The Lord's Day

[vooke]

Brilliant kadame!

I once said that one needs to thaw their brains before subscribing to White. I was being kind.

Colossians has;
1. Holy day
2. New moon
3. Sabbath(s)

And Nuff Sed will not explain what these are except insist what they re not. She knows if she attempts to do such shed run into logical contradictions. So she obfuscates this by throwing Leviticus 23 which works against her

Daily Bread has simply decided that the Sabbath is not a Sabbath or holy day/feast, not because Paul says so but because it is convenient to her positions. "These are the appointed feasts" is about as clear as one can get. Otherwise, what are "THESE" that the sentence refers to, besides the list that immediately follows? English.....

[GeeMail]

I see you can't answer the question.

I can address you by quoting your posts without necessarily calling you by your name which I don't even know.

You cheapen the cost of redemption and reduce Christianity to mindless subscription to an 18th century mad woman's garbage. You are not ashamed of claiming to be the 'remnant' and EVERYONE outside White's claws to be spiritually dead

Quote Jesus and Paul but pray tell us why you won't keep Passover yet BOTH kept it. Did nobody warn you against quoting Jesus? These are your legendary strawman

T

Nuff Sed,

My other question was, why would Paul practice abrogated Laws such as Nazirite Vow, circumcision and keeping the Feast? You have no answer except to claim that ONLY Paul observed the same.

The import of this is, Jews retaining Jewishness AFTER Pentecost is no commandment to Gentiles to undertake the same. So you should NEVER claim that you are keeping the Sabbath because there are records of the same among the early church. You may as well circumcise and take the Nazirite vows.

You should also never quote Jesus because he was born UNDER the Law to save us from the Law. He was NEVER guilty of breaking none of the 613 Laws. Comprende?

The question is not addressed to me but be careful before you cheapen Christ and warn me against quoting Him. Paul gives this warning in Col 2.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

I fail to understand why you resort to ad hominem so naturally. Are you trying to exemplify Ka-Bella's assertion about humans' depravity sprinkled with occasional good deeds? Let me see if I understand you correctly. Jesus and Paul were circumcised. That does not stop Paul from expressly condemning Jews for relying on circumcision as a ticket to heaven. Are you saying that obedience to God's commandments is "mindless subscription to an 18th century mad woman's garbage?" Can we address one issue at a time please?

The issue is simple. By keeping the Sabbath, Adventists obey the word of God expressed in no uncertain terms numerously in the Bible. An example followed by Jesus and the apostles. If there is apostolic practice to be followed, here is one. This practice is recorded in the Bible for us.

On the other hand, Sunday-keeping Protestants believe they are obeying God by obeying traditions of men and unsubstantiated "apostolic practice". They do so while still claiming to protest Catholicism's reliance on traditions of men for doctrine. Little do they know that Catholicism (when it's convenient) boasts of changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday by her "divine authority." Protestants faithfully worship on Sunday and keep it every week. No single verse to support the practice (or at worst, no single verse to support the supposed abrogation of the Sabbath on Saturday). You condemned tithing in another thread using the Bible and said it was not scriptural. Can you apply the same Nacet on Sunday worship? Si wembe ni ule ule ama?

[GeeMail]

It is interesting that you brought up the connection between the Sabbath and the exodus, had nearly forgotten how God wanted the Israelites to keep the Sabbath in remembrance of their deliverance....reminds you of the Passover feast, no? When were you saved from bondage in Egypt, Daily Bread? Why do you think you or I need to constantly remember this by keeping Sabbath? To the contrary, I remember my deliverance from sin and death (baptism and conversion) every day and especially on Sunday, the Lord's day, when Christ definitively triumphed over death that Adam's sins (and mine) wrought.

It's a good analogy because before we know Christ, we are considered to be in Egypt spiritually (or Babylon). The Sabbath is indeed also a mark of deliverance from sin and helps separate us from what we were before weknew Christ just like Israel was distinct from all the nations around them. They lost it when they were sold into slavery in Egypt. To restore their lost iheritance, God brought them out and gave them the Ten Commandments. God knew that we would forget who He is and His promises, that's why he said "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy". He knew that in later times wolves would come in sheepskin and try to deceive the flock with fluffy philosophies (Paul's warning in col 2). He also knew that one day people will come with things like theistic evolution. The Sabbath day is a commandment to remind us every week about God's creatorship. Jews exist today to preserve that history even if they rejected Christ. Thankfully some Jews (like Paul) accepted Christ and can give us a glimpse into the old and the new.

[vooke]

More circular arguments. By not keeping Sabbath we are just being Christians and not Jews and Jewish Laws have no bearing on us. Paul can't be more clear

Romans 14:5 (KJV)
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Tell me, how do you distinguish a 'moral' law from a 'ceremonial' law?
I see you have AVOIDED the natural conclusion of your claim that moral law resided inside the ark while ceremonial law remained outside. This garbage I have read from White and of course it has no basis. You are hopelessly married to her illogic and MUST defend it at all costs, including running away from debates and ignoring questions that expose your vain doctrines

I fail to understand why you resort to ad hominem so naturally. Are you trying to exemplify Ka-Bella's assertion about humans' depravity sprinkled with occasional good deeds? Let me see if I understand you correctly. Jesus and Paul were circumcised. That does not stop Paul from expressly condemning Jews for relying on circumcision as a ticket to heaven. Are you saying that obedience to God's commandments is "mindless subscription to an 18th century mad woman's garbage?" Can we address one issue at a time please?

The issue is simple. By keeping the Sabbath, Adventists obey the word of God expressed in no uncertain terms numerously in the Bible. An example followed by Jesus and the apostles. If there is apostolic practice to be followed, here is one. This practice is recorded in the Bible for us.

On the other hand, Sunday-keeping Protestants believe they are obeying God by obeying traditions of men and unsubstantiated "apostolic practice". They do so while still claiming to protest Catholicism's reliance on traditions of men for doctrine. Little do they know that Catholicism (when it's convenient) boasts of changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday by her "divine authority." Protestants faithfully worship on Sunday and keep it every week. No single verse to support the practice (or at worst, no single verse to support the supposed abrogation of the Sabbath on Saturday). You condemned tithing in another thread using the Bible and said it was not scriptural. Can you apply the same Nacet on Sunday worship? Si wembe ni ule ule ama?

[GeeMail]

Ad hominem naturalis. Let me help you by quoting Paul's very words. Hint: If you want to quote Paul, use the Bible.

Colossians 2 (King James Version)
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

1. holyday
2. the new moon
3. sabbath days

have you never owned a book with a Preface? Or have you forgotten that you asked for an explanation of holydays and new moons?

Brilliant kadame!

I once said that one needs to thaw their brains before subscribing to White. I was being kind.

Colossians has;
1. Holy day
2. New moon
3. Sabbath(s)

And Nuff Sed will not explain what these are except insist what they re not. She knows if she attempts to do such shed run into logical contradictions. So she obfuscates this by throwing Leviticus 23 which works against her

Daily Bread has simply decided that the Sabbath is not a Sabbath or holy day/feast, not because Paul says so but because it is convenient to her positions. "These are the appointed feasts" is about as clear as one can get. Otherwise, what are "THESE" that the sentence refers to, besides the list that immediately follows? English.....

[Ka-Bella]

Wrong again, Daily Bread. "Catholicism" doesn't boast of "this" (by which I am guessing you mean the idea that some time in the 4th century, church men totally invented the notion of Sunday as a Christian day of worship) or you would have already found those teachings by now; rather some few Catholics too lazy to do their basic homework have made careless statements in the past in an attempt to score points in a debate. It is a temptation that apologists fall into, from time to time, called polemics. You engage in it yourself quite a bit, though you don't realize it (that darned fallen nature and what-have-you) We are all guilty of it at some point. Christians should try to avoid it as much as possible, I have heard that SOME muslims do it deliberately with some type of sanction in the Quran, but no rendering of Christian scriptures allows us to claim falsehoods.

[GeeMail]

Wrong again, Daily Bread. "Catholicism" doesn't boast of "this" (by which I am guessing you mean the idea that some time in the 4th century, church men totally invented the notion of Sunday as a Christian day of worship) or you would have already found those teachings by now; rather some few Catholics too lazy to do their basic homework have made careless statements in the past in an attempt to score points in a debate. It is a temptation that apologists fall into, from time to time, called polemics. You engage in it yourself quite a bit, though you don't realize it (that darned fallen nature and what-have-you) We are all guilty of it at some point. Christians should try to avoid it as much as possible, I have heard that SOME muslims do it deliberately with some type of sanction in the Quran, but no rendering of Christian scriptures allows us to claim falsehoods.

It's no falsehood. Catholicism claims an unbroken line of popes from St Peter (of course relying on tradition and apostolic practice). It was under these popes that the Sabbath change was made (4th Century you say?) even if it's now inconvenient and politically incorrect to say so. Being the only church around when the change happened, it would be a falsehood to attribute the change to Sunday worship to any other religious body. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

http://www.stpeterslist.com/10008/in-defense-of-the-papacy-9-reasons-true-christians-follow-the-pope/

[vooke]

The question was, what is a holy day, new moon?
You reckon it can't be the weekly sabbath and as proof, you send me to Leviticus 23 where sabbath is is called a feast.
You, without proof, claim that the portion mentioning weekly sabbath day is a preamble, a preface. And no part of the 'these'.  I have no problem with existence of preface nor preamble but your rationale for concluding that the weekly sabbath is a 'preamble' and not a feast after it has just been called thus! You also claim sabbath was mentioned first to avoid confusion again without proof

When you start esteem img the Word of God above the Great Controvery and other trash, you will start living

Ad hominem naturalis. Let me help you by quoting Paul's very words. Hint: If you want to quote Paul, use the Bible.

Colossians 2 (King James Version)
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

1. holyday
2. the new moon
3. sabbath days

have you never owned a book with a Preface? Or have you forgotten that you asked for an explanation of holydays and new moons?

[GeeMail]

More circular arguments. By not keeping Sabbath we are just being Christians and not Jews and Jewish Laws have no bearing on us. Paul can't be more clear

Romans 14:5 (KJV)
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Tell me, how do you distinguish a 'moral' law from a 'ceremonial' law?
I see you have AVOIDED the natural conclusion of your claim that moral law resided inside the ark while ceremonial law remained outside. This garbage I have read from White and of course it has no basis. You are hopelessly married to her illogic and MUST defend it at all costs, including running away from debates and ignoring questions that expose your vain doctrines

I fail to understand why you resort to ad hominem so naturally. Are you trying to exemplify Ka-Bella's assertion about humans' depravity sprinkled with occasional good deeds? Let me see if I understand you correctly. Jesus and Paul were circumcised. That does not stop Paul from expressly condemning Jews for relying on circumcision as a ticket to heaven. Are you saying that obedience to God's commandments is "mindless subscription to an 18th century mad woman's garbage?" Can we address one issue at a time please?

The issue is simple. By keeping the Sabbath, Adventists obey the word of God expressed in no uncertain terms numerously in the Bible. An example followed by Jesus and the apostles. If there is apostolic practice to be followed, here is one. This practice is recorded in the Bible for us.

On the other hand, Sunday-keeping Protestants believe they are obeying God by obeying traditions of men and unsubstantiated "apostolic practice". They do so while still claiming to protest Catholicism's reliance on traditions of men for doctrine. Little do they know that Catholicism (when it's convenient) boasts of changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday by her "divine authority." Protestants faithfully worship on Sunday and keep it every week. No single verse to support the practice (or at worst, no single verse to support the supposed abrogation of the Sabbath on Saturday). You condemned tithing in another thread using the Bible and said it was not scriptural. Can you apply the same Nacet on Sunday worship? Si wembe ni ule ule ama?

Read the chapter from the beginning. Paul is referring to feasts and not the Sabbath day of the fourth commandment. Hiyo Nacet inafanya kazi kweli ama inahitaji kun(y)olewa?

Romans 14 King James Version (KJV)

1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

[vooke]

Nuff Sed,
When pointed to sabbath in Colossians, you advise us to read the entire book to see that it was NOT the weekly sabbath but other days/sabbaths. Now you insist we chew through Romans 14 to see it is NOT weekly sabbath but other days.  It's quite clear that is your escape route. Read,read no re-read

Can you,assuming you have read Romns 14 more than all of us combined, demonstrate from whatever part of that chapter why it is NOT weekly sabbath but any other?

Do some exegesis why Paul must have been talking of other days and not weekly sabbath

Read the chapter from the beginning. Paul is referring to feasts and not the Sabbath day of the fourth commandment. Hiyo Nacet inafanya kazi kweli ama inahitaji kun(y)olewa?

Romans 14 King James Version (KJV)

1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

[GeeMail]

Nuff Sed,
When pointed to sabbath in Colossians, you advise us to read the entire book to see that it was NOT the weekly sabbath but other days/sabbaths. Now you insist we chew through Romans 14 to see it is NOT weekly sabbath but other days.

Can you,assuming you have read, demonstrate from whatever part of that chapter why it is NOT weekly sabbath but any other?

Do some exegesis why Paul must have been talking of other days and not weekly sabbath

Read the chapter from the beginning. Paul is referring to feasts and not the Sabbath day of the fourth commandment. Hiyo Nacet inafanya kazi kweli ama inahitaji kun(y)olewa?

Romans 14 King James Version (KJV)

1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

I don't see the need to demonstrate what it's not talking about when what it's talking about it so clear from the beginning.

[Ka-Bella]

Wrong again, Daily Bread. "Catholicism" doesn't boast of "this" (by which I am guessing you mean the idea that some time in the 4th century, church men totally invented the notion of Sunday as a Christian day of worship) or you would have already found those teachings by now; rather some few Catholics too lazy to do their basic homework have made careless statements in the past in an attempt to score points in a debate. It is a temptation that apologists fall into, from time to time, called polemics. You engage in it yourself quite a bit, though you don't realize it (that darned fallen nature and what-have-you) We are all guilty of it at some point. Christians should try to avoid it as much as possible, I have heard that SOME muslims do it deliberately with some type of sanction in the Quran, but no rendering of Christian scriptures allows us to claim falsehoods.

It's no falsehood. Catholicism claims an unbroken line of popes from St Peter (of course relying on tradition and apostolic practice). It was under these popes that the Sabbath change was made (4th Century you say?) even if it's now inconvenient and politically incorrect to say so. Being the only church around when the change happened, it would be a falsehood to attribute the change to Sunday worship to any other religious body. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

http://www.stpeterslist.com/10008/in-defense-of-the-papacy-9-reasons-true-christians-follow-the-pope/

I understand that (and all catholic beliefs, including where we differ with protestants of different sorts and with orthodox) but what you mean when you say "church" is not what catholics mean, which means that using that as a basis to attack non-catholics for not worshipping on Saturday is based on wrong premises. When catholics speak of "the church" instituting Sunday, they are speaking of the Apostles, just like when they speak of "the church" writing the scriptures (New Testament), they are not usually meaning your idea of a church beginning in the 4th century writing scriptures or instituting Sunday etc. My point is that Sunday-observing protestants will agree with Catholics on these things WITHOUT agreeing that the early church is the catholic church and vice versa. By bringing in the idea of catholic authority, you are hi-jacking one debate and transferring it in a backhanded fashion to another, which is what those catholic you were quoting were doing. They are trying to make arguments for authority by "stealing" the Adventist arguments (which are wrong arguments) instead of sticking to each debate. In fact, throughout this discussion with you, I have found catholic discussions heavily criticizing those very quotations you were citing. That's how I knew they were authentic (that is, by catholics) but everyone recognizes that they are wrong.

[vooke]

Then please demonstrate that Romans 14:5 is talking about non-weekly sabbaths or feasts . This should be easy since its 'all there' ama?

There are those people who when confronted with difficult and potentially embarrassing  questions retort with 'obvious' implying there is no need to answer the question but in reality they are not-so-cleverly masking their ignorance &/ shame

I don't see the need to demonstrate what it's not talking about when what it's talking about it so clear from the beginning.

[GeeMail]

You can understand Rom 14:5 from the meaning of the verses around it. Paul, a Pharisee, knew about clean and unclean foods. Lev 11 must have been familiar to him as well as other regulations on holydays and new moons. The Sabbath commandment must have been familiar too, for he engages in Sabbath worship without equivocation in Acts 17.
I've done my part, now show me where you find Sabbath or Sunday worship in Rom 14:5.

[GeeMail]

Wrong again, Daily Bread. "Catholicism" doesn't boast of "this" (by which I am guessing you mean the idea that some time in the 4th century, church men totally invented the notion of Sunday as a Christian day of worship) or you would have already found those teachings by now; rather some few Catholics too lazy to do their basic homework have made careless statements in the past in an attempt to score points in a debate. It is a temptation that apologists fall into, from time to time, called polemics. You engage in it yourself quite a bit, though you don't realize it (that darned fallen nature and what-have-you) We are all guilty of it at some point. Christians should try to avoid it as much as possible, I have heard that SOME muslims do it deliberately with some type of sanction in the Quran, but no rendering of Christian scriptures allows us to claim falsehoods.

It's no falsehood. Catholicism claims an unbroken line of popes from St Peter (of course relying on tradition and apostolic practice). It was under these popes that the Sabbath change was made (4th Century you say?) even if it's now inconvenient and politically incorrect to say so. Being the only church around when the change happened, it would be a falsehood to attribute the change to Sunday worship to any other religious body. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

http://www.stpeterslist.com/10008/in-defense-of-the-papacy-9-reasons-true-christians-follow-the-pope/

I understand that (and all catholic beliefs, including where we differ with protestants of different sorts and with orthodox) but what you mean when you say "church" is not what catholics mean, which means that using that as a basis to attack non-catholics for not worshipping on Saturday is based on wrong premises. When catholics speak of "the church" instituting Sunday, they are speaking of the Apostles, just like when they speak of "the church" writing the scriptures (New Testament), they are not usually meaning your idea of a church beginning in the 4th century writing scriptures or instituting Sunday etc. My point is that Sunday-observing protestants will agree with Catholics on these things WITHOUT agreeing that the early church is the catholic church and vice versa. By bringing in the idea of catholic authority, you are hi-jacking one debate and transferring it in a backhanded fashion to another, which is what those catholic you were quoting were doing. They are trying to make arguments for authority by "stealing" the Adventist arguments (which are wrong arguments) instead of sticking to each debate. In fact, throughout this discussion with you, I have found catholic discussions heavily criticizing those very quotations you were citing. That's how I knew they were authentic (that is, by catholics) but everyone recognizes that they are wrong.

That explanation is helpful to me. I acknowledge I don't understand some things about the Catholic church. However, I do read some of their sources and they give me a good idea of where the church is coming from. Take this page for example.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14335a.htm
Excerpt: The Council of Elvira (300) decreed: "If anyone in the city neglects to come to church for three Sundays, let him be excommunicated for a short time so that he may be corrected" (xxi).

Howmany protestants are aware of such teachings?

[vooke]

You have not shown why that verse is talking about Jewish holy days EXCEPT weekly sabbath nor clean and unclean foods. That's your imagination overheating inspired by you know what.

Next, note I never said the verse 'proves' Sunday Worship, that's another strawman you are drawing

Now, here is how you study scriptures;
Romans 14:5 (KJV)
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind

Paul tells us of diversity; some believers (not cows) 'esteem' some days ABOVE others while others. He also makes it clear that it is up to them to follow their convictions. So esteeming some above others or not is an individual decision not based on nothing external.

What is 'esteemeth'?

????? (krin?)
Strong: G2919

GK: G3212

pluperfect, ???????? (3 sg), pr. to separate; to make a distinction between; to exercise judgment upon; to estimate, Rom. 14:5; to judge, to assume censorial power over, to call to account, Mt. 7:1; Lk. 6:37; Rom. 2:1, 3; 14:3, 4, 10, 13; Col. 2:16; Jas. 4:11, 12; to bring under question, Rom. 14:22; to judge judicially, to try as a judge, Jn. 18:31; to bring to trial, Acts 13:27; to sentence, Lk. 19:22; Jn. 7:51; to resolve on, decree, Acts 16:4; Rev. 16:5; absol. to decide, determine, resolve, Acts 3:13; 15:19; 27:1; to deem, Acts 13:46; to form a judgment, pass judgment, Jn. 8:15; pass. to be brought to trial, Acts 25:10, 20; Rom. 3:4; to be brought to account, to incur arraignment, be arraigned, 1 Cor. 10:29; mid. to go to law, litigate, Mt. 5:40; in NT to judge, to visit judicially, Acts 7:7; 1 Cor. 11:31, 32; 1 Pet. 4:6; to judge, to right, to vindicate, Heb. 10:30; to administer government over, to govern, Mt. 19:28; Lk. 22:30

I'd go with the first meaning. Paul is talking of some people making a distinction between days and others not making. The context is quite clear that we should not judge those who esteem and those who don't .
 
The question,is the Jew who keeps the Passover esteeming it ABOVE other days? What about the Adventist and his Saturday? And what about the Catholic/Prostestant and his Sunday? And finally, what about those who esteem December 25th? above all other December days

All these esteem some days above others. Don't judge them
Paul by leaving the issue discretional relegates it to ALL religious observances to the least relevance in the life of a believer. This would be extremely careless and dangerous if eternity is pegged on esteeming one day above the others.

It is important to note that esteeming some days above others be it weekly sabbaths,new moons and holy days was ordained by God just like circumcision.

Paul circumcised and kept the days and yet spoke against the necessity for both. He circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3) and he tells you it AVAILETH nothing (Gal 5:6).

Paul observing the sabbath is Paul being Jewish just as when he kept feasts which you have no doubt they was abrogated.

You can understand Rom 14:5 from the meaning of the verses around it. Paul, a Pharisee, knew about clean and unclean foods. Lev 11 must have been familiar to him as well as other regulations on holydays and new moons. The Sabbath commandment must have been familiar too, for he engages in Sabbath worship without equivocation in Acts 17.
I've done my part, now show me where you find Sabbath or Sunday worship in Rom 14:5.

[GeeMail]

You can go with whichever meaning suits you. However, it is disingenuous to claim there is an Adventist or Jewish Sabbath. The Sabbath is the Lord's, not for Jews or Adventists. A day that people choose to esteem for whatever reason is their own day. The Lord's day remains as commanded for worship.

The suicidal argument has moved from trying to prove Sunday is not the Sabbath, to Sundaybeing a new Sabbath, to Sunday being an apostolic practice, to some people esteeming a day above the others. This thread is not for judging Protestants orCatholics. It is to bring to the attention of all the often missed unscriptural origins of Sunday worship. I didn't hear anybody accuse you of judging them when you brought up the tithing thread.

While esteeming Sunday above all others, don't forget the next verse.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

[vooke]

Romans 14:5 makes it very clear that esteeming whichever day above others or esteeming them equally is not a matter of eternity; it is not important. Life issues are not discretional, it is not left to your own conviction to fornicate,steal or blaspheme.

There are no multiple interpretations of Romans 14:5, but one which is, honoring and setting aside days is NOTHING. Paul cautioning against judging believers on the basis of days means this was rife at Rome. They probably tagged those least bothered by sabbath as sinners just like you!

The argument has not changed at all. It is your fickle attempt to LEAD it that has been seriously challenged by reason and Wisdom from scriptures.

It is not sin keeping sabbath and neither is it sin not keeping it. I have the option of following a deranged failed prophet or the Inspired Apostle. Choice is yours

[vooke]

I had asked a few questions and it appears Jesus will return before they are answered

1. How do you biblically tell a 'moral' law from a 'ceremonial' law?

2. Are the Ten Commandments 'moral' laws?

3. What is a 'moral' Law? And what is a 'ceremonial' law?

Kadame,Nuff Sed,Daily Bread, you want to help me with these?

[vooke]

It helps to note that in the ENTIRE NT, there are dire warnings against rebelling against God,against EACH of the Ten Commandments except one.

It's quite possible that nobody broke the sabbath and as such there was no need of reminding the church about it. But this is farfetched especially given the many other faults that afflicted the churches.

And finally you have zero instructions on sabbath in the NT. Paul goes as far as talking about sex but nothing on sabbath? Instead of leading the Gentile church to whom sabbath was totally strange,he tells them not to judge those who esteem some days above others or those who don't. And he'd have none of them condemned on the basis of nothing Jewish be it circumcision,weekly sabbath, monthly sacrifices and annual feasts