Keeping the Sabbath Day Holy

[james2ko]

In the OT the Sabbath was Saturday, in the NT it was Sunday, correct?

The Sabbath or Seventh Day has always been and continues to be Saturday (Fri sunset--Sat sunset). It has never changed. It was presumptuously changed from Saturday to Sunday by the Catholic church in the Council of Nicea in 363 AD, in spite of the bible's clear command which they themselves readily admit:

"For example, nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy the Sabbath day, that isthe 7th day of the week, Saturday. Today most Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Roman Catholic] church outside the Bible."- Catholic Virginian, “To Tell You the Truth," p. 9, Oct. 3, 1947"

"Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day—Saturday—for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes. Did Christ change the day? I answer no!"- James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), signed letter

"Question: Which is the Sabbath day?
Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday."

- Peter Gerermann, "The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine," 2nd ed., p. 50, 1910​

The Protestants also follow Rome:

"The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a Divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic Church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday." - Dr. Augustus Neander, The History of the Christian Religion and Church, Henry John Rose’s translation, p. 186, 1843

"But they err in teaching that Sunday has taken the place of the Old Testament Sabbath and therefore must be kept as the seventh day had to be kept by the children of Israel.... These churches err in their teaching, for Scripture has in no way ordained the first day of the week in place of the Sabbath. There is simply no law in the New Testament to that effect." - John Theodore Mueller, Sabbath or Sunday, pp. 15, 16​

So are those who continue to worship on Saturday's wrong?

Keeping the Sabbath Holy demands more than just worship. It is a total focus of time and energy towards Him and His way of life. And He was very specific as to which day is to be kept Holy.

As we've seen, there is no scriptural basis for changing the Sabbath to Sunday. The passages used to justify the change are taken grossly out of context. As I mentioned previously, humans do not have the liberty to change what God has made holy. Nadab and Abihu attempted to alter a process which God proclaimed as Holy (Lev 10:1-3). They paid for it with their lives. King Jeroboam also learned this lesson the hard way. One of his many sins was the changing of God's specific Holy time to a day of his choosing (1 Ki 12:33). This is precisely what the Catholics and Protestants have done!!!

 

[pwfaith]

The whole "fulfilled" thing again. He specifically says "I did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets but fulfill them". Somehow that translates to "I came to abolish the Law by fulfilling them." The word "fulfill" does not mean "Do away with and terminate". When Jesus' "Joy was fulfilled", does that mean his joy was abolished? No.

If you are not under Legalistic requirements, why are you not allowed to commit adultery? What happens if you do? (Many Christians notably run away from this subject for whatever reason...) Are you now allowed to no longer honor your parents either? Are you allowed to strike your parents? Are you allowed to **** in a public pool too? Anytime anyone complains about "Legalism", they must accept the can of worms they have opened and dig in. Are you allowed to curse your parents now? If not, why not? Are you allowed to defraud? If not, what is the penalty? Are you allowed to tell lies? Most Christians seem to have NO problem with telling lies.

Do you really want to be considered the "Least" in the Kingdom of Heaven?

Even Paul was not as anti-legalist as many try to make him out to be. Romans 2:13 "It is not those who hear the Law, but those who OBEY the Law who will be declared righteous".

What Paul is referring to in those quotes is not about the Sabbath itself and disobeying it. If he was, he would have been rightfully stoned to death at his trial. Worshippnig the Lord on the Sabbath is not the issue, it is about resting and not working. You can worship the Lord any day you want.

I don't commit adultery b/c it's morally wrong and would hurt my marriage. I never said fulfilled meant abolished.

Do you understand what legalism is? "The word “legalism” does not occur in the Bible. It is a term Christians use to describe a doctrinal position emphasizing a system of rules and regulations for achieving both salvation and spiritual growth. Legalists believe in and demand a strict literal adherence to rules and regulations. Doctrinally, it is a position essentially opposed to grace. Those who hold a legalistic position often fail to see the real purpose for law"

Funny you mention Paul...http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Colossians 2.20-23 Colossians 2:20-23: “Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: ‘Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!’? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” Yes, living out the law perfectly is the way to receive righteousness but throughout Scripture it is shown NONE of us can do that, hence the need for sacrifices in the OT and Jesus death on the cross. Jesus was the only one that was able to obey the law - both the letter of the law and spirit of the law. We cannot. Therefore it is only through Christ's sacrifice that we can be counted with righteousness from his account.

I consider the 10 Commandments a guide to live by, not a set of rules to be obeyed rigidly. However, if we live by this guide our lives will be better b/c they are a testament of God's standards for a righteous life.

I agree with your last 2 lines and said the exact same thing a few pages back I agree with obeying the law, just not having such a strict adherence to it that we overlook the spirit of the law.

 

[Shermana]

And what if you don't get caught and it doesn't hurt your marriage? Are you saying potential earthly consequences are the only issue? If that's the case, this would encourage men to be discrete!

Define the "Spirit of the Law" and where it would be different than the actual letter.

Yes, I know what "legalism" means, there are many definitions of it, but the Christian context means "Salvation which is required upon works of the Law" which is exactly what I believe. What is the "Real" purpose of the Law that I fail to see?

It is not opposed to "Grace" whatsoever, except in the minds of Antinomians. The word "Grace" is highly misunderstood, it means "earned favor". What do you suppose "Faith without works is dead" means? G-d is clearly not pleased by sin, so one does not earn his "Grace" while sinning.

The idea that its opposed to Grace basically says "You can do whatever you want and you'll still have grace!" Which is what the Evil One would love you to believe.

Who do you suppose Jesus was talking about when he said "They shall be called the least in the Kingdom"?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

whether we are saved by grace or not doesn't change the question of whether or not we are still commanded to keep the Sabbath day holy.

 

[pwfaith]

And what if you don't get caught and it doesn't hurt your marriage? Are you saying potential earthly consequences are the only issue? If that's the case, this would encourage men to be discrete!

No God sees everything. Anything I do that is morally wrong will damage the relationship I have with God.

Define the "Spirit of the Law" and where it would be different than the actual letter.

What is the meaning of the "spirit of the Law," vs. the "letter of the Law"?

Yes, I know what "legalism" means, there are many definitions of it, but the Christian context means "Salvation which is required upon works of the Law" which is exactly what I believe.

Sorry I'm not sure I understand, you believe we are saved by following the law?

It is not opposed to "Grace" whatsoever, except in the minds of Antinomians. The word "Grace" is highly misunderstood, it means "earned favor". What do you suppose "Faith without works is dead" means? G-d is clearly not pleased by sin, so one does not earn his "Grace" while sinning.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]James was written to the saved/Believers. If James is writing to those who are already saved then [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]the subject is not how to be saved but rather how to live the Christian life and how to receive rewards in heaven. [/FONT]If James is promoting works for salvation than he is contradicting Paul who said[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica] "For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." [/FONT]in Ephesians. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]James 2:14 talks about "profit". Profit is something earned-something deserved. [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Paul uses the same word "profit" in I Timothy 4:8 where again the topic is reward.

I don't know where you are getting your definition for grace but in looking at the Bible dictionary in the back of my bible is says "unmerited favor, unearned benefit, undeserved kindness". Quite the opposite of "earned favor". I completely agree we do not earn God's grace, we can NEVER earn God's grace - b/c we are sinners - that is why we are saved by grace through faith, not works. Implying works are necessary for salvation (like a legalistic view of having to obey the letter of the law) is in opposition to grace. It is saying we have to earn God's grace through our works, and we can't, which is why grace is unearned kindness/favor.

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Also James is speaking of the Judgment Seat of Christ (James 2:12) The Judgement Seat of Christ is where [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]the judgment of a believer's works for reward or loss of reward will take place, not judgement of salvation. [/FONT]

The idea that its opposed to Grace basically says "You can do whatever you want and you'll still have grace!" Which is what the Evil One would love you to believe.

No, it actually doesn't. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Works are to faith what the body is to the spirit. The body displays the life of the spirit. Work displays faith. The way one can display their faith is through their works. [/FONT]One can still do what they want, however their rewards will suffer for it in heaven. Grace in terms of our salvation has to come by faith - faith in Christ's death and resurrection. We do not deserve salvation, but God gives it to us when we have faith and believe.

Who do you suppose Jesus was talking about when he said "They shall be called the least in the Kingdom"?

Rewards, same as in James. It is saying the principles of the kingdom are found in values such as obedience and faithfulness to God's ways. Those who live according to them will be rewarded. It has nothing to do with salvation. I agree, those who live according to the principles of the laws will be rewarded. I think when we get wrapped up in things like 'what day is the Sabbath' we can often overlook the spirit of the law. A strict adherence to the letter of the law is legalism, esp when it is applied to others.

 

[pwfaith]

whether we are saved by grace or not doesn't change the question of whether or not we are still commanded to keep the Sabbath day holy.

Of course we are, however what day that is doesn't matter. We are commanded to keep all God's laws, but only Christ was able to fully keep both the letter and the spirit of the law. But keeping all the laws by the letter, will not save us either. No one is able to do that. Keeping the spirit of the laws, will give us rewards in heaven.

 

[Shermana]

James 2:14

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]James 2:14 talks about "profit". Profit is something earned-something deserved.[/FONT]

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?

 

[pwfaith]

James 2:14

What is the use (profit), my brethren, for anyone to profess to have faith if he has no [good] works [to show for it]? Can [such] faith save [his soul]?

Exactly as I said before. [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Works are to faith what the body is to the spirit. The body displays the life of the spirit. Work displays faith. Works show our faith. Grace through faith is what saves, not works. Precisely what the verse says, as you and I both have bolded. Requiring works for salvation would be in disagreement with the rest of scripture. Works are how we earn reward - grace through faith is how we receive salvation. (faith is not a work)




[/FONT]

 

[Shermana]

Umm, what part about "Can such faith save his soul" are you trying to ignore exactly?

 

[pwfaith]

Umm, what part about "Can such faith save his soul" are you trying to ignore exactly?

Perhaps you can be more specific as to what you are looking for. I have addressed it twice now

 

[Shermana]

You've addressed it twice by completely ignoring it and saying exactly the opposite of what it says.

James clearly says your kind of faith (which is the kind of faith for 90% of Christians) does not save.

No matter how much you try to say otherwise, James says quite clearly, your work-less faith does not save. At all.

Paul also says this if you actually read his whole epistles, such as things like

"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling".

 

[pwfaith]

You've addressed it twice by completely ignoring it and saying exactly the opposite of what it says.

James clearly says your kind of faith (which is the kind of faith for 90% of Christians) does not save.

No matter how much you try to say otherwise, James says quite clearly, your work-less faith does not save. At all.

I disagree and explained in full detail why in a previous post, most of which you seem to have ignored.

 

[Shermana]

"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Requiring works for salvation would be in disagreement with the rest of scripture. Works are how we earn reward - grace through faith is how we receive salvation. (faith is not a work)"[/FONT]

Oh really?

Saying it would be in disagreement with the rest of the scripture is false.

Paul clearly says "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling".

And Jesus says quite clearly your works are what save you. "I will reward each according to his work". He says that it's better to drown yourself than "offend" a child!

Saying that it goes against the rest of scripture is exactly the opposite of what scripture says.

What you are saying goes against everything jesus says, and what Paul says when you don't just cherry pick.

 

[pwfaith]

Please tell me why I should take the time to respond again and explain to you when you did not take the time to read and properly respond to my previously explanation? And when it is obviously you have ignored many of the points I made in earlier posts?

 

[Shermana]

Because you are totally ignoring what I'm saying. You can't just accuse me of ignoring what you're saying when I point out how it's wrong and how your claims are false.

If you don't want to respond to me, that's fine. I've shown how your interpretation, which is the mainstream, is completely wrong, and James clearly says it does not save, no matter how you try to say it "goes against the rest of scripture" which it clearly does not.

Your interpretation is what goes against everything in the Gospels Jesus actually says.

 

[james2ko]

Please tell me why I should take the time to respond again and explain to you when you did not take the time to read and properly respond to my previously explanation? And when it is obviously you have ignored many of the points I made in earlier posts?

I know exactly how you feel

 

[pwfaith]

Oh really?

Saying it would be in disagreement with the rest of the scripture is false.

Paul clearly says "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling".

And Jesus says quite clearly your works are what save you. "I will reward each according to his work". He says that it's better to drown yourself than "offend" a child!

Saying that it goes against the rest of scripture is exactly the opposite of what scripture says.

What you are saying goes against everything jesus says, and what Paul says when you don't just cherry pick.

REWARD, not save is what Jesus said, which is in line with the explanation I gave of James 2 and Eph. YOU even typed "reward" above yet in your mind you read it as "salvation".

ROFL how was my rather extensive previous post "cherry picking"?

 

[Shermana]

You really can't accept that James specifically says it does not save can you.

And for the third time, Paul says "Work out your salvation with Fear and Trembling"

You can't just say "James meant something else". You can't just say "James was really talking about rewards" when he says "IT DOES NOT SAVE".

What part about "It does not save" is talking about rewards? Anyone reading can see your interpretation is not anything close, and apparently it is deliberately trying to distort the text itself. Your defense is that "this goes against the rest of scripture" which is an absolute lie.

You don't even understand what "Salvation" means.

When Jesus says "I will reward each according to their works", that includes punishment for things like breaking the Sabbath and more.

The meaning of Salvation is misunderstood due to Medieval Christological beliefs about heaven and hell. It means salvation from the specific punishments for specific sins when they are atoned for.

Have you read 1 John 3?

Why does Jesus say that it's better to chop off your hand than use it to offend you and cause you to burn in the fire?

Why does he say its better to drown yourself than "offend" a child?

Also, Ephesians is considered by 80% of Scholars to be pseudigrapha, I wouldn't use it in arguments. It was likely written by Antinomians of the 2nd-3rd century. It was called "Laodecians" by Marcion. The early manuscripts didn't even say "To the Church of Ephesus".

 

[McBell]

did you quote scriptures?

No, i did not.
Which is my point.

 

[McBell]

In Hebrew calendars & traditional Christian calendars, Sunday is literally the "first day" of the week.

According to Jewish tradition, the year 1 of the Jewish calendar was the time of "waste and void" referred to in Genesis 1:1. Nothing was yet created, and only a virtual clock started to tick on the first day of that year, heard, as it were, only by the Creator, on the first day of the week (Sunday) the 24th of Elul, (22 August 3760 B.C. in the Gregorian calendar). He said "Let there be light", and He finished the following Sabbath (Saturday) which is the first day of Tishri, year 2. All Hebrew days begin at sunset (~18:00 hours) which corresponds to hour zero of the Hebrew calendar's day. The first day of the Hebrew calendar is Sunday at 11:20:11 P.M. This would actually be Monday, because the Jewish day is considered to begin at sunset. Since sunset varies, the day is assumed to begin at 6:00 P.M. for calendar calculation purposes. So, the first molad was 5 hours 793 halakim after the start of Tishri 1, 0001 (which was Monday September 7, 3761 B.C. by the Gregorian calendar). Abdicate - Jewish Calendar, Gergorian Calendar, and Julian Calendar Converter

​

As said earlier, I don't think it's wrong to worship on Saturday or Sunday. We've done both.

So it is "tradition" that dictates that Sunday is the first day of the week?
Got anything better than "tradition"?