Was Jesus Resurrection actually on a Sunday?

[BavarianWheels]

...well, I'm glad to address almost any "Mosaic" law ( if I have a belief in it ) you claim Adventism is stuck in, but I'm more concerned at the moment with a specific law that is being addressed.
.
.

[Kurieuo]

You and Rick haven't had much of discussion here about anything much other than his sarcasm. You're always so serious. There's a charm to Rick and many get it, there's nothing wrong with sarcasm, you just need to lighten up.

As for Jewish law, how about not eating meat for one. Resting on a particular day for another.

[BavarianWheels]

You and Rick haven't had much of discussion here about anything much other than his sarcasm. You're always so serious. There's a charm to Rick and many get it, there's nothing wrong with sarcasm, you just need to lighten up.

As for law, how about not eating meat for one. Resting on a particular day for another.

I get serious when a moderator takes the liberty of name-calling...because you/he think it true makes it ok.

What if I were to call someone a "retard"? If I thought it were true, would I be given the same liberty to name-call another forum member? Is it just when a majority ( or those in charge ) thinks a label fits that the label is all of a sudden acceptable?

Adventism does promote vegetarianism and/or veganism. If you lived in Los Angeles, you'd see how mainstream that is becoming for health reasons. Seems the crazy Adventists weren't so crazy after all. But as a means of being holy, no. I'm a carnivorous Adventist. So there goes that claim.

As for resting on a particular day, I cite Genesis 2:2,3 as the BASIS for Exodus 20:8-11.

So one need only prove that the Sabbath was intended for ONLY Jews when God made it holy on the 7th day of creation.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

As for Jewish law, how about not eating meat for one. Resting on a particular day for another.

...and one more thing. If you haven't noticed, I do not promote any law ( as Law ) that is not in the DECALOGUE.

So as for eating meat, I don't recall such a law in the Decalogue. Can you point it out to me, if I missed it?
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

Adventism also promotes not partaking of alcohol and has done so since the early 1900's if not before...

Here's what the world is now promoting quitting alcohol ( today in Yahoo news ): Before-and-after photos show how cutting alcohol can change your life

But while there are Adventists that have the crazy idea that eating meat, drinking alcohol, and/or smoking keeps one out of heaven ( that may have some truth in some context ), it is NOT a point of salvation.

The reasons we do promote these is for HEALTH. Always has been.
.
.

[Kurieuo]

I suppose, there is a legalism of sorts promoted by many, and that just sits uncomfortable with me. It's like when Peter associated with gentiles, and then because they weren't circumcised and ate "unclean" foods and the like, he became hypocrital when his Jewish brethren were around. Paul confronted him on it (i.e., Galatians 2).

Consider also Peter's vision in Acts 10:

It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

And then, Colossians 2:16-17 which reads:

16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Also, Galatians 5 where Paul has rather harsh words for those trying to place Christians under the yoke of law, in particular circumcision, making us fall from the security of grace via faith in Christ and Him alone:

2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified[a] by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

7 You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion is not from him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. 11 But if I, brothers, still preach[c] circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. 12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

You've stated that you eat meat, fine, many of your brothers and sisters do not and I expect would judge you for such. Then we could discuss days and the Sabbath, but that's gotten us nowhere in the past, yet Colossians 2:16 says to not let others pass judgement on you for such. As for wine, most certainly not grape juice Jesus turned the water into -- and yet that is what is advocated as though drinking alcohol is a sin rather than merely a health choice like you're here advancing.

Now, you cite health reasons. That might be well and good, but having had bible studies with an SDA, there is clearly an advocacy of a works-based theology which is just so antithetical to the good news of Christ. I don't consider SDA as JWs or Mormans, clearly, at least much Christian doctrine is correct with regard to the nature of God and like. There is much right and to be celebrated I suppose in what we would agree upon. One also doesn't have to be SDA to be caught up in a wrong works-based theology that even extends unto security in salvation.

Let me say here a few statements, ones I'm not so sure you'd support without a bit of qualification (which highlights a main difference between our theologies and even soteriologies). The law - the Law - is dead and when we come to Christ we're no longer captive to it. It is no longer binding upon us – we are free from any written law in the Scriptures/OT. All thanks to Christ, His work, and our trust in Christ. We are righteous not via works, but such is imputed to us by faith. Thus, even though I fall and sin, and fail to keep the law in many ways, I'm nonetheless righteous and will be declared such thanks to m'Lord Christ Jesus.

How many SDAs would have just squirmed to some of those statements I just made? Those that are still in some way bound to the law, and feel like they're under the law like Israel were. Such don't fully understand the new convenant, which is of the heart which was prophecied by Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) to the Jewish peoples. Such I'd say don't truly understand grace and the gospel of Christ, and indeed I don't understand how such could feel secure at all in Christ.

Now you have SDA beliefs and understand their theology better than I. I certainly don't claim to be more knowledgable than you in that respect. So correct me if I'm wrong that I wouldn't be judged here by many SDAs, particularly my words regarding the law.

[BavarianWheels]

I suppose, there is a legalism of sorts promoted by many, and that just sits uncomfortable with me. It's like when Peter associated with gentiles, and then because they weren't circumcised and ate "unclean" foods and the like, he became hypocrital when his Jewish brethren were around. Paul confronted him on it (i.e., Galatians 2).

And then, Colossians 2:16-17 which reads:

16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

I won't even begin to comment on the rest since the crux of the matter is in this text...and that is that the context DOES NO FIT WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION.

There exists no law about food or drink, or festival, new moon or A Sabbath...these are ALL laws in the 600+ laws and NOT in the Decalogue to which you wrongly attribute the meaning to abolish!

The context points at something completely different than what you claim it does...and in plain "English" to boot!

Not to mention that someone has YET to prove the Sabbath of creation is Jewish that it would be considered "Mosaic" law.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

How many SDAs would have just squirmed to some of those statements I just made? Those that are still in some way bound to the law, and feel like they're under the law like Israel were. Such don't fully understand the new convenant, which is of the heart which was prophecied by Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) to the Jewish peoples. Such I'd say don't truly understand grace and the gospel of Christ, and indeed I don't understand how such could feel secure at all in Christ.

Now you have SDA beliefs and understand their theology better than I. I certainly don't claim to be more knowledgable than you in that respect. So correct me if I'm wrong that I wouldn't be judged here by many SDAs, particularly my words regarding the law.

Of course you'd be "judged"...and that's not because we Adventists put law as the means of salvation...it never was the means to salvation! If so, prove it.

But you're judged because you cite "we are no longer under law" to mean the law is abolished. You disregard texts like 2 Corinthians 3:3 which clearly state that the law is no longer written on tablets of stone, but WRITTEN on tablets of human hearts. NO WHERE is any of that LAW, the 10, abolished! It is rewritten...on our heart that we no longer do or think to do as a means of salvation as it becomes a natural outflow of what is on our heart. It never was put into place to do so, but as a means to SEE our sinfulness. We no longer have to check the 10, but innately KNOW what sin is because that Law, the 10, is written on our hearts.

We are no longer under the law because the law POINTS at our sinfulness. The law no longer condemns us because the Law no longer sees us, but sees Christ and His righteousness. If the law sees Christ as righteous and the law brings the knowledge of sin, then Christ has not broken any law in the 10...which includes the 4th...unless you can show that that law was specific for JEWS...which would be ironic and logically silly since Christ is JEWISH...and so are you if you are grafted into the Vine.

I really wish you all would actually read the scriptures without a preconceived idea of what you're reading. REMOVE all your ideas and simply read the bible for what it says and not what you think it says.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

Now, you cite health reasons. That might be well and good, but having had bible studies with an SDA, there is clearly an advocacy of a works-based theology which is just so antithetical to the good news of Christ. I don't consider SDA as JWs or Mormans, clearly, at least much Christian doctrine is correct with regard to the nature of God and like. There is much right and to be celebrated I suppose in what we would agree upon. One also doesn't have to be SDA to be caught up in a wrong works-based theology that even extends unto security in salvation.

I don't deny that a lot of Adventists are caught up in a works-based theology. I deny that the Sabbath law, the 4th commandment, has been abolished. It's no more abolished than the command of Do Not Murder.

I deny that keeping the 4th commandment is tantamount to denying Christ's finished work of salvation though His life, death and resurrection. No more than refraining from committing murder denies the gospel of Christ.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

I suppose, there is a legalism of sorts promoted by many, and that just sits uncomfortable with me. It's like when Peter associated with gentiles, and then because they weren't circumcised and ate "unclean" foods and the like, he became hypocrital when his Jewish brethren were around. Paul confronted him on it (i.e., Galatians 2).

While I would gather that most Adventists likely still practice circumcision, you'll notice that circumcision is not, again, part of the Decalogue and there is no mention of clean and unclean foods in the Decalogue.

I had my son circumcised when he was born...not because I thought doing so would save him, but that I believe God doesn't simply make up things and giggle as we obey Him. There's probably a good reason for circumcising. I may not understand it, but I trust God. But Paul argued rightly that circumcision is nothing if it isn't done through faith in God and His word. The act of circumcision does not save anyone.

Why is this so difficult to understand?
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

Also, Galatians 5 where Paul has rather harsh words for those trying to place Christians under the yoke of law, in particular circumcision, making us fall from the security of grace via faith in Christ and Him alone:

2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified[a] by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

Please note that Paul isn't arguing that there is no value in circumcision, but that there is no value in circumcision to that person(s) who, "...you who would be justified by the law;"

That's what the text says clearly...and rightly so, they've fallen AWAY from grace. Then he goes on to say, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything."

"BUT ONLY FAITH WORKING THROUGH LOVE." So circumcision only has value when done by faith through love.

Now what did Christ say to the Pharisees when they asked about the Law?

34And when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they themselves gathered together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested Him with a question: 36“Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in the Law?”

37Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’d 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’e 40All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.”

...and isn't it ironic/interesting that the Decalogue can be split into two laws...How to love God ( 1-4 ) and How to love each other ( 5-10 ).

The law is summed up in love.
.
.

[Kurieuo]

I suppose, there is a legalism of sorts promoted by many, and that just sits uncomfortable with me. It's like when Peter associated with gentiles, and then because they weren't circumcised and ate "unclean" foods and the like, he became hypocrital when his Jewish brethren were around. Paul confronted him on it (i.e., Galatians 2).

And then, Colossians 2:16-17 which reads:

16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

I won't even begin to comment on the rest since the crux of the matter is in this text...and that is that the context DOES NO FIT WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION.

There exists no law about food or drink, or festival, new moon or A Sabbath...these are ALL laws in the 600+ laws and NOT in the Decalogue to which you wrongly attribute the meaning to abolish!

The context points at something completely different than what you claim it does...and in plain "English" to boot!

Not to mention that someone has YET to prove the Sabbath of creation is Jewish that it would be considered "Mosaic" law.

I actually didn't give too much interpretation, but rather merely quoted the Colossians passage which seems pretty self-explanatory to me. Would you say a person is rightfully judging me if/when I don't rest and worship one day a week? I.e., Saturday, or??

[Kurieuo]

I suppose, there is a legalism of sorts promoted by many, and that just sits uncomfortable with me. It's like when Peter associated with gentiles, and then because they weren't circumcised and ate "unclean" foods and the like, he became hypocrital when his Jewish brethren were around. Paul confronted him on it (i.e., Galatians 2).

While I would gather that most Adventists likely still practice circumcision, you'll notice that circumcision is not, again, part of the Decalogue and there is no mention of clean and unclean foods in the Decalogue.

I have nothing against circumcision. It was more of an issue dealt with by Paul between the Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. And indeed, it was very much to do with judaizing and whether or not Christians should be more Jewish with respect to the law. Same as with respect to any diet, or day of worship as per Colossians 2:16-17.

Yet, as mentioned, Peter's vision and Paul's words in Galatians, we're no longer under the law in Christ. It has been done away with for us (Jew and Gentile Christians) such that we a free to worship God rather than obliged. SDA theology still obliges people on certain laws (e.g., the Sabbath day), not merely encourages, and there it is wrong. It is like Paul says in Galatians 5, such teachers are trying to place Christians under the yoke of slavary again from which Christ has already freed us. (Gal 5:1)

[Kurieuo]

How many SDAs would have just squirmed to some of those statements I just made? Those that are still in some way bound to the law, and feel like they're under the law like Israel were. Such don't fully understand the new convenant, which is of the heart which was prophecied by Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34) to the Jewish peoples. Such I'd say don't truly understand grace and the gospel of Christ, and indeed I don't understand how such could feel secure at all in Christ.

Now you have SDA beliefs and understand their theology better than I. I certainly don't claim to be more knowledgable than you in that respect. So correct me if I'm wrong that I wouldn't be judged here by many SDAs, particularly my words regarding the law.

Of course you'd be "judged"...and that's not because we Adventists put law as the means of salvation...it never was the means to salvation! If so, prove it.

But you're judged because you cite "we are no longer under law" to mean the law is abolished. You disregard texts like 2 Corinthians 3:3 which clearly state that the law is no longer written on tablets of stone, but WRITTEN on tablets of human hearts.

I think you misunderstand the teachings in Scripture here. Written on our hearts rings of Jeremiah's words (Jer 31:31-34). The covenant is no longer one of law that we're bound by, but one from the heart. We are no longer obliged to keep any of God's commandments, nor do we receive judgement when we don't. It is dead to us who have been grafted into Christ, participating in His death and likewise His resurrection where we are raised with Him in glory and honour.

Rather, anything we do is now from the heart. Circumcision and commitment to God is no longer required and of the flesh, but rather in Christ something done in our hearts and we want to please God and honour him. Read and understand Paul's words in Romans 7:6 - "But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." (which is also the essence of Jeremiah's own prophecy to do with old and new covenants)

NO WHERE is any of that LAW, the 10, abolished! It is rewritten...on our heart that we no longer do or think to do as a means of salvation as it becomes a natural outflow of what is on our heart. It never was put into place to do so, but as a means to SEE our sinfulness. We no longer have to check the 10, but innately KNOW what sin is because that Law, the 10, is written on our hearts.

You say it is re-written on our hearts, but according to Scripture the law has always been written on our hearts, even those who do not believe in God -- they show the moral code on their heart which their conscience bears witness of and which they will also be judged by unless they come to Christ. (Romans 2:14-15)

So then, it hasn't been "rewritten" at all. The law is still the same as it ever was, and will always remain. It is written into us, ALL of us human beings, believers or not, young or old. Consider then that if nothing has changed about "where" the law now resides, perhaps it is our status in relation to the law that has changed? And, indeed it has, for we are FREE from the law, no longer under it, it is dead to us, died to us the moment we put our faith in Christ and became resurrected in Him. Don't you know this is what Paul talks of in Romans 6 & 7? Why do you judge me for saying the law is dead to us?

Again, what has changed is that we are no longer judged and condemned by the law, whether the Judaic law (Mosaic law, levitical law, covenantal law, 10 commandments or whatever) OR moral law written upon our hearts. We truly are free from such. The convenant we enter into with God isn't one like that of Israel where we must become circumcised when entering into God's covenant which is also based upon observing the laws given to that nation, but is one based out of our hearts, a true desire and wont for God wrought by grace via faith in Christ and His work.

Further, "abolished" is a term you use. I said that the law is dead, all of it, and no longer binding upon us thanks to Christ. I prefer my language to avoid any baggage I might be unaware to that "abolished" carries for you.

[neo-x]

Now, you cite health reasons. That might be well and good, but having had bible studies with an SDA, there is clearly an advocacy of a works-based theology which is just so antithetical to the good news of Christ. I don't consider SDA as JWs or Mormans, clearly, at least much Christian doctrine is correct with regard to the nature of God and like. There is much right and to be celebrated I suppose in what we would agree upon. One also doesn't have to be SDA to be caught up in a wrong works-based theology that even extends unto security in salvation.

I don't deny that a lot of Adventists are caught up in a works-based theology. I deny that the Sabbath law, the 4th commandment, has been abolished. It's no more abolished than the command of Do Not Murder.

I deny that keeping the 4th commandment is tantamount to denying Christ's finished work of salvation though His life, death and resurrection. No more than refraining from committing murder denies the gospel of Christ.
.
.

Bav, the 10 commandments are part of the same law that is now dead to us.

7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead.

May I ask (the obvious) where the command "You shall not covet." is listed?
In the ten commandments ofcourse. Paul considers it formally as law. So your distinction does not really stand up.