Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[inga]

My husband was studying with a Catholic young man who is interested in one of our Adventist women, till he said he was no longer interested. Apparently, however, Joe [not his real name] has kept searching for justification to *not* accept Adventist truth. In the process he found the website http://www.sda2rc.com/ and wrote to its author, Brandon, a former Seventh-day Adventist, who shared with him the following letter, which he wrote to friends and family when he became a Catholic.

What would you say to Joe to counter the influence of Brandon's email?

Here is the email from Brandon of http://www.sda2rc.com/:
The Sabbath:

Probably the most defining doctrine of Adventists is the doctrine of the Sabbath.  I have heard people say, “Well, I don’t care; I believe in the Sabbath, the Catholic Church doesn’t believe in the Sabbath, so it can’t be right!”  It’s a “don’t confuse me with the facts” type of response.  What is really being said is that it doesn’t matter what God says, it only matters what a persons current beliefs are.  I believe that this is the wrong attitude and wrong position for ANY professed Christian to take. 

Scripture encourages us to “Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.”  In other words, don’t just accept something…prove it.  Scripture said the Bereans were noble because they searched the scriptures to find out if what the Apostle was telling them was true.  They were being told about a messiah, but they wanted to know if it was true, once they established it was true, the Apostles continued to feed them, not only from the Old Testament and Old Covenant writings, but from the Gospel teachings and the New Covenant which Christ taught them fulfilled their scriptures. 

Who Changed the Sabbath?

Anyone who has been to an Adventist Revelation Seminar is probably jumping out of their seats right now.  The problem is, depending on what Revelation seminar you attended, you would probably give one of a couple of different answers.  One answer may be... well the pope did it!  The next might be, well it was Constantine!  So, who really did it?  The confusion starts with the beginning of Adventism itself.  Ellen White was confused about who really changed the Sabbath, and since most of us just took the historical information provided to us by the SDA Church materials, we never really studied history for ourselves to find the truth.  I know that was what happened in my experience.  Ellen White tells us that Constantine changed it in one passage, and the pope in another passage, and then Dr. Bacchiocci claims it was changed in the second century.  While most Protestants and Catholics, say it changed in the first century.  So who is right?

Adventism, while generally declaring the “modern” Catholic Church changed the day on which we hold worship services, has failed on several occasions to definitively pinpoint what date it was changed, and by whom.  However, the Catholic Church admits that we changed it, the Adventist church just doesn’t agree with when it was changed.  Unfortunately what some SDA evangelists fail to explain in their meetings is that when the Catholics say that we changed the day that worship services are held, we are considering the Apostles and the first century church as the Catholic Church.  We teach that it was changed before the end of the first century and was the accepted practice outside of Jerusalem.  Are we right?

Let’s look at some statements from the first and second century Christian leaders, remember these were leaders who were directly taught by the Apostles, and in some cases, the Apostles may have still been alive when the statements were penned.

• 74 AD The Letter of Barnabas 'We keep the eighth day [Sunday] with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead' (Letter of Barnabas 15:6-8).
• 90AD DIDACHE: But every Lord's day, do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord... [Matt. 5:23-24] (The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, , Chap. 14:1, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, page 381)
• 90AD DIDACHE: ...every Lord's day, hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice: for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord's day, being the day of the resurrection... (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, pg. 449)
• 90AD DIDACHE: And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead. Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concerning the resurrection...? (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, pg. 423)
• 90AD DIDACHE: On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord's day, assemble yourselves together, without fail, giving thanks to God, and praising Him for those mercies God has bestowed upon you through Christ, and has delivered you from ignorance, error, and bondage, that your sacrifice may be unspotted, and acceptable to God, who has said concerning His universal Church: 'In every place shall incense and a pure sacrifice be offered unto me; for I am a great King, saith the Lord Almighty, and my name is wonderful among the heathen, [Malachi 1:11, 14] (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 7, pg. 471)
• 107AD IGNATIUS: Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace... If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death (which some deny), through which mystery we received faith, and on account of which we suffer in order that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher, how shall we be able to live apart from him for whom even the prophets were looking as their teacher since they were his disciples in the spirit?... let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days of the week. It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. for where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism.... These things I address to you, my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ... (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, chp 9. Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 62-63.) 

(Many of the above were quoted from http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Spirituality/Research/MitchelQuotations/letter_s.htm or http://www.catholic.com/library/Sabbath_or_Sunday.asp)
 
It appears that if the Christians were not supposed to be celebrating a religious event and worship on Sunday, someone forgot to let the first Christians know that!  The “Lord’s Day” as it was known PRIOR to John writing “Revelation” was actually Sunday that is how the churches he wrote to would have understood it.  Yet the Adventist church now says that when John said he was in the Spirit “on the Lords Day”, he must have been talking about the Sabbath.  This kind of mis-representation about the meaning of the phrase to those to which it was written is exactly why we must understand how the receivers of the books of the New Testament understood them. 

So, if the Christians were worshipping on Sunday, why wasn’t there an outcry in the Jewish church in Jerusalem, it was a church that most likely continued to meet on Saturday at the synagogue for several decades to hear the scriptures read.  The reason they did not cry out in protest is because Jews believed then, and still believe now, that the Sabbath was given only to Jews.  They NEVER expected Gentiles (which made up most of the early church) to keep the Sabbath.  Notice the following passages:

``The children of Noah...were given seven Laws only, the observance of the Sabbath not being among them'' (Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:21 [Soncino ed., p. 23], as quoted in C. Mervyn Maxwell and P. Gerard Damsteegt, eds., Source Book for the History of Sabbath and Sunday [Berrien Springs, Mich.: Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 1992], p. 75).

The Noachian laws are also listed in Midrash Genesis Rabbah 16:6 (Soncino ed., p. 131), Sanhedrin 56 a, b; and Midrash Song of Songs Rabbah 1:2(5) (Soncino ed. pp. 26-7) (ibid., p. 74). Gentiles could be considered righteous if they observed these laws, which did not include the Sabbath. Nor did they include restrictions about pork. Rabbi Judah could say that there was a time for the ``sons of Jacob when unclean beasts were still permitted to them'' (Hullin 7:6, as quoted in Maxwell and Damsteegt, p. 74   The rabbis did not think that the Sabbath had been given to Gentiles: ``Why does it say, `The Lord hath given you'' (Ex. 16:29)? To you hath he given it [the Sabbath], but not to the heathen. It is in virtue of this that the Sages stated [Sanh. 56b] that if some of the heathen observed the Sabbath, then not only do they not receive any reward [but they are even considered to be transgressing]'' (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 25:11 [Soncino ed., p. 314], as quoted in Maxwell and Damsteegt, p. 74).

``A non-Jew who observes the Sabbath whilst he is uncircumcised incurs liability for the punishment of death. Why? Because non-Jews were not commanded concerning it.... The Sabbath is a reunion between Israel and God, as it is said, `It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel' (Ex. 31:17); therefore any non-Jew who, being uncircumcised, thrusts himself between them incurs the penalty of death.... The Gentiles have not been commanded to observe the Sabbath'' (Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:21 [Soncino ed., pp. 23-4], as quoted in Maxwell and Damsteegt, p. 75).

Further evidence of the antiquity of this rabbinic understanding comes from the second-century B.C. book of Jubilees: ``The Creator of all blessed it, but he did not sanctify any people or nations to keep the Sabbath thereon with the sole exception of Israel. He granted to them alone that they might eat and drink and keep the Sabbath thereon upon the earth'' (Jubilees 2:31, James Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, [New York: Doubleday, 1985], vol. 2, p. 58).

(http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/history1.htm)

Based on these quotes above, we can see from the Jewish writings, and from the Adventist documents that the Gentiles were never expected to keep the Sabbath.  This was the understanding of the Jews, to whom the Sabbath was given, and whom Christ never corrected on this matter.  So, this begs the question, why do Adventist’s and others keep the Sabbath rather than the Lords day, which according to the writings of early Christians, was kept during the time of the Apostles?
 
OK, let’s summarize where we are so far, first, we all agree that the Catholic Church changed the day we hold religious services, The Catholic church claims that we changed the day of worship, under the authority of the apostolic church.  We claim it was changed it in the first century while the Apostles led the Church  We support this by scripture references to the Lord’s Day, first day of the week, and early Christian’s writings that state the same.
 
Second, we know that Early Christians as early as 70 AD were honoring the “Lords Day” which they believed was the day which Christ rose i.e. Sunday.  Also, we learned that according to the Jewish Midrash, (The Midrash is a Jewish commentary on Biblical Texts written by Jews.) Gentiles were NEVER expected or desired to keep the Sabbath unless they were circumcised and converted to Judaism.  This explains why Gentiles never kept the Sabbath, and why the Jewish Christians didn’t expect them to keep it.  So, when Peter and the early church council ruled that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised, they effectually ruled that gentiles are under no obligation to keep the Sabbath.  This is but one of the reasons that Catholics and I myself no longer observe the Jewish Sabbath.
 
Finally, let’s look at some Biblical verses that are often overlooked by Adventists when dealing with the Sabbath-Sunday issue.   Let’s examine precisely what the Old and New Covenants are and are not?  Adventists claim that the Old Covenant isn’t the Law, but instead say that the covenant is the agreement that the nation of Israel made when they said they would follow Gods law.   So is the covenant the Law or the Agreement to keep the Law?  Let’s let the Bible tell us…

• (Exo 34:28 NASB)  So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did not eat bread or drink water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

Notice this verse states that the words of the covenant were the Ten Commandments; it does not mention the Jews acceptance or agreement to accept the law as being the covenant.

• (Deu 9:11 NASB)  'And it came about at the end of forty days and nights that the LORD gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant.

This verse re-affirms that the two tablets of stone were the tablets of the covenant.

• (1 Ki 8:21 NASB)  'And there I have set a place for the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD, which He made with our fathers when He brought them from the land of Egypt.'

Notice this says the covenant is INSIDE the ark, we know the Ten Commandments were in the ark.  Do we really believe that the “agreement” between all the people and God, which would be immaterial, was somehow physically placed in the ark?

• (2 Chr 6:11 NASB)  'And there I have set the ark, in which is the covenant of the LORD, which He made with the sons of Israel.'
• (Heb 9:4 NASB)  having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant.

The Bible plainly states that the covenant IS the Ten Commandments!  So, what does the bible say happened to the covenant? 

• (2 Cor 3:7 NASB)  But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was,
• (2 Cor 3:8 NASB) how shall the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory?
  
• (2 Cor 3:9 NASB)  For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory.
  
• (2 Cor 3:10 NASB)  For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory on account of the glory that surpasses it.
  
• (2 Cor 3:11 NASB)  For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
  
• (2 Cor 3:12 NASB)  Having therefore such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech,
  
• (2 Cor 3:13 NASB)  and are not as Moses, who used to put a veil over his face that the sons of Israel might not look intently at the end of what was fading away.
  
• (2 Cor 3:14 NASB)  But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ.
  
• (2 Cor 3:15 NASB)  But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;
  
• (2 Cor 3:16 NASB)  but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.
  
• (2 Cor 3:17 NASB)  Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
  
• (2 Cor 3:18 NASB)  But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Did you catch that?  The ministration of death is in the letters engraved in stone! This is the Ten Commandments!  Who wants to follow the ministration of death?

• (Eph 2:14 NASB)  For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,
  
  (Eph 2:15 NASB)  by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace

Ok… here it is pretty clear to me, the enmity is THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS!!!

• (Heb 8:6 NASB)  But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
  
  (Heb 8:7 NASB)  For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
  
  (Heb 8:13 NASB)  When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete.  But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
  

Hebrews 8:13 said that the first covenant Christ made obsolete!!!  The Bible says the covenant was the Ten Commandments.   The fact is that in no place in scripture is the command to keep the Sabbath given to Christians (i.e. those who were members of the Church after the resurrection of Christ).

One Final passage I would like you to pay particular attention.  This passage was important to my realizing the truth about the law.  We already know that the commandments were the covenant; this is according to clear scriptural statements.  This next passage even goes further in tying the covenants to Sinai, where the ten commandments were received, then it goes on to say that if you keep the law then YOU are a slave, and then goes on to contrasts the “slaves” with followers of Christ who are free… children of the NEW Covenant, not the Old Covenant of the Ten Commandments.

• (Gal 4:21 NASB)  Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?
  
  (Gal 4:22 NASB)  For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman.
  
  (Gal 4:23 NASB)  But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise.
  
  (Gal 4:24 NASB)  This is allegorically speaking: for these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar.
  
  (Gal 4:25 NASB)  Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
  
  (Gal 4:26 NASB)  But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
  
  (Gal 4:27 NASB)  For it is written, 'REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR MORE ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND.'
  
  (Gal 4:28 NASB)  And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.
  
  (Gal 4:29 NASB)  But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.
  
  (Gal 4:30 NASB)  But what does the Scripture say? 'CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN.'
  
  (Gal 4:31 NASB)  So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.
  

This passage is very clear; there is no way around the biblical evidence for the abolishing of the ten commandment covenant by Christ.  Those who deny this great Biblical truth are slaves. 

In conclusion, the first Christians did not keep the Sabbath, the Jews didn’t expect them to keep it, or even want them to keep it.  The Bible never commanded Christians to keep the Sabbath, but instead it tells us the first covenant was done away with!  Therefore, I have to conclude that Catholicism is Biblically correct.
End of Brandon's email

[inga]

Initial observations:

It is impossible to persuade someone who in his heart of hearts really doesn't want to believe because of what it will cost him. "He who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Only God knows the sincerity of his heart. If he is submissive in his own heart, God can teach him to recognize the truth. (That doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to answer honest questions.)

Most truth cannot be absolutely proven by human reasoning. For instance, we cannot absolutely prove that God exists, but when we choose to believe, He will prove Himself to us. To those who are open to it, there is good evidence that God exists. We cannot prove that God created the world in six days only a few thousand years ago. To those who are open to it, there is good evidence that this is so, even if the majority view is that the world came to be without any divine input several billion years ago.  And so it goes. In the end, it takes a measure of faith to believe the truth, and if there is something in our hearts that makes us unwilling to submit to God, we will not be able to believe. ...

Regarding authorities:

Pseudepigrapha (as quoted) refer to recognized "false writings," something we might call forgeries. The Didache and the Letter of Barnabas are Pseudepigrapha. At Answers.com, you can find this definition:
Spurious writings, especially writings falsely attributed to biblical characters or times.
A body of texts written between 200 B.C. and A.D. 200 and spuriously ascribed to various prophets and kings of Hebrew Scriptures.[/li]
[/list]

It goes without saying, that we do not accept spurious writings as authoritative. (To be fair, some of the Pseudephigrapha weren't necessarily forgeries, but they were judged to be of insufficient value or inspiration to be included in the Scriptures.)

References to the Jewish "midrash" are references to certain Jewish interpretations of Scripture. In other words, they are human interpretations that were accepted into Jewish tradition. While tradition is not necessarily bad, it cannot be accepted as a source of truth. In fact, Jesus spent his life sweeping away the traditions with which the Jewish teachers had obscured the truth of God.

It is perfectly consistent for Catholics to refer to the midrash because it has the same authority as their traditions. However, as Seventh-day Adventists we can accept neither the traditions of the Jews nor the traditions of Roman Catholicism as authoritative. Since we believe that God gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, we must study and interpret the Bible for ourselves, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Now for the real research!  Help, anyone?

[inga]

Ignatius's Epistle to the Manesians isn't so easily dismissed as an unreliable witness, because this epistle is generally accepted as the genuine writings of the bishop of Antioch who was, allegedly, a student of the Apostle John. (This is not confirmed, but only claimed centuries later in spurious writings in other writings of Ignatius which are generally considered spurius, being written several hundred years after he died. See http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/ignatius.html)

It is interesting,  however, to note what was left out of the original quotation.

Here is the quotation, as passed on in the email:

107AD IGNATIUS: Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace... If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death (which some deny), through which mystery we received faith, and on account of which we suffer in order that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher, how shall we be able to live apart from him for whom even the prophets were looking as their teacher since they were his disciples in the spirit?... let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days of the week. It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. for where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism.... These things I address to you, my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ... (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, chp 9. Ante-Nicene Fathers , vol. 1, pg. 62-63.)

The first part of that quotation is from Chapter 8: "Caution Against False Doctrine"

Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased Him that sent Him.

From  http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/LostBooks/ignatius2magnesians.htm

Then a paragraph is skipped (not important), and this is Chapter 9: "Let Us Live With Christ"

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death--whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master--how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead.

If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us when He says, "If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me;" and again, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad; for before Abraham was, I am; "how shall we be able to live without Him? The prophets were His servants, and foresaw Him by the Spirit, and waited for Him as their Teacher, and expected Him as their Lord and Saviour, saying, "He will come and save us."Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat."For say the[holy] oracles, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread."But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the worksmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days[of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, "To the end, for the eighth day," on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, whom the children of perdition, the enemies of the Saviour, deny, "whose god is their belly, who mind earthly things," who are "lovers of pleasure, and not lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." These make merchandise of Christ, corrupting His word, and giving up Jesus to sale: they are corrupters of women, and covetous of other men's possessions, swallowing up wealth insatiably; from whom may ye be delivered by the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ!

From http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/LostBooks/ignatius2magnesians.htm

Note, that, according to this quotation, it is apparent that Ignatius counseled his parishioners not to observe the Sabbath the ways the Jews did -- with strict rules regarding what could and could not be done -- but to keep the Sabbath in a spiritual manner, "rejoicing in meditation on the law" and "admiring the worksmanship of God."

It is also apparent that the Christians of his time were already enjoying a two-day weekend because they were celebrating the resurrection day as a festival. There is no hint of sanctity transferred from Sabbath to Sunday, but it is easy to see how many Christians gradually preferred the "festival" day to the day of spiritual reflections and enjoyment of nature. The first paragraph of Chapter 9 indicates that some had already stopped observing the Sabbath and were observing the day of the resurrection instead. Then, when Christianity was adopted by Emperor Constantine, and Sunday-keeping was enshrined in law, it was easy for most to switch to Sunday-keeping -- especially when Sabbath-keeping subjected them to persecution.

If they had remembered that the Sabbath commandment includes the admonition that "six days you shall work," they might not have fallen into that trap.

It is evident that the writings of Ignatius do nothing to demonstrate that the Lord sanctioned any transference of holiness from the seventh day to the first day of the week.

It is also highly questionable that the designation of "the Lord's Day" referred to Sunday prior to John's writing the Revelation. (If there were reliable writings that indicated this, why were these writings not included in the New Testament? As I suggest above, the quotations from the "earlier" writings were actually from writings incorrectly attributed to earlier authors and thus no evidence of any "Lord's Day" celebrations.) Ignatius wrote after the Apostle John died. At any rate, John says nothing about the sanctity of the Sabbath, as established at creation (See Genesis 2) being transferred to Sunday.

[Ozzie]

Initial observations:

It is impossible to persuade someone who in his heart of hearts really doesn't want to believe because of what it will cost him. "He who is convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Only God knows the sincerity of his heart. If he is submissive in his own heart, God can teach him to recognize the truth. (That doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to answer honest questions.)

Most truth cannot be absolutely proven by human reasoning. For instance, we cannot absolutely prove that God exists, but when we choose to believe, He will prove Himself to us. To those who are open to it, there is good evidence that God exists. We cannot prove that God created the world in six days only a few thousand years ago. To those who are open to it, there is good evidence that this is so, even if the majority view is that the world came to be without any divine input several billion years ago.  And so it goes. In the end, it takes a measure of faith to believe the truth, and if there is something in our hearts that makes us unwilling to submit to God, we will not be able to believe. ...

Regarding authorities:

Pseudepigrapha (as quoted) refer to recognized "false writings," something we might call forgeries. The Didache is of this category. At Answers.com, you can find this definition:
Spurious writings, especially w

• ritings falsely attributed to biblical characters or times.
  A body of texts written between 200 B.C. and A.D. 200 and spuriously ascribed to various prophets and kings of Hebrew Scriptures.

It goes without saying, that we do not accept spurious writings as authoritative. (To be fair, some of the Pseudephigrapha weren't necessarily forgeries, but they were judged to be of insufficient value or inspiration to be included in the Scriptures.)

References to the Jewish "midrash" are references to certain Jewish interpretations of Scripture. In other words, they are human interpretations that were accepted into Jewish tradition. While tradition is not necessarily bad, it cannot be accepted as a source of truth. In fact, Jesus spent his life sweeping away the traditions with which the Jewish teachers had obscured the truth of God.

It is perfectly consistent for Catholics to refer to the midrash because it has the same authority as their traditions. However, as Seventh-day Adventists we can accept neither the traditions of the Jews nor the traditions of Roman Catholicism as authoritative. Since we believe that God gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, we must study and interpret the Bible for ourselves, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Now for the real research!  Help, anyone?

Inga
I don't envy you trying to convince anyone regarding Brandon's reasonings. He CAN be very persuasive as well as persistent, if one wants to listen to him. Nothing quite like an ex-Adventist who turns RC. He even sent me a Cathecism "because I gave away the faith of my birth" and he wanted me to study it and see how wrong I now am. Waste of his time, but got to give him points for trying!

[inga]

Ozzie, it's one thing to try to reason with Brandon, but it's another thing to confirm the faith of our young people. We'd also like to win Joe over, because he seems like a really solid young man. We'll see, I guess.

I have a rather good hunch there are other reasons, besides doctrinal purity, that Joe doesn't want to become an Adventist. In the process of justifying his own decision, he's presenting arguments to our member (let's call her Donna) that she can't meet.

Let's pray that Donna is motivated to more study and prayer!

Are you a former Catholic, Ozzie?

P.S. You caught my post (above) before I had a chance to correct the typos in it.
It's past 2:30 am here. Maybe I should go to bed?

[Ozzie]

Ozzie, it's one thing to try to reason with Brandon, but it's another thing to confirm the faith of our young people. We'd also like to win Joe over, because he seems like a really solid young man. We'll see, I guess.

I have a rather good hunch there are other reasons, besides doctrinal purity, that Joe doesn't want to become an Adventist. In the process of justifying his own decision, he's presenting arguments to our member (let's call her Donna) that she can't meet.

Let's pray that Donna is motivated to more study and prayer!

Are you a former Catholic, Ozzie?

P.S. You caught my post (above) before I had a chance to correct the typos in it.
It's past 2:30 am here. Maybe I should go to bed?

Yes. I was a Catholic. My future was all mapped out for me by my mother that I would become a nun; like one of her sisters. (Friends who know me think that I'd have corrupted the 'poor sisters').  God had other ideas

A whole series of events, but when my mother died a few hours after giving birth to the last baby when I was aged 13, and I had to leave school to care for my father, brother and sisters, that put the icing on the cake for me. Did a God of love really expect a woman to keep being pregnant, despite miscarriages, still-births and then her death, and didn't He care about the family that was left behind to struggle? I had many questions, which good Catholic relatives told me I had no right to ask.

My Dad was not a Catholic, but I also found out the day that Mum died, that he was an alcoholic.

One sister was 4 when Mum died. I am still struggling with the fallout from that, as I try to help her children. Very long, sad story and they look on me more as a mother, than they do their own mother.

Yes. 2:30am. Good people tell me that one should be in bed at that time of the  night/morning. Personally, after about 30 years of Night Duty, I find those early hours are often my most productive.

[inga]

The first part of that quotation is from Chapter 8: "Caution Against False Doctrine"

Be not deceived with strange doctrines, nor with old fables, which are unprofitable. For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. For the divinest prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. On this account also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to fully convince the unbelieving that there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence, and who in all things pleased Him that sent Him.

From  http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/LostBooks/ignatius2magnesians.htm

Then a paragraph is skipped (not important), and this is Chapter 9: "Let Us Live With Christ"

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death--whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master--how shall we be able to live apart from Him, whose disciples the prophets themselves in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead.

If, then, those who were conversant with the ancient Scriptures came to newness of hope, expecting the coming of Christ, as the Lord teaches us when He says, "If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me;" and again, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad; for before Abraham was, I am; "how shall we be able to live without Him? The prophets were His servants, and foresaw Him by the Spirit, and waited for Him as their Teacher, and expected Him as their Lord and Saviour, saying, "He will come and save us."Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat."For say the[holy] oracles, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread."But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the worksmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days[of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, "To the end, for the eighth day," on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, whom the children of perdition, the enemies of the Saviour, deny, "whose god is their belly, who mind earthly things," who are "lovers of pleasure, and not lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." These make merchandise of Christ, corrupting His word, and giving up Jesus to sale: they are corrupters of women, and covetous of other men's possessions, swallowing up wealth insatiably; from whom may ye be delivered by the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ!

From http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/LostBooks/ignatius2magnesians.htm

Now, I've found that it is likely that some of the above may be a mistranslation. For instance, 9:1 may be more more literally (though not grammatically) translated as:

8.1 Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless.
8.2  For if even unto this day we live according to the manner of Judaic concepts, we admit that we have not received grace: for the godly prophets lived after Christ Jesus. For this cause also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace to the end that they which are disobedient might be fully persuaded that there is one God who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word that proceeded from silence, who in all things was well-pleasing unto Him that sent Him.
9.1 If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer {Judaically} keeping sabbaths but according to the Lord's way of life according to the Lord's way of life, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny -- a mystery whereby we attained unto belief, and for this cause we endure patiently, that we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ our only teacher --
9.2 if this be so, how shall we be able to live apart from Him? Seeing that even the prophets, being His disciples, were expecting Him as their teacher through the Spirit. And for this cause He whom they rightly awaited, when He came, raised them from the dead

See http://www.cogwriter.com/ignatius.htm

If this is correct, the quotation is no reference to Sunday keeping at all.

Please check out the site I refereced (http://www.cogwriter.com/ignatius.htm). The conclusion of the arguments presented there is the following:

Neither the Didache or Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians actually mention the term Sunday or directly refer to the first day of the week.

The Didache is not an endorsement of early Sunday observance.

Ignatius, himself, would have had to be a supporter of the seventh day Sabbath and would not have written against it. Nor, if properly translated, do Ignatius' letters ever truly write against the seventh day sabbath--instead they endorse the concept that Christians are to keep the Sabbath in accordance with the commandments and the Lord's way of living, but not according to the ways endorsed by unbiblical Jewish tradition.

There is no evidence whatsoever that any who professed Christ regularly worshiped on Sunday when Ignatius was alive. The simple fact is that Ignatius' writings do not support the idea that the early New Testament Church observed Sunday.

The Greek expression he used in Magnesians (Greek spelling) simply did not mean Sunday when Ignatius wrote his letters. And there is no other contemporaneous reference that any professing Christian at the time of Ignatius observed Sunday. Available evidence (including the Bible, i.e. Acts 13:42-44; Hebrews 4:9) clearly supports the idea that early Christians kept the seventh day Sabbath.

The first clear reference to Sunday worship, even according to Roman Catholic sources, was from Justin [40]. Yet he held so many heretical positions, it makes no sense to this author that any could truly consider him to be a true Christian.

On the other hand, Polycarp and those faithful Christians who remained in Asia Minor did continue to keep the Sabbath for centuries after Jesus died.

[Azenilto Brito]

Dear friends

       First, we have the monumental research by Bro. Samuele Bacchiocchi which covers all this Patristic quotations, From Sabbath to Sunday. Don't you know it? Bacchiocchi's ministry with many of the book's data and other relevant historical information (plus the ways for acquiring the book) has the following link:

www.biblicalperspectives.com

       Now, on the text of 2nd Corinthians 3:2-9, I have discussed it in a way that proves that whoever uses this text to contradict the Sabbath institution is "shooting" himself, for that is one of these texts that "backfire". See below:

Bible Texts That “Backfire”

Some Bible texts used to prove certain opinions often mean exactly the opposite of what is taught using them

   
   * 2 Corinthians 3:3, 7, 8: “You show that you are a letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. . . the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. . . . Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?”

       Since Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:3ff refers to the Ten Commandment as the law “written on stones” apparently as a “ministry of death”, and in another text he shows that the law became “weakened by the sinful nature” (Rom. 8:3), some imagine that he is discarding the Decalogue, to replace it for another set of rules for the Christian community.
       But what Paul is really doing is contrasting the ministry of the old covenant with the new covenant. As he applies the qualification of “ministry of death” by mentioning the “tables of stones”, some Bible interpreters mistake his language to mean that the contents of these tables of stones represented a “ministry of death”. Then, we have something very strange—God, who presented Himself to Israel as “longsuffering, merciful, good, forgiving” actually prepared a terrible trap to that people at Sinai: He offered them there a legal code that would result inescapably in death! He reserved the “law of love and grace” only to the New Testament folks! Is that the God Who is no respecter of people?
       Going back to the scenery of where God’s law was solemnly proclaimed to the people we can read in Exodus 19:10ff God’s order that Israel purified and even abstained from sexual activity (vs. 15) for an integral dedication to Him in preparation to the utterance of the law. Limits were set around the mount so that not even animals should roam across the area. Finally the Ten Commandments were audibly pronounced before being recorded on the tables of stones. Now, all this preparation, expectation and remarkable solemnity for the deliverance of a . . . “law of death”! That’s incredible! Any one would feel cheated!
       Notwithstanding, that is the bottom line of the exegesis that can be read in the writings of certain interpreters of a semi-antinomian orientation, who are unable to realize that “the law of the Lord is perfect and restores the soul” (Psalm 19:7). Truly, David has in mind the entire law (Torah), but that means the inclusion, not the exclusion, of the Decalogue.
       Anyway, something went wrong in that agreement, turning its ministry into a death-producing factor. Why? Where was the problem? Was the law of such a tenor—generator of death? Then it couldn’t be “perfect”.
       What some people can’t understand is that the problem was not with the law, but with the people who, even before knowing fully what would be proclaimed, precipitously declared regarding the Sinai proclamation: “we will do everything the Lord had said” (Exo. 19:8). But that was a stiff-necked people, so often condemned for their stumbling. Thus, it’s easier to understand: the problem was not in the law, but in the people. That is made very clear in the promise of the New Covenant at Ezekiel’s time—“I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (Eze. 36:26). So, what the people needed was not a new law, but A NEW HEART.
       The ones who had the wrong heart were the people, then the necessity of this people to change their attitude allowing God to perform a serious change—their stony heart removed and replaced by one of flesh.
       And the important detail is that as Paul utilizes the “tables of stone/tables of flesh” metaphor it is implied that he intends to include ALL the commandments belonging to the “tables of stone”, as now transferred to the “flesh stones”. Otherwise, the use of the comparison wouldn’t make sense and he would have to employ a different and more appropriate language in vs. 3:3, something like “being manifested as letter of Christ, ministered for us, and written, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in tables of flesh of the heart, i.e., only nine commandments of the tables of stones, excluded that of the Sabbath day. . .” But that was not Paul’s language. Consequently, the Sabbath commandment SHOULD BE INCLUDED on the tables of stone.

       Conclusion:  In 2 Corinthians 3 Paul doesn’t say that the law is of death, but the ministry of the old covenant came to be like that. The Pauline illustration of “tables of stone/tables of flesh” deals with the old divine promise to Israel in Ezekiel 36:26, 27 that by the action of the Spirit the stony heart would be removed from them so that a more malleable fleshy heart were granted. On the heart of flesh the complete God’s moral law would be written, as promised in the New Covenant (Heb. 8:6-10).
       As Paul employs the “tables of stone/tables of flesh” allegory, which is about the same used by Ezekiel (see 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27), he certainly wouldn’t think of excluding any part of the “tables of stone”, as Ezekiel wouldn’t either. Otherwise the Apostle would have to explain that the Christian would be a letter written, not in tables of stones, but in tables of flesh, excluding the Sabbath commandment, or something on this line.
       Paul’s intention is to show that for the Christians renewed by the Spirit, the terms of the divine moral law leave the cold tables of stone to be recorded on their hearts warmed by God’s grace (see Rom. 8: 3, 4). That makes the semi-antinomian interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3:3ff another interpretative “shot” that backfires.

[inga]

Wow, Ozzie, by what you tell here and elsewhere, you have earned a post-graduate degree in the school of hard knocks!

It is apparent that that has given you strength of character, but I don't doubt that you would gladly have foregone the education. I'm so glad you survived all this (including what you shared in another current post) and look to God for your strength.

Now I'm also curious as to how you know Brandon of http://www.sda2rc.com/?

Is he an Aussie too?

Are you a former Catholic, Ozzie?

Yes. I was a Catholic. My future was all mapped out for me by my mother that I would become a nun; like one of her sisters. (Friends who know me think that I'd have corrupted the 'poor sisters').  God had other ideas

A whole series of events, but when my mother died a few hours after giving birth to the last baby when I was aged 13, and I had to leave school to care for my father, brother and sisters, that put the icing on the cake for me. Did a God of love really expect a woman to keep being pregnant, despite miscarriages, still-births and then her death, and didn't He care about the family that was left behind to struggle? I had many questions, which good Catholic relatives told me I had no right to ask.

My Dad was not a Catholic, but I also found out the day that Mum died, that he was an alcoholic.

One sister was 4 when Mum died. I am still struggling with the fallout from that, as I try to help her children. Very long, sad story and they look on me more as a mother, than they do their own mother.

[Ozzie]

Wow, Ozzie, by what you tell here and elsewhere, you have earned a post-graduate degree in the school of hard knocks!

It is apparent that that has given you strength of character, but I don't doubt that you would gladly have foregone the education. I'm so glad you survived all this (including what you shared in another current post) and look to God for your strength.

Yes it has been tough Inga, but you know what? As I look back, there's not one of those experiences that has not taught me some very important lessons in life - usually where I've been able to help other people; because of those experiences.

And I did eventually get the post-grad degrees (outside the Uni of hard knocks), and I reckon I appreciated them more than young people who have all the educational opportunities available and see Uni as their 'right' to attend. Even though I'd been a Registered Nurse for more years than I wanted to count (and had been Dux of Registration), I could not just enrol in University. I had to study for a year (as Professional Development), to let them see I could cope with the studies and the following year, I had all those Units credited towards my first undergraduate degree. I then studied various degrees for the next 13 years in total. When I was doing my Masters, I had a stroke and had to change directions, but I see than now in God's will also. It was  a direction I had not thought previously of taking.  I would like to do my PhD but my husband has had more than enough of my study (he is not an academic, and said "enough is enough. Go and use the knowledge you have". Fair enough. He supported me so well through all those years of study. God is good - ALL the time.

Now I'm also curious as to how you know Brandon of http://www.sda2rc.com/?

Is he an Aussie too?

No. Brandon is not an Ozzie Inga. I met him in SDA Issues Forum. I bailed out though. There were several ex-SDA people there, as well as other disgruntled SDA's. Too negative for me. There is a bright side to life. Several of those people will never find it.

[Bert]

As another poster said, they have had discussions with Brandon before. In reading that, I recall a few years ago that Brandon and I had many discussions in regard to the Sabbath issue, prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, etc. I would form my replies in a Word document and then copy and paste into the post I was sending. I have kept the replies, mostly because it involved a lot of research, study and typing.

One of the counterpoints that I made to Brandon was on the Ten Commandments, which I have 'cleaned up' by underlining and placing in parentheses my comments throughout the article, eliminating the 'prompts' for underlining, bold print, etc., that were necessary to use in posting, and making the posting into an article. The article is a quote from the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA-The Ten Commandments. As you will see as you read it, that their view of the commandments contain statements that are contrary to what Brandon said in his e-mail, a part of this thread. Here is the article:

 Brandon, you identified the quotes I provided in my several posts that was a cross-section of religious historical writings as being unproven and possibly fabricated, even in spite of the fact that some of the quotes were expressed by the RCC…the church that you and others claim is the true and only church.  The RCC does not hesitate to boast that they have changed God’s laws and have formulated manmade laws based on a perversion of Bible scriptures, introducing and enforcing their dogmatic beliefs based on contextual errors and misinterpretations to suit their doctrinal ideology. They have accomplished this feat over a period of hundreds of years very subtly, infusing just enough truth to provide some measure of creditability in their reasoning.

The quotes I provided were not SDA doctrine or written by SDAs, but rather by religious scholars and historians throughout the ages from the time of the apostles until about 1850 or so. They were written by those who were directly involved with the issues of the period in which they lived. To help you understand better what I mean about the writings of the RCC, I have excerpted from the Catholic Encyclopedia two articles…one pertaining to the Ten Commandments and the other that deals specifically with the Sabbath question. I will paraphrase by underlining my comments throughout their explanation of the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath issue.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

I - Called also simply THE COMMANDMENTS, COMMANDMENTS OF GOD, or THE DECALOGUE (Gr. deka, ten, and logos, a word), the Ten Words of Sayings, the latter name generally applied by the Greek Fathers.

II - The Ten Commandments are precepts bearing on the fundamental obligations of religion and morality and embodying the revealed expression of the Creator's will in relation to man's whole duty to God and to his fellow-creatures. They are found twice recorded in the Pentateuch, in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, but are given in an abridged form in the catechisms. (As you can see very early in their explanation they readily admit that they present the Ten Commandments in an abridged format without regard to how they were written by Moses.)  Written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, this Divine code was received from the Almighty by Moses amid the thunders of Mount Sinai, and by him made the ground-work of the Mosaic Law. Christ resumed these Commandments in the double precept of charity--love of God and of the neighbour; He proclaimed them as binding under the New Law in Matthew 19 and in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5). (Here you will notice that the RCC agrees with the validity of the Ten Commandments in the New Testament era.)  He also simplified or interpreted them, e.g. by declaring unnecessary oaths equally unlawful with false, by condemning hatred and calumny as well as murder, by enjoining even love of enemies, and by condemning indulgence of evil desires as fraught with the same malice as adultery (Matthew 5). The Church, on the other hand, after changing the day of rest from the Jewish Sabbath, or seventh day of the week, to the first, made the Third Commandment refer to Sunday as the day to be kept holy as the Lord's Day. (Here the RCC claims that they changed the day of rest to Sunday, not by any scriptural authority, but by ‘councils of men’.)  The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. xix) condemns those who deny that the Ten Commandments are binding on Christians. (After they have changed the commandments to read how they want them to read, the Council of Trent now condemns anyone who denies that the commandments are no longer binding on Christians, those commandments being their own revised commandments. How convenient!)

III - There is no numerical division of the Commandments in the Books of Moses, but the injunctions are distinctly tenfold, and are found almost identical in both sources. The order, too, is the same except for the final prohibitions pronounced against concupiscence, that of Deuteronomy being adopted in preference to Exodus. A confusion, however, exists in the numbering, which is due to a difference of opinion concerning the initial precept on Divine worship. (The minor variances in the Ten Commandments from Exodus to Deuteronomy is easily explained once you understand the circumstances under which each were written. The Exodus version was from God Himself, who wrote them on tables of stone, and were the only ones spoken by Him. Those in Deuteronomy were not a re-write, but rather were being reviewed and taught by Moses to the children of Israel while they were waiting to go into the Promised Land. Look up the definition and meaning of ‘Deuteronomy’.)

IV - The system of numeration found in Catholic Bibles, based on the Hebrew text, was made by St. Augustine (fifth century) in his book of "Questions of Exodus" ("Quæstionum in Heptateuchum libri VII", Bk. II, Question lxxi), and was adopted by the Council of Trent. (Notice that the numeration was done by man, but the numeration of each commandment is not within the context of what was written in the Hebrew texts.) It is followed also by the German Lutherans, except those of the school of Bucer. This arrangement makes the First Commandment relate to false worship and to the worship of false gods as to a single subject and a single class of sins to be guarded against -- the reference to idols being regarded as mere application of the precept to adore but one God and the prohibition as directed against the particular offense of idolatry alone. (Here it is very evident that the implication of the worship of other gods was downplayed and incorporated into the first commandment.)  According to this manner of reckoning, the injunction forbidding the use of the Lord's Name in vain comes second in order; and the decimal number is safeguarded by making a division of the final precept on concupiscence--the Ninth pointing to sins of the flesh and the Tenth to desires for unlawful possession of goods. (Obviously the normal third commandment about taking the name of the Lord in vain now becomes the second commandment, which makes the fourth commandment, the heart of the Ten Commandments, into the third commandment.)

V - Another division has been adopted by the English and Helvetian Protestant churches on the authority of Philo Judæus, Josephus, Origen, and others, whereby two Commandments are made to cover the matter of worship, and thus the numbering of the rest is advanced one higher; and the Tenth embraces both the Ninth and Tenth of the Catholic division. It seems, however, as logical to separate at the end as to group at the beginning, for while one single object is aimed at under worship, two specifically different sins are forbidden under covetousness; if adultery and theft belong to two distinct species of moral wrong, the same must be said of the desire to commit these evils. (Here is the explanation for the reason for their change, so succinct and apparently logical in its argument, but false in its content.)

VI – (In this section an explanation and interpretation is provided as to the meaning and intent of each commandment. You will notice that they have included ‘Honor they Father and thy Mother…’ as part of those commandments (now the 4th) that have regard to God rather than including it as one that deals with the human family, as the normal order of the Ten Commandments provides.) The Supreme Law-Giver begins by proclaiming His Name and His Titles to the obedience of the creature man: "I am the Lord, thy God. . ." The laws which follow have regard to God and His representatives on earth (first four) and to our fellow-man (last six).
·   Being the one true God, He alone is to be adored, and all rendering to creatures of the worship which belongs to Him falls under the ban of His displeasure; the making of "graven things" is condemned: not all pictures, images, and works of art, but such as are intended to be adored and served (First).
·   Associated with God in the minds of men and representing Him, is His Holy Name, which by the Second Commandment is declared worthy of all veneration and respect and its profanation reprobated. (Not named, but this is now the second commandment rather than the third commandment.)
·   And He claims one day out of the seven as a memorial to Himself, and this must be kept holy (Third). (This is the only explanation and definition of the Sabbath, the most important of the Ten Commandments, for it contains the rudiments of the seal of God.)
·   Finally, parents being the natural providence of their offspring, invested with authority for their guidance and correction, and holding the place of God before them, the child is bidden to honour and respect them as His lawful representatives (Fourth).
The precepts, which follow, are meant to protect man in his natural rights against the injustice of his fellows.
·   His life is the object of the Fifth;
·   the honour of his body as well as the source of life, of the Sixth;
·   his lawful possessions, of the Seventh;
·   his good name, of the Eighth;
·   And in order to make him still more secure in the enjoyment of his rights, it is declared an offense against God to desire to wrong him, in his family rights by the Ninth;
·   and in his property rights by the Tenth. (Because of the combining of the first and second commandments it was necessary to divide the tenth commandment. ‘And he shall think to change time and laws…’Daniel 7:25. How applicable!)

VII - This legislation expresses not only the Maker's positive will, but the voice of nature as well--the laws which govern our being and are written more or less clearly in every human heart. The necessity of the written law is explained by the obscuring of the unwritten in men's souls by sin. These Divine mandates are regarded as binding on every human creature, and their violation, with sufficient reflection and consent of the will, if the matter be grave, is considered a grievous or mortal offense against God. They have always been esteemed as the most precious rules of life and are the basis of all Christian legislation. (In this paragraph they have now vested their revised commandments as being ‘Divine mandates’, and are to be ‘binding on every human creature….’. In other words, here’s our textual revision of God’s commandments for each to obey and understand within our contextual interpretation, or suffer it to be a ‘mortal offense against God’.)

Meaning of the Sabbath

I - The Sabbath was the consecration of one day of the weekly period to God as the Author of the universe and of time. The day thus being the Lord's, it required that man should abstain from working for his own ends and interests, since by working he would appropriate the day to himself, and that he should devote his activity to God by special acts of positive worship. (Immediately in this section the Sabbath is relegated to ‘one day’ of the week, not the seventh day only.)  After the Sinaitic covenant God stood to Israel in the relation of Lord of that covenant. The Sabbath thereby also became a sign, and its observance an acknowledgment of the pact: "See that thou keep my sabbath; because it is a sign between me and you in your generations; that you may know that I am the Lord, who sanctify you" (Exodus 31:13). But while the Sabbath was primarily a religious day, it had a social and philanthropic side. It was also intended as a day of rest and relaxation, particularly for the slaves (Deuteronomy 5:14). Because of the double character, religious and philanthropic, of the day, two different reasons are given for its observance. The first is taken from God's rest on the seventh day of creation: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, . . .and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it" (Exodus 20:11; 31:17). (Notice how subtly they diminished the sanctity and blessedness of the original intent of the Sabbath by attempting to divide the worship day into not only worship, but to secular activities. Then immediately following this sentence, they deny the existence of the Sabbath at creation, but rather divert your attention to the keeping of the Sabbath by the Israelites. In doing so, their main thrust is to disassociate the seventh day of rest instituted at creation from applying to ALL mankind, but rather only to the Jews. How subtle and deceptive is the originator of sin as he weaves his web of deceit and subsequent destruction of man!) This does not mean that the Sabbath was instituted at the Creation, as some commentators have thought, but that the Israelites were to imitate God's example and rest on the day which He had sanctified by His rest. The Sabbath as the sign of the Sinaitic covenant recalled the deliverance from the bondage of Egypt. Hence, in the second place, the Israelites are bidden to remember that they were once slaves in Egypt, and should therefore in grateful remembrance of their deliverance rest themselves and allow their bond-servants to rest (Deuteronomy 5:14-15). As a reminder of God's benefits to Israel the Sabbath was to be a day of joy (Isaiah 57:13) and such it was in practice (cf. Hosea 2:11; Lamentations 2:6). No fasting was done on the Sabbath (Judith 8:6) on the contrary, the choicest meals were served to which friends were invited. (How nicely and seemingly logical is the explanation to satisfy the unlearned in the ways of the Lord and His Word.)

Note: The paragraphs dealing with the observance of the Sabbath by the Israelites were rift with all of the ‘manmade’ laws that complemented the Ten Commandments, providing an example of many of these ‘manmade’ laws, and was excluded, as it was not germane to the subject. The second paragraph dealt with the penalties of disobeying the laws, and provided some examples of what Christ said about the laws of man. It also was excluded since it was not applicable to the subject.

The Sabbath in the New Testament

Christ, while observing the Sabbath, set himself in word and act against this absurd rigorism, which made man a slave of the day. He reproved the scribes and Pharisees for putting an intolerable burden on men's shoulders (Matthew 23:4), and proclaimed the principle that "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27). He cured on the Sabbath, and defended His disciples for plucking ears of corn on that day. In His arguments with the Pharisees on this account He showed that the Sabbath is not broken in cases of necessity or by acts of charity (Matthew 12:3 sqq.; Mark 2:25 sqq.; Luke 6:3 sqq.; 14:5). St. Paul enumerates the Sabbath among the Jewish observances which are not obligatory on Christians (Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:9-10; Romans 14:5). The gentile converts held their religious meetings on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2) and with the disappearance of the Jewish Christian churches this day was exclusively observed as the Lord's Day.(In final conclusion is the fait accompli that justifies the change of the solemnity and worship of God from the seventh day Sabbath to Sunday. None of the foregoing is true in its meaning, but rather is taken out of context, which has been explained many, many times on this board.)

Note: It should be very obvious to anyone unfamiliar with scripture and unaware of the historical implications that the Sabbath was changed, not by God, but by man…the harlot church of Revelation 17. That is why we are told in Revelation to ‘come out of her, my people’. She is the mother of falsehoods and the persecutor of saints.

[RND]

Excellent Bert!

As another poster said, they have had discussions with Brandon before. In reading that, I recall a few years ago that Brandon and I had many discussions in regard to the Sabbath issue, prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, etc. I would form my replies in a Word document and then copy and paste into the post I was sending. I have kept the replies, mostly because it involved a lot of research, study and typing........

[Azenilto Brito]

How folks

Let me leave a contribution on this allegation that the Gentiles were left with just the Noachian laws, so they are freed from both the Ten Commandments and the hygiene laws, as some Messianic Jews teach:

10 Questions Regarding the Supposed Limitation of the Gentile Christians to Obey Only the “Noachian Laws”, Not the 10 Commandments

Some serious reflections for our Messianic-Jew friends

1 – Can you indicate where did Yeshua ever imply that there are two law codes—one for the Christian Jews, and another for the Gentile Christians, inasmuch as He said to His followers, “If you love Me, keep My commandments”? Should only those Christians of Jewish origin love Him and keep His commandments?

2 – And how about when Yeshua summoned the disciples for the world evangelization task and recommended them to witness the Gospel message to the different nations and tribes of the Earth, teaching them “to observe all the things whatsoever I have commanded you”, would that be applicable only to Christians of Jewish origin? In case the answer is yes, then where are defined those things He commanded separately to be applied to the Gentile Christians?
 
3 – When Yeshua said specifically that the Sabbath was established “for man” (Mar. 2:27), since the word “man” in the original is anthropós—the same utilized in Matthew 19:5 as He spoke of the man who leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife—if the Sabbath is an obligation only to Christians of Jewish origin, does that mean that marriage applies only to Jews also?
 
4 – After all, the fact that in the 4 rules of the Jerusalem council there is no mention of the Sabbath as something the Gentile Christians should ABSTAIN from (Acts 15:20, 29), how can it be alleged that the Gentiles were not bound to obey it, inasmuch as there is no instruction AGAINST the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, a topic that wasn’t even discussed in said council for not requiring such clarification: everyone observed it regularly (as, for instance, there was no discussion regarding the inconvenience of pronouncing God’s name in vain, something which needed no clarification)?
 
5 – After all, the fact that in the 4 rules of the Jerusalem council there is no mention to the dietary laws as something the Gentile Christians should ABSTAIN from (Acts 15:20, 29), how can it be alleged that the Gentiles were not bound to obey them, inasmuch as there is no instruction AGAINST their observance, rather the REAFFIRMATION of the rule not to consume blood (cf. Lev. 3: 17; 7: 26; 17: 10; 19: 26; 1 Sam. 14:33?). Would the apostle repeat a rule of an “abolished law” to be obeyed by the Christian community—from Jewish and Gentile origin?

6 – Since the believers of the Jerusalem mother-church were ethnically Jews and “zealous of the law” (Acts 21:20) and they would never accept that they tinkered with the Sabbath commandment and the dietary laws without a vigorous contrary reaction--institutions that had tremendous importance in their religious and cultural life (as can be seen in their disputes on circumcision, exactly because it was an altered rule)--isn’t it very clear that both the Sabbath commandment and the dietary laws were not altered, for there are no discussion regarding any such changes?
 
7 – If we are to follow this strange rationale that the Gentile Christians should limit themselves to God’s “Noachian laws”, since there aren’t any clues in these NOACHIAN LAWS against disrespecting the parents and pronouncing God’s name in vain, are the Gentile Christians free to violate both these principles (see Genesis 9)?

8 – Where can it be demonstrated that the apostle Paul was aware of this limitation of the “Noachian laws” for the Gentile Christians, since he wrote to the Romans on their need of honoring all the Decalogue commandments naturally (Rom. 13:8-10), citing various of them as he took a part for the whole (see on vs. 9, “if there are any other commandments. . .”), and to the Ephesians he recommended “the first commandment with a promise” (Eph. 6:1-3), besides other commandments of the same rule (see Eph. 4:25-31) without clarifying that there were different rules (the “Noachian laws”) to the Gentiles?
 
9 – Since the Bible information is that in the passage of the Old to the New Covenant God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of ALL who accept the terms of that New Covenant [New Testament] (see Heb. 8:6-10), where are there any rules of following the “Noachian laws” for the Christian Gentiles, and “My laws” [God’s] for the Christians of Jewish descent?

10 – Since the language of this New Covenant clearly indicates that God establishes that covenant  “with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Heb. 8:8), but the context indicates that it applies to ALL those who accept the gospel (see Hebrews 10:11ff, especially vs. 16), how can someone justify this supposed division of rules for the obedience of Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians?

[Bob Pickle]

Brandon gave http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Spirituality/Research/MitchelQuotations/letter_s.htm as one of two sources for his quotes (and that appears to be the main source), but that website merely lifted those quotes from Bible.ca, and Bible.ca's quotes are atrocious.

See "Analysis of Common Quotations from the Church 'Fathers' Concerning the Lord's Day."