Interesting

[Kendall K. Down]

https://www.ucg.ca/booklets/sunset-to-sunset-gods-sabbath-rest/what-true-worship

Naturally I agree with the author's argument as set out on this web page
- but notice who is behind it!

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[Jason]

On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 21:10:51 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> https://www.ucg.ca/booklets/sunset-to-sunset-gods-sabbath-rest/what-

true-worship
>
> Naturally I agree with the author's argument as set out on this web page
> - but notice who is behind it!
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K.

Down

That's interesting, but there is also Romans 14:

"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers
every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own
mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever
eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever
abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God."

which then continues on with:

"You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister"

and

"Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up
your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a
brother or sister."

Therefore in my own mind, I have no doubt that God accepts our worship,
whatever day (or every day) it is offered on.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 13/12/2021 11:44, Jason wrote:

> That's interesting, but there is also Romans 14:

Certainly - but a) Paul was talking about the Jewish feasts (Passover,
Tabernacles, etc) rather than the weekly Sabbath, concerning which Jesus
declared Himself "Lord of the Sabbath". My evidence is that gentile
Christians early stopped (or possibly never started) observing Passover
etc, but are documented into the late 300s as keeping the weekly
Sabbath, not Sunday.

b) Yet I agree with you on the principle - but given that God accepts
our worship, why not worship on the day *He* has chosen rather than the
day we have chosen?

Your wife, I am sure, accepts the cheap anniversary card you picked up
in Aldi, but try an expensive card and a big box of chocolates? (Or
flowers if she doesn't like chocolates.) You might be pleasantly surprised.

> Therefore in my own mind, I have no doubt that God accepts our worship,
> whatever day (or every day) it is offered on.

See the above.

[Mike Davis]

On 12/12/2021 21:10, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> https://www.ucg.ca/booklets/sunset-to-sunset-gods-sabbath-rest/what-true-worship
>
>
> Naturally I agree with the author's argument as set out on this web page
> - but notice who is behind it!

Who IS behind it? I don't know this group - I had a quick scan of their
beliefs and can't make out whether they are Christian or not. (I was
expecting a Unitarian take.)

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Madhu]

* Mike Davis <j1rc33...@mid.individual.net> :
Wrote on Tue, 14 Dec 2021 11:05:07 +0000:

I assumed it was one of the churches that ensued from Herbert Armstong's
World Wide Church of God (formerly Radio Church of God), after he died
and it split like a river at its delta. Looks like I'm right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_God

[Jason]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 20:32:29 +0000, Kendall K. Down wrote:

> On 13/12/2021 11:44, Jason wrote:
>
>> That's interesting, but there is also Romans 14:
>
> Certainly - but a) Paul was talking about the Jewish feasts (Passover,
> Tabernacles, etc) rather than the weekly Sabbath, concerning which Jesus
> declared Himself "Lord of the Sabbath". My evidence is that gentile
> Christians early stopped (or possibly never started) observing Passover
> etc, but are documented into the late 300s as keeping the weekly
> Sabbath, not Sunday.

Paul may (or may not) have had the annual (rather than weekly) feasts in
mind, but his intention clearly was to make it more general, hence he
added the bit about eating/abstaining from meat into the mix to clarify
the point.

> b) Yet I agree with you on the principle - but given that God accepts
> our worship, why not worship on the day *He* has chosen rather than the
> day we have chosen?

Because God, as Paul has made clear above, doesn't care what day worship
is offered to him on. We have no need to introduce additional rules and
restrictions that are not binding on Christians. Paul rebukes Peter on
this very point.

> Your wife, I am sure, accepts the cheap anniversary card you picked up
> in Aldi, but try an expensive card and a big box of chocolates? (Or
> flowers if she doesn't like chocolates.) You might be pleasantly
> surprised.

Thankfully, God is not as demanding as a wife might be and cannot be
bought off with expensive chocolates. I'm sure that any wife would be
far happier with a cheap (or home made) anniversary card than an
expensive one you sent your secretary out to buy: in other words, in both
cases, it's not about the money.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/12/2021 16:59, Jason wrote:

> Paul may (or may not) have had the annual (rather than weekly) feasts in
> mind,

I made my statement on the basis of Colossians 2:16, 17, which states
that the things on which Christians are not to be judged are "a shadow
of things to come".

Passover, etc al, pointed forward to Christ. The weekly Sabbath points
back to Creation.

> but his intention clearly was to make it more general, hence he
> added the bit about eating/abstaining from meat into the mix to clarify
> the point.

In Colossians Paul refers to "food or drink", so again I think it
correct to say that his concern was the ceremonial clean/unclean.

> Because God, as Paul has made clear above, doesn't care what day worship
> is offered to him on. We have no need to introduce additional rules and
> restrictions that are not binding on Christians. Paul rebukes Peter on
> this very point.

I think you overstate your case. God accepts true worship, even when it
is defective, but I do not think it true to say that He "doesn't care".

To take a different illustration: I am sure that God accepts the intent
of those who kiss icons and bow down to images, but I am equally sure
that He would prefer that they not do those things.

>> Your wife, I am sure, accepts the cheap anniversary card you picked up
>> in Aldi, but try an expensive card and a big box of chocolates? (Or
>> flowers if she doesn't like chocolates.) You might be pleasantly
>> surprised.

> Thankfully, God is not as demanding as a wife might be and cannot be
> bought off with expensive chocolates.

Chocolates, no, but demanding?

“A son honours his father, and a servant his master. If I am a father,
where is the honour due Me? If I am a master, where is the respect due
Me?” says Yahweh Almighty. Malachi 1:6

“Cursed is the cheat who has an acceptable male in his flock and vows
to give it, but then sacrifices a blemished animal to the Lord. For I am
a great king,” says Yahweh Almighty, “And My Name is to be feared among
the nations.” Malachi 1:14

> I'm sure that any wife would be
> far happier with a cheap (or home made) anniversary card than an
> expensive one you sent your secretary out to buy: in other words, in both
> cases, it's not about the money.

Quite so, but an expensive one that you personally selected "because it
said what I mean about you"? Try it sometime.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/12/2021 11:05, Mike Davis wrote:

> Who IS behind it? I don't know this group - I had a quick scan of their
> beliefs and can't make out whether they are Christian or not. (I was
> expecting a Unitarian take.)

I've no idea who they are either - but the point is that they are not
SDA and so far as I know, have no connection with SDAs. (Having looked
at the website for their parent organisation, I think you can be assured
that they are indeed Christian.)

[Kendall K. Down]

On 14/12/2021 15:45, Madhu wrote:

> I assumed it was one of the churches that ensued from Herbert Armstong's
> World Wide Church of God (formerly Radio Church of God), after he died
> and it split like a river at its delta. Looks like I'm right
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_God

Thanks, Madhu. I wondered that, particularly when I noticed something on
their website about "keeping the Biblical festivals", something I
believe the Radio Church of God was strong on.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <spb2vs$hkn$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:40:12 +0000:

> On 14/12/2021 16:59, Jason wrote:
>
>> Paul may (or may not) have had the annual (rather than weekly) feasts in
>> mind,
>
> I made my statement on the basis of Colossians 2:16, 17, which states
> that the things on which Christians are not to be judged are "a shadow
> of things to come".
>
> Passover, etc al, pointed forward to Christ. The weekly Sabbath points
> back to Creation.

And it points forward to the millennium! to the millennial sabbath rest.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/12/2021 01:32, Madhu wrote:

>> Passover, etc al, pointed forward to Christ. The weekly Sabbath points
>> back to Creation.

> And it points forward to the millennium! to the millennial sabbath rest.

There is nothing in the command to suggest that. Do you have a
particular verse in mind?

Most people make that claim on the basis that earth is 6,000 years old
(allegedly) and that Christ will return before the end of the 6,000th
year. It's a nice theory, but hardly one that an evolutionist would
accept. It would also be called into question if, like me, you believe
that life on earth is older than 6,000 years (though not as old as the
evolutionists claim).

In any case, there is no Biblical statement to support that interpretation.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <spbvfk$vji$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 05:46:27 +0000:

Psalm 95 is a sabbath psalm. Hebrews 3-4 refers to it when it talks
about entering into the rest (finishing at Heb. 4:10) - the connection
to the millenium is inferred, but so are all the other indications of
the feasts to the messiah (you can consult any Jewish source on the
matter), and they all stand on the same exegetical grounds.

[Mike Davis]

The Wiki website contradicts that:- in that they are "Binitarian" =
Father + Jesus = God, but HS is only the result.

So since 'Christian' = (at least) Trinitarian, so not.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/12/2021 05:58, Madhu wrote:

> Psalm 95 is a sabbath psalm.

The word "sabbath" does not occur anywhere in the psalm.

> Hebrews 3-4 refers to it when it talks
> about entering into the rest (finishing at Heb. 4:10) - the connection
> to the millenium is inferred

There is nothing in the psalm to indicate or infer the Millennium. I can
only assume you are leaping to the conclusion that the "rest" spoken of
by Paul in Hebrews is a Millenial rest, but it seems to me that Paul is
referring to the "rest from works" of the person who accepts salvation
by faith.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 15/12/2021 12:54, Mike Davis wrote:

> The Wiki website contradicts that:- in that they are "Binitarian" =
> Father + Jesus = God, but HS is only the result.
> So since 'Christian' = (at least) Trinitarian, so not.

Good point - which depends on the equation "Christian=Trinitarian". That
is a point of view with which I have a lot of sympathy, so perhaps it
would be more correct to say that they are "within the Christian
tradition" (or some such phrase). In other words, they are not
semi-Buddhists or something.

[Madhu]

* "Kendall K. Down" <spdlmv$e46$1...@dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:11:59 +0000:

> On 15/12/2021 05:58, Madhu wrote:
>
>> Psalm 95 is a sabbath psalm.
> The word "sabbath" does not occur anywhere in the psalm.
>> Hebrews 3-4 refers to it when it talks
>> about entering into the rest (finishing at Heb. 4:10) - the connection
>> to the millenium is inferred
>
> There is nothing in the psalm to indicate or infer the Millennium.

I agree. Yet the interpretation of the rest in that psalm is of the the
rest promised is the sabbath rest during millennial rule. "Psalm 95 the
opening paragraph of Kabbalat Shabbat" ("Receiving the Sabbath") recited
by many on friday evening.

> I can only assume you are leaping to the conclusion that the "rest"
> spoken of by Paul in Hebrews is a Millenial rest, but it seems to me
> that Paul is referring to the "rest from works" of the person who
> accepts salvation by faith.

An intriguing and ingenious interpretation. But Hebrews 3:7-4:11 isn't
about faith vs. works.

I never understood the SDA doctrine that denies the millennium and
millenial sabbath rest except as satanic irony to deceive the members
with a blindspot and (try to) deprive the elect of the promise.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 16/12/2021 03:39, Madhu wrote:

> An intriguing and ingenious interpretation. But Hebrews 3:7-4:11 isn't
> about faith vs. works.

Hardly an interpretation, more taking what Paul says. v.2 links faith as
a necessary part of rest, v.6 says the same thing, this time using the
word "unbelief" (lack of faith). v.10 speaks of ceasing from our own
works, v.11 again links rest and unbelief.

Even going back to chapter 3 doesn't help your case, as v.19 of that
chapter again refers to unbelief as a hindrance to rest.

> I never understood the SDA doctrine that denies the millennium and
> millenial sabbath rest except as satanic irony to deceive the members
> with a blindspot and (try to) deprive the elect of the promise.

I don't know where you get the idea that SDAs deny the millennium. What
we deny is the idea, still popular in some circles, that the millennium
is a period of peace, prosperity and goodness on earth, that will be
brought about gradually by the industrial revolution and advances in
science. WWI was the shock to that popular belief (which is why it was
so loudly trumpetted as "the war to end wars") and subsequent history
should have buried it, but you still find people teaching it.

Revelation, the only Biblical book to speak of the Millennium (though it
doesn't actually use the term) is clear that the Millennium is brought
about by the return of Christ (Rev 19 under the picture of the Rider on
the white horse). Descriptions elsewhere in Revelation and the New
Testament make it clear that Christ's return is accompanied by the death
of the wicked, the destruction of the earth (earthquakes and hail do not
conduce to physical prosperity), and the departure of the saints into
heaven.

Revelation tells us that the saints will spend the Millennium judging
before returning to earth at the end of that period, witnessing the
final punishment of the wicked and then enjoying the New Earth that God
creates as their eternal home.