law in Genesis, then provide the verse in Genesis where God gave such a Law to Adam and Eve; for it is indeed senseless to apply the Mosaic Law that was given several centuries later on people that came before that Law;

4) The Sabbath Law was not made for Christians.

Bobbyaf:
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.

It would really be nice for you to open your eyes to the truth that Jesus did not ask the SDA to make exemptions to the Law of the Sabbath. You have been knotting yourself by your contradictions and offering fine sounding cliches to circumvent the stipulations of the same Law you cannot keep and still asking others to keep. Obedience to the Law is on God's prescriptions - not on your terms or that of the SDA.

Bobbyaf:
"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).

I thank God for that verse. And here are a few for those who make excuses and exemptions for the Law they cannot keep:

"But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?. . . Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." (Matt. 15:3 & 6)

"And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." (Mark 7:9)

Bobbyaf:
"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!

For your sake, I hope you see that Matt. 5:19 speaks to your own case? You can keep the Law of the Sabbath if you want to; but if you make exemptions in order to break it in the least, not only do you make yourself 'least' in the Kingdom of heaven, but you also constitute yourself a rebel against that same Law by excusing its prescriptions or stipulations.

Have you not made exemptions in your previous rejoinders in order that ye may keep your SDA tradition?

Regards.

abdulg:
To worship God is for our Benefit OK

Has anyone argued against that?

spike1464:
I have been looking for an exact definition of a Christian for educational purposes

I don't know if there's an "exact" definition of a Christian that suits all denominations. In simple terms, a Christian is one who believes in Jesus Christ and seeks to live by His teachings.

A few helpful verses:

Acts 11:26 - "And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."

Acts 26:28 - "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian."

1 Pet. 4:16 - "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

Sweet.

I've also been helped by the understanding that "repentance is the evidence of a divine relation". If I have a relationship with God by faith in His Son Jesus Christ, I would evidence that relationship by my entire walk and outlook.

@oyb,

oyb:
if you refer back to my post on pope urban, you will realise that christians go to war because ther pope tells them to.

That may well be true in the past; and you should realize that the Pope is neither Allah nor Jesus Christ.

When Muslims go to war in the name of Jihad, they do so believing that they are carrying out a holy war on "infidels" based on Allah's commandment; and not on what some Imam or mullah tells them to do.

If it is a question of interpretations of the holy writs and historical antecedents, there have been misinterpretations on both sides and numerous bloody wars. However, you cannot make a case from the Bible that Jesus Christ was a Jihadist to fit the belligerent and military career of Muhammad who claimed to have received Jihad as a revelation from Allah.

Even Muslims, (in comparing the careers of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad based on Deut. 18:15 & 18 for 'the Prophet'), usually state that Muhammad was a military leader, while Jesus Christ was not!

Take a look at the table of comparison in the following link, where Muhammad is clearly said to have gone after his enemies in hot pursuit with battles; while Jesus Christ did no such:


2. A Prophet Like Moses

Encounters with enemies:

Moses - Hot Pursuit

Muhammad - Hot pursuit w/ battles

Jesus  - n/a

Source: http://www.bilderberg.org/crusade/Islam.htm

No matter how you argue this topic, you can't evade the fact that Muhammad was a warmonger who predicated paradise on warfare for Muslims.

oyb:
if you are honest , you will realise hat one of the differences between christains and muslims is that when a christian asks a question on the religion thread, he/she discusses with her fellow christians.

And what is wrong with that? Have Muslims not discussed questions between themselves? Or, have they suddenly developed a phobia for talking to people who don't wear a hijab?

oyb:
when a muslim asks a question, people like you jump in and commence your usual game(ridicule).thats what cristians do.

By lumping up every Christian that way, you've displayed your seething bias and prejudice. The same arguments applies to your Muslim apologists who have jumped into threads and sought to ridicule Christianity. Go ask babs787 who has a second-to-none reputation for that on this Forum. He often advanced the excuse that he was only 'retaliating' until he was exposed for who he really was - his "tit-for-tat" games could not compare with his infelicity of referring to your own Muslim translators as "deluded authors that lied in order to deceive"!! I haven't seen any Muslim reaction to that on this Forum, other than the joke you guys often come with as highlighted in your quote above.

oyb:
i wonder who taught you that, since your savior did not advocate ridicule of other faiths.(unless its in parables).then again, you're probably as much a christian as all thos eother(who need be mentioned) sinners whose scandals make headlines.

When Muslims have had no answers to questions asked, they predictably read such questions as "ridiculing" Islam. Thanks to Islam, the scandals of terrorism have not once ceased, even for a day to make headlines since 9/11. And if you really want to see how much has made headlines from your jihad recently, please visit this link (borrowed from another thread):

               http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

I guess the world should be worried as to why Christians have not equalled such Islamic terrorism as a daily event, NO?

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
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).

You do realize you really have no answers for this debate. Next time, be so kind as to leave us the link for the materials you plagiarize from other sources, as it is far more dignified to do so:

http://www.sabbathfellowship.org/biblestudies/erwingane/biblestudy_gane_sabbathchng.htm

That said, the argument above was simply wafted from the typical perspective of seventh-day adventists/sabbath group (www.sabbathfellowship.org), and I would have no problem with that.

The only thing seventh-day adventists and sabbatarians miss out is a huge one, and that is this:

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.

If sabbatarians bend the Law of the Sabbath to accommodate their "exemptions" and excuses, they should realize they are effectively REBELLING against that Law.

firstborn:
So no race or colour or creed shld say that He is "theirs".

Amen!

The sad thing to note is that the push for a "black jesus" has not even cured the 500-year-old malady of those who worry about that shadowy figure!

The Lord Jesus Christ loves everyone - Black, White, Pink, Yellow. . . or whatever else there may be!

I no fit laugh finish! Has the racist virus migrated here too?

@thesilent1,

thesilent1:
music to my ears.

the jewish/ christian thing has caused so much confusion and for me this is the BIGGEST bone i have to pick.

Lol, good for you! As for me, I'm still grappling with several other bones in my throat; and by the grace of God, I no go swallow them!!

@lafile,

lafile:
thot bari kade concluded this topic ages ago, any way no harm in lecturing some new members

I tire O!  Several time I hinted this to our friend Bobbyaf, but the bobo no gree see the deal. Several times I went back to that thread and humbly thanked God for such wisdom and insight in how bari_kade handled the subject.

lafile:
@stimulus, where u been?

I just dey around - misbehaving as usual!