God changed Seventh Day Sabbath Worship to First Day of the Week

[BarneyFife]

That's because the law is fulfilled in Christ. When something's purpose has been fulfilled it remains valid but in a different form. The purpose of the law was to train and discipline Israel to obey God. Now that Christ has fulfilled all the law with His obedience we have Him as our example, so that we are saved by grace through faith that He has done all the work on our behalf.

Wouldn't it depend on one's definition of "valid?"

 

[robert derrick]

Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. (Romans 7:12)

True. The law of Christ which is made after the power of an endless life and written in our hearts, is. The law of Moses which was made after a carnal commandment, written in stone, and nailed to the cross, with its' ministration of condemnation and death is done away, is not anymore.

When was Paul as a Jew of the Jews ever alive without the law of Moses? (7:9)

People who don't make difference between the law of God given by Moses of old, and the law of God given by Christ in the New, likewise don't make difference between the old covenant for a seed of flesh done away, and the New Testament brought in for a seed of the Spirit and of God.

They try to mix carnally minded obedience to a dead and gone carnal commandment, with spiritual minded obedience to the law of the Spirit, which now is the only law of God. They keep reincarnating a dead corpse that is decayed and waxed old and vanished away. ()

At best, it's confusion, and at worst, it's falling from grace. (Not to mention spiritually gross)

Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. (1 Tim 1)

 

[BarneyFife]

True. The law of Christ which is made after the power of an endless life and written in our hearts, is. The law of Moses which was made after a carnal commandment, written in stone, and nailed to the cross, with its' ministration of condemnation and death is done away, is not anymore.

When was Paul as a Jew of the Jews ever alive without the law of Moses? (7:9)

People who don't make difference between the law of God given by Moses of old, and the law of God given by Christ in the New, likewise don't make difference between the old covenant for a seed of flesh done away, and the New Testament brought in for a seed of the Spirit and of God.

They try to mix carnally minded obedience to a dead and gone carnal commandment, with spiritual minded obedience to the law of the Spirit, which now is the only law of God. They keep reincarnating a dead corpse that is decayed and waxed old and vanished away. ()

At best, it's confusion, and at worst, it's falling from grace. (Not to mention spiritually gross)

Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. (1 Tim 1)

Too much of the Bible has to be jettisoned to support dispensationalism, which has already been demonstrated over and over again.

 

[QuickFilly]

We read in Acts 13:42, 44
42) And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
44) And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Please note that the Jews gathered together on the seventh day of the week [Saturday] and also note the term "next" in Strong's Concordance means "between" therefore, in this case, "next/between sabbaths" would mean the day after Saturday will have to mean Sunday the first day of the week.

Now the most significant and profound Scripture reference concerning the change from Saturday Sabbath to Sunday Sabbath worship [which BTW, can't be seen in the English translation] is Matthew 28:1 that reads:
"In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher."

Please note that the printer is warning the English reader that words in italicize in the KJV Bible, are not in the original manuscripts. Also note that the word "week" is the plural Hebrew word "sabaton" that can be proven.

Hence, Matthew 28:1 can be rendered thus:
"In the end of the sabbaths as it began to dawn towards the first of the sabbaths came Mary..."

Now Matthew 28:1 seems to be in harmony and that God teaches us that He changed the Seventh Day Sabbath Worship to the First Day Sabbath which to us is Sunday.

To God Be The Glory

Or, it could mean precisely as written. The next Saturday, Sabbath day.

The Sabbath after the last one referred to.
Because if it were a changed Sabbath day, from Saturday unto another day, any day but Sabbath day, I imagine the text would read accordingly. As in, "the new Sabbath day." Whereas next, would be synonymous to the following Sabbath day, the coming Sabbath day.

What I don't get is, why is this such an issue?
Jesus said the Sabbath was made by himself, God, for us.
If we don't want to accept what God gave us as a day of rest, that's on us.
Why is it an argument as if one's personal Exegesis hinges on concession to one side or the other of that so called argument?

We weren't made for the Sabbath. We aren't commanded to observe by God's edict.
It's a gift from God to us.
Whose business is it to take issue with what God gives?

 

[robert derrick]

Too much of the Bible has to be jettisoned to support dispensationalism, which has already been demonstrated over and over again.

Since I don't know what dispensationalism is, I'll take your word for it.

And just like them that say I offer 'replacement theology' are wrong, because I don't, then I'll believe 'dispensationalism' is not what I am offering here either.

And since you don't refute nor respond to the Scriptures I offered, then they stand as given and concluded.

Or, perhaps you could give me just one piece of the Bible, that I am supposed to be jettisoning?

Otherwise, you are about as serious about Scripture as Barney. Or Beetle Bailey.

 

[QuickFilly]

Since I don't know what dispensationalism is,

Dispensationalism | 5 Minutes in Church History

 

[BarneyFife]

Why is it an argument as if one's personal Exegesis hinges on concession to one side or the other of that so called argument?

Oh, just because God said "Do it." That's all.

 

[post]

Read:

"... The "law" referred to is not the Ten Commandments.

previously covered and you are absolutely wrong.

see Romans 7 --Paul ((who wrote Galatians and uses words in a consistent way)) defines what he means by "the law" -- using one of the 10 commandments as an example.

the law is the law. all of it. including the decalogue.
breaking it into pieces is a purely human imagination.

 

[BarneyFife]

Since I don't know what dispensationalism is, I'll take your word for it.

And just like them that say I offer 'replacement theology' are wrong, because I don't, then I'll believe 'dispensationalism' is not what I am offering here either.

And since you don't refute nor respond to the Scriptures I offered, then they stand as given and concluded.

Or, perhaps you could give me just one piece of the Bible, that I am supposed to be jettisoning?

Otherwise, you are about as serious about Scripture as Barney. Or Beetle Bailey.

Why is everyone so insulting? I don't get it. Again, it's been hashed and re-hashed. Just read back thru the thread. I think it's pretty rotten for you to suggest I'm not serious about Scripture. You don't even know me. How would you like it if someone did that to you?

Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:31)​

 

[BarneyFife]

breaking it into pieces is a purely human imagination.

because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.” (Genesis 26:5)

 

[QuickFilly]

Oh, just because God said "Do it." That's all.

If that's the case then the God said Do-It believers should observe the Sabbath and that's it.
While those who believe in God's word and are Sabbath day opposed should reconsider.

 

[post]

because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.” (Genesis 26:5)

just because you read the words commandments, statutes & laws doesn't mean it's referring to the law of the Sinai covenant that scripture explicitly says came 430 years later.

either scripture contradicts itself, or y'all are wrong.
guess which is more likely.

 

[BarneyFife]

just because you read the words commandments, statutes & laws doesn't mean it's referring to the law of the Sinai covenant that scripture explicitly says came 430 years later.

either scripture contradicts itself, or y'all are wrong.
guess which is more likely.

I was simply addressing your claim that elements of law are never delineated. I didn't say anything about Sinai. Getting defensive? All I did was quote Scripture.

 

[QuickFilly]

Why is everyone so insulting? I don't get it. Again, it's been hashed and re-hashed. Just read back thru the thread. I think it's pretty rotten for you to suggest I'm not serious about Scripture. You don't even know me. How would you like it if someone did that to you?

Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:31)​

Encountering insults in discussions about the Christian faith is weird isn't it?

 

[BarneyFife]

Encountering insults in discussions about the Christian faith is weird isn't it?

Well, it's certainly not uncommon online but it does make you wonder about the level of the consecration of the offenders. However, I would never question someone's salvation if they claim it. It's strictly against this forum's rules.

 

[robert derrick]

Why is everyone so insulting? I don't get it. Again, it's been hashed and re-hashed. Just read back thru the thread. I think it's pretty rotten for you to suggest I'm not serious about Scripture. You don't even know me. How would you like it if someone did that to you?

Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:31)​

I would expect the same and agree. If I wasn't going to take what they had to say serious enough to honestly respond to them, then I wouldn't respond at all.

ALso, no one is questioning anyone's faith in Christ, only the evidence of not taking all His Word seriously enough.

I saw that you did not want to go through all of it, so I asked for one simple example of how I was jettisoning it.

Instead, you come back with what? I'm not courteous enough? Courteous is as courteous does, and you have been neither with me. Fine. Just don't then make a martyr out of yourself.

My sincere advise to you is this: if you are not going to take time to respond honestly to some, then don't respond at all. Just move on to something you want to respond to.

See how much time I have taken to be serious with you...

 

[robert derrick]

Encountering insults in discussions about the Christian faith is weird isn't it?

I've been insulted more times than I can count. One Sabbath-keeper wrote me personally to tell me how unsaved and carnal and rebellious I was for not keeping his great Sabbath day of Saturday with him.

You think I care? Water off a duck's back.

However, writing off what someone takes time to post seriously and looking for honest responses to refute or agree, only to be backhanded with blanket denial?

I don't take that as kindness, courtesy, nor intelligent 'discussion'.

 

[BarneyFife]

I would expect the same and agree. If I wasn't going to take what they had to say serious enough to honestly respond to them, then I wouldn't respond at all.

ALso, no one is questioning anyone's faith in Christ, only the evidence of not taking all His Word seriously enough.

I saw that you did not want to go through all of it, so I asked for one simple example of how I was jettisoning it.

Instead, you come back with what? I'm not courteous enough? Courteous is as courteous does, and you have been neither with me. Fine. Just don't then make a martyr out of yourself.

My sincere advise to you is this: if you are not going to take time to respond honestly to some, then don't respond at all. Just move on to something you want to respond to.

See how much time I have taken to be serious with you...

Martyr shmartyr.

 

[BarneyFife]

@robert derrick

You may rely on me not to waste any more of your time.

 

[QuickFilly]

You all are like a dysfunctional large family that lives all over the world but get together once in awhile in a group chat because you miss the drama.