Jesus and Commands

[bbyrd009]

The minimum is found perhaps in the impossibility of even "reasonable service":

reasonable service does not equate to perfectionism imo, and i dislike this bc it makes @H. Richard 's and @Heb 13:8 's who have written the judgement of works out bc of it? And who could rightly blame them, imo.

If you never do anything, then i guess you never have any sin to confess, right? And if you do do something in that model, it has been pre-approved by those whose estimation you value, and after all you didn't do it to them anyway prolly lol, you did it to someone outside your peer group, who Just Doesn't Understand Who You Are, bc you aren't channelling that Total Depravity guy then, right, you are invariably just as proud as you can be in that moment lol, confess what? Nope, you will be Quoting how elohim you are then, see, and using the TD vv on them lol, like any other believer.

Elohim bake cakes, and break eggs, and freely confess imo, as you say it's impossible, which is imo why forgiveness does not lead to salvation like everyone believes but no one can Quote

 

[Heb 13:8]

reasonable service does not equate to perfectionism imo, and i dislike this bc it makes @H. Richard 's and @Heb 13:8 's who have written the judgement of works out bc of it? And who could rightly blame them, imo.

it's like comparing works of a nonbeliever to te works of a believer. what is wun to do when their not convinced.

Luke 16:27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

Luke 16:31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”

Rev 20:11-15 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

God bles

 

[bbyrd009]

what is wun to do when their not convinced.

when they're not convinced of what?

 

[1stCenturyLady]

the problem imo is that you are Quoting Paul, and Paul has an interesting way of being misunderstood when you use his words to justify a premise, a conclusion that you have already reached first iow. If you could Quote where Paul said "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" i could maybe illustrate, maybe not, but the point is that when you read Paul without premises the interpretation changes.

Imo you have accepted a perfectly logical conclusion, and you were given some Scripture to back it up, only Paul is not speaking logically, and we even have a passage that no one understands or Quotes where he discusses this i guess

Still side-stepping the question I see. You must have some opinion of what Paul meant in Hebrews 4 of entering into God's rest. What is it? What is entering into God's rest?

 

[quietthinker]

Would God have given any laws that where arbitrary or superfluous and without intrinsic value?
Would God change his mind regarding the value of his laws?
Do you think that God had intended to accept fallen humanity on the basis of their performance?
For what purpose was the promise was given in Eden and God instituting the sacrifice of the lamb?
Does God have the physical and emotional health of people at heart?

Your answers have implications either way.

 

[Phoneman777]

Paul has shown over an over that love fulfills the commandments, but MUCH MORE. That "much more" is what brings us to perfection. The Ten Commandments dealt with the bottom line only. For instance. murder. It takes a lot of hate before you stoop so low as to murder. But hate is not against the Ten Commandments, but it IS against Christ's law of liberty. You think the 10 C are the ultimate in commandments, but they don't make one have the righteousness of God which is a much higher standard and what we must attain to to have salvation and what the Law of Liberty does. The 10C are easy by comparison, and can be kept by school children, and are automatically covered and more so through love. This is why Paul said, "we establish the law." Not just the bottom line, but everything in between. Only through Jesus and His gift of the Holy Spirit can we hope to be holy, as He is holy. Any unbeliever can stop themselves from murder. But only God can make someone not hate.

So, are you saying we're obligated to keep the Ten Commandments?

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Would God would have given any laws that where arbitrary or superfluous and without intrinsic value?
Would God would change his mind regarding the value of his laws?
Do you think that God had intended to accept fallen humanity on the basis of their performance?
For what purpose was the promise was given in Eden and God instituting the sacrifice of the lamb?
Does God have the physical and emotional health of people at heart?

Your answers have implications either way.

Sin started on earth in the Garden of Eden, and all heirs of Adam inherited a sin nature. While man still had that sin nature God instituted His laws to guard them UNTIL the sin nature could be taken away by Christ. The laws were holy, but the nature trying to keep them wasn't, and as Romans 7 shows, the sin nature caused a battle between the mind and the will BEFORE Christ could cure that problem. (Many theologians foolishly use Romans 7 out of context and try to say that is depicting the life of a Christian. I see that same exegesis ignorance shown over and over again on the forums as well.)

 

[1stCenturyLady]

So, are you saying we're obligated to keep the Ten Commandments?

Seeing as the Ten Commandments was the old covenant, NO! Nor are we allowed to break them. We are obligated to reach a higher standard than the bottom line of the 10C or foreshadows, and enter into the New Covenant and the Law of Liberty. By doing so, we automatically do not break any of the old commandments, including the 4th.

 

[Phoneman777]

Wow. I guess you just have it all down pat. You even seem to know the mind of God, I am sorry that you feel you have to be so presumptuous to prove yourself right and everybody else wrong.

We get a glimpse of the mind of God in His Word - and we're to pray for the mind of God in us (Philippians 2:5). I can't help it if so many distort His Word and then get offended when those of us who don't challenge their erroneous conclusions about the Ten Commandments.

"Encouraging" one another is now a burden??

Encouraging Christians to break Jesus' Ten Commandments that He wrote with His own finger in stone 1500 years before His Incarnation is very burdensome - to those who are taught this heresy.

"Cheap grace", Whaaaa? "Cheap grace" is something you should be on your FACE thanking Him for everyday!

"Cheap grace" isn't Biblical - it's a counterfeit of true grace, so thanks for it belongs to Satan. True grace is both pardon for sin and power to obey - to stop doing that which made necessary the death of our Savior in the first place (Hebrews 6:6). Everybody wants Jesus as Savior from sin but few want Him as our Lord to obey - that is why He said "few" find the gate to life.

You keep pounding your chest there Mr. Phoneyman, and let the "knowledge" that YOU will be "Great in the Kingdom of God" and I will be "called the least" Such judgement.

In your blindness, you call evil good and good evil. No wonder you make a mockery of the Scriptures which plainly say those who do and teach Jesus' commandments are called "great" by heavenly hosts while you who break and encourage that in others are called "least".

I am so over modern day pharisees. I will pray that God send someone to help you down from that pedestal you have perched yourself upon before you fall down and hurt yourself.

You liberals are the true "modern Pharisees". The Pharisees claimed to keep the whole law, but refused to keep the Two Great Commandments, and you practitioners of "sloppy agape" claim to keep the Two Great Commandments but refuse to have anything to do with the Ten Commandments which hang on those Two Great. The Pharisees of Jesus' day and you Pharisees of our day are just two sides of the same rebellious coin. "If ye love Me, keep My commandments." John 14:15 KJV

 

[Phoneman777]

Try Galatians and Romans. Your interpretation of Colossians 2 is the opposite of what the author meant.

The ONLY way to interpret Colossians 2 is to conclude the mention of "sabbaths" refers to the yearly "Jewish sabbaths" that had to do with the seven yearly Jewish feasts. To claim it refers to the weekly Sabbath - and thus renders the weekly obsolete - is to ignore the plain distinction between the yearly and weekly found in a concluding statement in Leviticus 23:37-38 after the seven are given:

"These [are] the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim [to be] holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, every thing upon his day: Beside the sabbaths of the LORD..."​

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Encouraging Christians to break Jesus' Ten Commandments that He wrote with His own finger in stone 1500 years before His Incarnation is very burdensome - to those who are taught this heresy.

Actually, though Jesus and the Father are one, and Jesus was there in the desert, the Ten Commandments (1) in Scripture are attributed to the Father, so as to not confuse them with the Commandments of Jesus to believe on Him, and to love one another (2). 1 John 3:23.

John 15:10
If you keep My commandments (2), you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments (1) and abide in His love.

"Cheap grace" isn't Biblical - it's a counterfeit of true grace, so thanks for it belongs to Satan. True grace is both pardon for sin and power to obey. Everybody wants Jesus as Savior from sin but few want Him as our Lord to obey - that is why He said "few" find the gate to life.

I agree with you whole-heartedly. Cheap grace is what Jude spoke against - "turning the grace of God into licentiousness." Paul spoke against it too, "So should we sin so grace may abound?"

Grace is not unmerited favor to do whatever we wish. Grace is the power of God to be righteous through His gift of the Holy Spirit. If we don't have the Spirit, we don't have grace.

In your blindness, you call evil good and good evil. No wonder you make a mockery of the Scriptures which plainly say those who do and teach Jesus' commandments are "great" while you who break and encourage that in others are "least".

We teach the commandments of Jesus of the New Covenant. To believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another. This is the gospel. No where in the Ten Commandments does it teach to believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ. You need more than the Ten Commandments to be saved. If you want to keep the Sabbath by the letter of the law, rather than the Spirit of the law, God will honor you. I don't have a problem with you keeping it, because He doesn't. But that doesn't mean that those who truly enter into God's rest need to keep the letter of the Old Covenant sign. This you haven't grasped yet. Do you know what Hebrews 4 means by "entering into God's rest"? I've asked another this question about 4 times, and still can't get a straight answer out of him. Can you do any better? I hope so.

You liberals are the true "modern Pharisees". The Pharisees claimed to keep the whole law, but refused to keep the Two Great Commandments, and you practitioners of "sloppy agape" claim to keep the Two Great Commandments but refuse to have anything to do with the Ten Commandments which hang on those Two Great. The Pharisees of Jesus' day and you Pharisees of our day are just two sides of the same rebellious coin. "If ye love Me, keep My commandments." John 14:15 KJV

ROFL Liberals? I'm anything but liberal. Do you honestly believe living a higher standard than the bottom line of the Ten Commandments is liberal? If you like the Ten Commandments so well, why break the commandment against bearing false witness?

Yes, Jesus said, "If ye love Me, keep My commandments." The key word there is MY. "To believe on Him, and to love our neighbors."

 

[amadeus]

reasonable service does not equate to perfectionism imo, and i dislike this bc it makes @H. Richard 's and @Heb 13:8 's who have written the judgement of works out bc of it? And who could rightly blame them, imo.

People, that is people who called themselves Christian, still want to and do use man's definitions for biblical terms or phrases. Sometimes that may work, but sometimes or even always God has a different more accurate definition. One of those terms is "perfectionism".

Jesus says to be perfect as his Father is perfect [Matt 5:48] but then most men claiming also to be believers deny it as an achievable possibility. Anyone who says that is effectively calling Jesus a liar.

What if our reasonable service may already be perfect or at least a minimum of what God defines as perfect... for a moment.

What is that? Putting all that we have into what He wants us to do. When we look at the results we may see our frailties and/or our failures, but God is looking as always at the heart of us. With what we had did we not do all that we could do... for a moment?

Perhaps to God that is not only reasonable service but that minimum of His perfection...for a moment.

Never mind what this man or that one says about it. Mind rather what God says. Consider the advice of David to Solomon:

"And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever." I Chron 28:9 [Did David receive those words to say from God?]

It doesn't say to be sinless even though eventually it might come to that. It says "a perfect heart". Is not that what David had when he pleased God [for a moment] in spite of his own sins?

If we want to make sense of it let's look again to Jesus' words here:

"But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

David gave his son good advice, but what was Solomon given and what did he do with it? Solomon was called the wisest of men yet seemingly he messed up to his own loss due to women. Can we do better than Solomon?

So then again, "much is given much is required". We are given more than Solomon was given if we have been the given the indwelling Holy Spirit, have we not? We also have the advantage of some written words [scriptures] if we can understand them. So than when we really jump in with both feet in working with God and surrendering to God, is that not our reasonable service and that minimum of perfection... at least for the moment we are doing those things?

Who can measure all of these things including the "for the moment" part I have inserted to make a fair final judgment? We know who.

If you never do anything, then i guess you never have any sin to confess, right? And if you do do something in that model, it has been pre-approved by those whose estimation you value, and after all you didn't do it to them anyway prolly lol, you did it to someone outside your peer group, who Just Doesn't Understand Who You Are, bc you aren't channelling that Total Depravity guy then, right, you are invariably just as proud as you can be in that moment lol, confess what? Nope, you will be Quoting how elohim you are then, see, and using the TD vv on them lol, like any other believer.

Comes back to from that TD to TH [Total Humility]. What I have called "bottom starting" or what Jesus referred to as the "lowest room" [ Luke 14:10 ]. Only from there can we be lifted up... if He wants to lift us up to the answer we think we need. Whether I am TD or not, only by finding TH for me is there even going to be an opportunity: God's time, God's decision and God's answer.

Me? I'll may be finding myself also as elohim as well if I'm not very careful how I proceed.

Elohim bake cakes, and break eggs, and freely confess imo, as you say it's impossible, which is imo why forgiveness does not lead to salvation like everyone believes but no one can Quote

If we must be what Jesus speaks of regarding us in Matthew chapters 5-7, how do we get there? Can we bake, break and confess to do the impossible? According some it would seem that if we have repented correctly and said the right words, it is all a slam dunk.

What we must do, as I see it, is walk all the way along that highway of holiness to the Light at the end of it. God has provided the means, but we must do it. Works? Certainly, but now possible because now the Way has been made where there was no way. Impossible? There we are again calling Jesus a liar.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

The ONLY way to interpret Colossians 2 is to conclude the mention of "sabbaths" refers to the yearly "Jewish sabbaths" that had to do with the seven yearly Jewish feasts. To claim it refers to the weekly Sabbath - and thus renders the weekly obsolete - is to ignore the plain distinction between the yearly and weekly found in a concluding statement in Leviticus 23:37-38 after the seven are given:

"These [are] the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim [to be] holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, every thing upon his day: Beside the sabbaths of the LORD..."​

There is a pattern there found in Hebrew writings - a style of writing called the Semitic writing styles. In Colossians 2:16 read it again with this in mind.

So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,

1. festival - YEAR
2. new moon - MONTH
3. sabbaths - WEEK

Don't forget, Leviticus 23 starts with the weekly Sabbath.

 

[BobRyan]

Your mistake is not recognizing what commandments are written on the heart. .

Jeremiah said the term is "My law" - Bible details matter

Jer 31
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

And in Matthew 19 Jesus said "keep the Commandments" and was then asked "which ones".
At that point Jesus lists almost all of the TEN Commandments dealing with our duty to our neighbor -
Paul gives the same list in Romans 13.

Of course both lists leave out "Love God with all your heart" and "Do not take God's name in vain".

but we know that in Jer 31:31-33 -- Jeremiah was including all of them as James 2 points out -- no deleting allowed.

 

[BobRyan]

1. festival - YEAR
2. new moon - MONTH
3. sabbaths - yearly... there are plural Sabbath festivals.

But in Exodus 20:8-11 "remember THE Sabbath day to KEEP IT holy" -- singular. Only one weekly Sabbath thus Bible scholars admit that all TEN of the TEN Commandments apply to the saints as the moral law of God.

Some examples:

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism

 

[Nancy]

Nancy , take a leaf out of my book ...just step over Phoneman777 posts. They will drag you down. He is the most harsh unchristian christian.

Bless you...Helen.

Thanks, I will take your suggestion...for sure!

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Jeremiah said the term is "My law" - Bible details matter

Jer 31
31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

And in Matthew 19 Jesus said "keep the Commandments" and was then asked "which ones".
At that point Jesus lists almost all of the TEN Commandments dealing with our duty to our neighbor -
Paul gives the same list in Romans 13.

Of course both lists leave out "Love God with all your heart" and "Do not take God's name in vain".

but we know that in Jer 31:31-33 -- Jeremiah was including all of them as James 2 points out -- no deleting allowed.

"My law" is the eternal law of God - the Royal version. The Ten Commandments were based on them, but not all of it. Not the portion that makes one perfect. It is the Royal law that is written on the heart. When you obey it, you automatically don't break the Ten Commandments, but you DO much more.

 

[Phoneman777]

Actually, though Jesus and the Father are one, and Jesus was there in the desert, the Ten Commandments (1) in Scripture are attributed to the Father, so as to not confuse them with the Commandments of Jesus to believe on Him, and to love one another (2). 1 John 3:23. John 15:10 If you keep My commandments (2), you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments (1) and abide in His love.

These verses don't disprove Jesus was the God of the OT. When Jesus said, "I have kept My Father's commandments", He spoke as a man. When He prayed, "Not My will but Thy will be done", He spoke as a man. But, when He said, "Unless ye believe that I AM, ye shall die in your sins," He spoke as God. When He said, "Before Abraham was, I AM," He spoke as God. When He said, "I and My Father are One", He spoke as God.

In Psalm 78:1, "Give ear, O my people, [to] my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth.
78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:"
Matthew undeniably attributes the God Who is speaking here, the God Who asks us to hear His Law, as the God Jesus in Matthew 13:34-35. If Jesus is the "Rock" that followed the Israelites (1 Corinthians 10:4 KJV), then it is Jesus Who met Moses at Sinai.

We teach the commandments of Jesus of the New Covenant.

Which He gave at Sinai, which "stand fast forever and ever" (Psalms 111:7-8).

No where in the Ten Commandments does it teach to believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ.

First Commandment says the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are to be our God above all others, right?

You need more than the Ten Commandments to be saved.

Yes, our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees - which doesn't mean LESS obedience, but more. The word "righteousness" means "right doing", and by Jesus' merits we are saved "unto good works", not "unto less works".

If you want to keep the Sabbath by the letter of the law, rather than the Spirit of the law, God will honor you. I don't have a problem with you keeping it, because He doesn't. But that doesn't mean that those who truly enter into God's rest need to keep the letter of the Old Covenant sign.

That is a denial of Hebrews 4:9-10, which says if we've entered into Jesus' rest, we'll rest from our work "as God did from His". Which day did God rest on? The Seventh day Sabbath. What you're saying is that if we're resting in Jesus, we are to disregard resting as God rested.

Do you know what Hebrews 4 means by "entering into God's rest"? I've asked another this question about 4 times, and still can't get a straight answer out of him. Can you do any better? I hope so.

Yes, it means to become clay in the potter's hands, trusting in Him to do with us as He deems fit, plain and simple. The Potter says, "rest as I rested on the seventh day". Now, are we going to say to the Potter, "How sayest Thou to us that we should rest?"

ROFL Liberals? I'm anything but liberal. Do you honestly believe living a higher standard than the bottom line of the Ten Commandments is liberal? If you like the Ten Commandments so well, why break the commandment against bearing false witness?

The philosophy of Liberalism at it's core is "the freedom to self govern" which is equated with "liberty". Make no mistake...self-government is not an option. We are either a slave to God or to sin (Romans 6:16). I think that you have mistaken a lateral standard for a "higher standard". The Ten Commandments are the standard by which we are judged in the Judgment, for any sin we can commit comes under one of the Ten, including lust, hate, envy, etc.

Yes, Jesus said, "If ye love Me, keep My commandments." The key word there is MY. "To believe on Him, and to love our neighbors."[/QUOTE] His commandments go beyond "believe". His Great Commission alone is an indication of that - "...teaching all nations WHATSOEVER I have commanded you." Does that sound like your singular "believe" commandment? Not really.

BTW, it's very nice to disagree with someone as strongly as you and I do without all the mud slinging that usually attends such disagreement. :)

 

[Phoneman777]

There is a pattern there found in Hebrew writings - a style of writing called the Semitic writing styles. In Colossians 2:16 read it again with this in mind.

So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,

1. festival - YEAR
2. new moon - MONTH
3. sabbaths - WEEK

Don't forget, Leviticus 23 starts with the weekly Sabbath.

Let's examine Colossians 2:15-16 from a contextual standpoint:

• "Let no man therefore judge you in meat (MOSAIC ceremonial law - meat offerings),
• or in drink (MOSAIC ceremonial law - drink offerings),
• or in respect of an holyday (MOSAIC ceremonial law - yearly feast day),
• or of the new moon (MOSAIC ceremonial law - reference for establishing the numeric day of the month upon which yearly feasts fell),
• or of the sabbath days (MOSAIC ceremonial law - yearly holy convocation "sabbath" rest days - ie. first day and seventh day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread):
• which are shadows of things to come (MOSAIC ceremonial law - contained "shadows" which pointed forward to Jesus), but the body is of Christ".

Leviticus is clear there were "sabbaths" associated with certain yearly feasts that are "beside the Sabbath of the Lord" (Leviticus 23:38) and these elements of the Mosaic Law were "shadows of things to come".

The Sabbath of the Ten Commandments is a memorial to that which is already past - the created power of God in the beginning.

Therefore, the context of these two verses are clearly the Mosaic Law, not the Moral Law God wrote in stone, and your pattern is not a descending "year/month/week", but an alternating "year/month/year", according to Leviticus.

 

[brakelite]

This is the reason the CC should have included the Epistle of Barnabas in the canon. It was fought for and on six different lists of candidates. It was read in all the early churches and believed by them to have been written by the apostle Barnabas.

Is this clear enough for you? It is for me:

Barnabas 15:8
Finally He saith to them; Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot
away with. Ye see what is His meaning ; it is not your present
Sabbaths that are acceptable [unto Me], but the Sabbath which I have
made, in the which, when I have set all things at rest, I will make
the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another
world.

Barnabas 15:9
Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which
also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended
into the heavens.

Don't you agree that if we had this book many errors could have been prevented? A law specifically about abortion is no where in our 66 books. But it is in the Epistle of Barnabas.

Barnabas 19:5
Thou shalt not doubt whether a thing shall be or not be. Thou shalt
not take the name of the Lord in vain. Thou shalt love thy
neighbor more than thine own soul. Thou shalt not murder a child by
abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born. Thou shalt
not withhold thy hand from thy son or daughter, but from their youth
thou shalt teach them the fear of God.

Can we really legitimately cite any ones writings in order to defend our preconceived opinions? Even if Barnabus was an apostle, and accurately related the practice of the church, the question still remains... On whose authority was the change made from the 7th Sabbath to either any other day, our no day at all. We all know when God established the 7th day as a holy day. How do we know? Because we have many instances of a "thus saith the Lord" to absolutely verify that the 7th day is indeed holy, sanctified, and set apart as a day of rest. What we do NOT have is any such verification for the holiness and sacredness of the 7th day being removed. Apart from the church's ssy so. Sorry, but that is unsatisfactory, and falls way short of what is needed to disembowel the ten commandments by removing the only commandment which authorititively identifies the God we worship, and why.