Sabbath-Keeping

[zeke25]

Axehead. It is all very well to exalt love, mercy, to do justly etc, for this is indeed the crux of religious life in Christ. But please note when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for lacking in those virtues while they were claiming to be righteous because they considered themselves law-keepers par-excellence....
Mt 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, (and no doubt could have added keep Sabbath, sacrifice countless lambs, pray 3 times a day, etc etc) and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

I agree wholeheartedly with you in your stressing love. I couldn't agree more. It is the whole focus of what we all as children of God ought to be doing...exemplifying that very facet of God's character that the world needs so much of....love.But please Axehead, do not ignore the many texts that link love with obedience. In fact, obedience without love is futile, and love without obedience is impossible. The question we must all honestly ask ourselves is this....did the apostles or the early church teach that the weekly Sabbath (as opposed to the yearly feasts) was no longer part and parcel of religious worship? Honestly now. Did they? Did they truly teach and take up Sunday as their day of worship? Did they truly teach and consider Jesus' spiritual rest as a replacement for weekly physical rest on the 7th day? Or did they as the Biblical account testifies to and as history confirms, not only to 'rest in Christ', but also, (not leaving the other undone) continue to observe the Sabbath not just throughout the lives of the apostles, but for centuries after the last apostle died?

Zeke, I do not know what church Phoneman777 is affiliated to. No, I don't speak for him...I thought the question you asked about Paul was a general question to all who are contributing to the thread. Sorry if I interjected inappropriately.
No, I do not think E G White's writings are worthy of study. But worthwhile reading, yes. The Bible and the Bible only is worthy of study. Should you follow E G White's lead? No. Not unless you are a Seventh Day Adventist.

brakelite,

Thanks for the answer. And now that I know you answered for yourself, then Phoneman777 is not off the hook (pun intended).

Zeke25

 

[Phoneman777]

The Lord does write His laws in our hearts and those laws are the Law of Christ which is love. It is not the Mosaic law or the 10 commandments. And since the laws written in our hearts are love for the Lord and for our neighbor, they go further than the laws written on stone. A man filled with the Holy Spirit knows not to commit adultery, but even more not to fantasize about it in his heart (lust). Same with murder, a Christian also knows not to hate another in his heart. This is much more in line with real love than just obeying writings in stone. God wants to take out the stony heart of law keepers where they only fulfill the outward obligation of the law but inwardly they are breaking the Law of Christ (because it has not been written on their heart). They have not been given a new heart. Regarding the Sabbath, we have shown numerous times that Jesus Christ is now our Sabbath rest. He is the DAY, today. And we rest in Him and observe Him everyday. True rest is spiritual not physical. As a New Testament believer you should know that the emphasis today is on the heart and it's motivations.

Heb_4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Jesus Christ Himself told us that His Father is always working and so is He. Working, yet resting in His Father's love. Likewise, the Christian can work, yet rest in Christ. We can observe the True Sabbath everyday.

The Lord does make provision for those who like to honor "special" days for themselves. There is no condemnation to any Christian who wants to honor a day or treat every day alike (Romans 14).

But there is no provision from the Lord or the Apostles to bring others under the OT law. Jesus is the "end of the law" to everyone that believeth and it should be clear to you why. Jesus Christ went further than anyone under the law could ever go. And now, with His Spirit we are called to the same higher law of Christ. Under the old law, you were condemned if you broke any part of it and for the person that wants to put himself under the OT law, he will be judged by it and the penalties have not gone away for anyone that puts them self under the law.

According to your reasoning, James puts us under the law by telling us we are transgressors of the law if we kill or commit adultery. He also is wrong by suggesting the "whole law" of Jesus is not limited to "love God and neighbor", but also includes "don't kill or cheat".

It's really humorous to me when people argue that we don't have to keep the Ten Commandments but then won't say it's OK to steal, lie, etc. This is why the "saccharine sentimentalism" of cheap grace is driving more and more to the truth that Jesus is both Savior FROM sin as well as Lord to be obeyed.

 

[zeke25]

So, have you ever heard loving thy neighbor as thyself and sleeping with his wife, killing him, coveting his stuff, or dishonoring ones parents?

Though millions of devout, courageous Christian men, women and children were willing to suffer the death penalty by publicly denying that the wafer of bread held out before them as they knelt bound before some misguided Papist Inquisitor was the actual, literal "body of Christ", yet you still can't muster a minuscule fraction of that courage to publicly state for the record in an online discussion forum whether or not you believe we may freely break the rest of the Ten Commandments as freely as you claim we may break the Sabbath commandment?

Phoneman777,

justaname has been giving you the words of the Bible. Axehead has been giving you the gospel. I have been giving you the words of life. And you still take all of these teachings and throw them behind you as worthless. You are condemning yourself with your own words.

You won't answer the question regarding the Apostle Paul and I will add to that, what do you think of Ellen G White? Instead, you continue with your junior high stance of immaturity and try to manipulate an answer out of me, as if I will be shamed in the presence of my peers. Go figure.

Zeke25



FOR EVERYONE ELSE LISTENING IN, I HOPE YOU DIDN'T MISS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PHONEMAN'S EXPRESSION OF "SACCHARINE SENTIMENTALISM". PHONEMAN IS NOW MOCKING THE GRACE OF GOD. BE WISE AND KNOW WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH.

 

[Axehead]

According to your reasoning, James puts us under the law by telling us we are transgressors of the law if we kill or commit adultery. He also is wrong by suggesting the "whole law" of Jesus is not limited to "love God and neighbor", but also includes "don't kill or cheat".
It's really humorous to me when people argue that we don't have to keep the Ten Commandments but then won't say it's OK to steal, lie, etc. This is why the "saccharine sentimentalism" of cheap grace is driving more and more to the truth that Jesus is both Savior FROM sin as well as Lord to be obeyed.

No my friend, I did not say that. You are twisting my words like you twist the scriptures. Through Christ we go much further than what the 10 commandments require.

Axehead. It is all very well to exalt love, mercy, to do justly etc, for this is indeed the crux of religious life in Christ. But please note when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for lacking in those virtues while they were claiming to be righteous because they considered themselves law-keepers par-excellence....
Mt 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, (and no doubt could have added keep Sabbath, sacrifice countless lambs, pray 3 times a day, etc etc) and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

We have explained many times and it is very clear that Jesus was speaking of the law that ended with His death to everyone that believes in Him. He was also speaking to a Pharisee under the law and chastising him for being disingenuous/dishonest.

Under the law you cannot leave the other undone and Jesus knew this was language the Pharisee understood.

You, however don't have to be under the law. The Pharisee did not have that choice, but you do.

 

[Phoneman777]

Phoneman777,

justaname has been giving you the words of the Bible. Axehead has been giving you the gospel. I have been giving you the words of life. And you still take all of these teachings and throw them behind you as worthless. You are condemning yourself with your own words.

You won't answer the question regarding the Apostle Paul and I will add to that, what do you think of Ellen G White? Instead, you continue with your junior high stance of immaturity and try to manipulate an answer out of me, as if I will be shamed in the presence of my peers. Go figure.

Zeke25



FOR EVERYONE ELSE LISTENING IN, I HOPE YOU DIDN'T MISS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PHONEMAN'S EXPRESSION OF "SACCHARINE SENTIMENTALISM". PHONEMAN IS NOW MOCKING THE GRACE OF GOD. BE WISE AND KNOW WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH.

Zeke, it is not the man that is a doer and teacher of the commandments which is called "least" in the kingdom, but the man which breaks whatever he deems the least (Sabbath) and teaches others to do so which is called "least" in the kingdom. Likewise, Jesus will not say to those who keep the Ten Commandments, "Depart from Me, ye that work the LAW' - it is to commandment breakers that Jesus will say, "Depart from Me, ye that work LAWLESSNESS".

It is said that the reason why the lions didn't eat Daniel was because he had too much backbone, and if ever the church was in need of men with backbone, it is now.

No my friend, I did not say that. You are twisting my words like you twist the scriptures. Through Christ we go much further than what the 10 commandments require.

We have explained many times and it is very clear that Jesus was speaking of the law that ended with His death to everyone that believes in Him. He was also speaking to a Pharisee under the law and chastising him for being disingenuous/dishonest.

Under the law you cannot leave the other undone and Jesus knew this was language the Pharisee understood.

You, however don't have to be under the law. The Pharisee did not have that choice, but you do.

Of course, we must go further, but going further than the Ten Commandments doesn't do away with the Ten Commandments because you can never keep the Spirit of the Law while breaking the Letter of the Law!

Honestly, if it wasn't for the Sabbath commandment, you wouldn't hear one word against the Ten. But, because of the fourth commandment, people have invented intricately woven theories to explain that "we are not obligated keep a law that we are not allowed to break." Ludicrous.

 

[Axehead]

Zeke, it is not the man that is a doer and teacher of the commandments which is called "least" in the kingdom, but the man which breaks whatever he deems the least (Sabbath) and teaches others to do so which is called "least" in the kingdom. Likewise, Jesus will not say to those who keep the Ten Commandments, "Depart from Me, ye that work the LAW' - it is to commandment breakers that Jesus will say, "Depart from Me, ye that work LAWLESSNESS".

It is said that the reason why the lions didn't eat Daniel was because he had too much backbone, and if ever the church was in need of men with backbone, it is now.

Of course, we must go further, but going further than the Ten Commandments doesn't do away with the Ten Commandments because you can never keep the Spirit of the Law while breaking the Letter of the Law!

Honestly, if it wasn't for the Sabbath commandment, you wouldn't hear one word against the Ten. But, because of the fourth commandment, people have invented intricately woven theories to explain that "we are not obligated keep a law that we are not allowed to break." Ludicrous.

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Romans 10:4

 

[Phoneman777]

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Romans 10:4

If Romans 10:4 KJV means that the Law has ceased to be, then James 5:11 KJV ("Ye have heard of the patience of Job and seen the end of the Lord") means the Lord has ceased to be, right?

"End" doesn't mean "ceased to be", it means "purpose". The purpose of the law is to point us to Christ. The purpose for God allowing Job to suffer was so that the world could see what extreme patience a man fully surrendered to God can manifest.

This same James clearly stated 30 years after the Cross that if one kills, he becomes a transgressor of "thou shalt not kill". (James 2:11 KJV) so that alone disproves the whole "law has ceased to be" theory.

 

[Axehead]

If Romans 10:4 KJV means that the Law has ceased to be, then James 5:11 KJV ("Ye have heard of the patience of Job and seen the end of the Lord") means the Lord has ceased to be, right?

"End" doesn't mean "ceased to be", it means "purpose". The purpose of the law is to point us to Christ. The purpose for God allowing Job to suffer was so that the world could see what extreme patience a man fully surrendered to God can manifest.

This same James clearly stated 30 years after the Cross that if one kills, he becomes a transgressor of "thou shalt not kill". (James 2:11 KJV) so that alone disproves the whole "law has ceased to be" theory.

Why is it so important to you that people submit to the law as you do? Enjoy your day. No one here is preventing you from doing that. Why is this stuck in your craw so bad? I'm happy in the Lord, I'm resting in the Lord and to Him I will answer. I don't want you to give up your day, why do you want others to believe what the Holy Spirit is not leading them to believe?

When you look at the preponderance of scriptures and understand the person of the Lord Jesus, you see that He really is the END of the law to everyone that believeth. And yet, He is the beginning of a new law and new commandment (law of Christ) and new covenant.

Romans 3:19-20
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The law doesn't speak to me because I am not under it and I don't seek to be justified by the deeds of the law. It ended when I believed on the Lord Jesus.

 

[Phoneman777]

Why is it so important to you that people submit to the law as you do? Enjoy your day. No one here is preventing you from doing that. Why is this stuck in your craw so bad? I'm happy in the Lord, I'm resting in the Lord and to Him I will answer. I don't want you to give up your day, why do you want others to believe what the Holy Spirit is not leading them to believe?

When you look at the preponderance of scriptures and understand the person of the Lord Jesus, you see that He really is the END of the law to everyone that believeth. And yet, He is the beginning of a new law and new commandment (law of Christ) and new covenant.

Romans 3:19-20
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

The law doesn't speak to me because I am not under it and I don't seek to be justified by the deeds of the law. It ended when I believed on the Lord Jesus.

I apologize in advance for such a lengthy response. Christ is not the cessation of the law, He is the purpose of the law, as I have shown in my previous post, so let's not distort Scripture, OK? No one is arguing we are justified by obedience, but that the absence of obedience reveals a Christ-less heart.

The issue is important because Christ in the day of Judgment is going to say to shocked, stunned, and deceived servants of Satan who think they are saved, "Depart from Me, ye that work iniquity (lawlessness)". I do not accuse Justaname, Zeke, or you of being Satan's servants. I do, however, believe that you have convinced yourselves that when you see in the Bible "the Law", it refers to "all Biblical laws" - but you know full well that when you read a newspaper headline that says "the law", you immediately search the article for the context to find out "to which law among many does this article refer?". Why do you all not exercise the same common sense when reading Scripture?

"Wherefore serve the law? It was added because of transgression until the Seed should come" (Galatians 3:19 KJV). Cannot a blind man see from this text that:

• a law first existed,
• it was transgressed,
• a second law was added at Sinai to that first law until the Seed should come and nail it to the Cross?

Instead of Justaname, Zeke, and you asking the question, "What first law existed prior to the second one which was added to it at Mount Sinai?", you stubbornly insist that "the law" means "all Biblical laws" and have based on this fallacy incorrectly concluded that all of them have been replaced by "love God and love thy neighbor", instead of recognizing these two great commandments merely sum up the Ten Commandments, which have been shown to exist before Sinai and will exist for all eternity.

 

[brakelite]

Why is it so important to you that people submit to the law as you do?

Remember Axehead that the first post in this thread was written by an anti-sabbatarian such as yourself. What was interesting in subsequent posts was that there were 3 different reasons offered why the Sabbath is no longer valid. Even some of you fellas can't agree on why the Sabbath is not valid.
None of us are demanding you submit to the law. We are as aware, if not more so, that it is impossible by striving in one's own strength to obey, law-keeping without first surrendering to Christ and living by faith in His grace and power, is a futile exercise. All my posts have upheld the law, yes, but my recommendation is to submit to Jesus, to love Him supremely above all traditions that deny truth. Any lawkeeping comes as a direct result of our relationship with Him. Sabbath keeping is not a means to gain God's favor, despite anti-sabbatarians attempts to make it look that way. Obedience of any sort is a fruit of our relationship. Precisely in the same way as your own dislike of theft, adultery etc is also a fruit of your relationship with Christ. We are simply attempting to open your eyes to the possibility of improving that relationship by allowing the Holy Spirit to develop in you a love for Jesus that includes keeping an appointment with Him on the day He created for that purpose.
We are simply defending ourselves against Trekson's arguments. Arguments that had little or no foundation in the Bible. His being the same as your own...that the rest we find in surrendering ourselves to Christ replaces the real-time physical rest on Sabbath.
Why? Why would God require the spiritual rest we are promised to replace that which He has given as a blessing to His people? Nowhere in any portion of scripture is there any hint, any intimation or suggestion, that the holiness, the sanctity, of the 7th day has ever been removed. It has been there since creation, along with that other institution established before sin, marriage. The only two institutions established before the fall. thus neither of them were established to deal with sin, but were established purely as a blessing for His created people. Which is why the weekly Sabbath was not done away with at the cross, as it was never established as an instrument that needed to met by any fulfilling within the ministry of Christ, unlike the annual feast days and Sabbaths which were established to deal with the sin problem, and were given as "shadows of things to come". Jesus observed the Sabbath. He magnified the law and made it honorable. Jesus magnified the Sabbath and made it honorable. Yes, He worked. He worked to make peoples lives better. He worked to give healing, peace, and reassurance of the Father's love to the people. All quite acceptable things to do within the lawful limitations on Sabbath. One thing we can be assured of, Jesus did not, ever, work at His carpentry table on Sabbath.

 

[Axehead]

Remember Axehead that the first post in this thread was written by an anti-sabbatarian such as yourself. What was interesting in subsequent posts was that there were 3 different reasons offered why the Sabbath is no longer valid. Even some of you fellas can't agree on why the Sabbath is not valid.
None of us are demanding you submit to the law. We are as aware, if not more so, that it is impossible by striving in one's own strength to obey, law-keeping without first surrendering to Christ and living by faith in His grace and power, is a futile exercise. All my posts have upheld the law, yes, but my recommendation is to submit to Jesus, to love Him supremely above all traditions that deny truth. Any lawkeeping comes as a direct result of our relationship with Him. Sabbath keeping is not a means to gain God's favor, despite anti-sabbatarians attempts to make it look that way. Obedience of any sort is a fruit of our relationship. Precisely in the same way as your own dislike of theft, adultery etc is also a fruit of your relationship with Christ. We are simply attempting to open your eyes to the possibility of improving that relationship by allowing the Holy Spirit to develop in you a love for Jesus that includes keeping an appointment with Him on the day He created for that purpose.
We are simply defending ourselves against Trekson's arguments. Arguments that had little or no foundation in the Bible. His being the same as your own...that the rest we find in surrendering ourselves to Christ replaces the real-time physical rest on Sabbath.
Why? Why would God require the spiritual rest we are promised to replace that which He has given as a blessing to His people? Nowhere in any portion of scripture is there any hint, any intimation or suggestion, that the holiness, the sanctity, of the 7th day has ever been removed. It has been there since creation, along with that other institution established before sin, marriage. The only two institutions established before the fall. thus neither of them were established to deal with sin, but were established purely as a blessing for His created people. Which is why the weekly Sabbath was not done away with at the cross, as it was never established as an instrument that needed to met by any fulfilling within the ministry of Christ, unlike the annual feast days and Sabbaths which were established to deal with the sin problem, and were given as "shadows of things to come". Jesus observed the Sabbath. He magnified the law and made it honorable. Jesus magnified the Sabbath and made it honorable. Yes, He worked. He worked to make peoples lives better. He worked to give healing, peace, and reassurance of the Father's love to the people. All quite acceptable things to do within the lawful limitations on Sabbath. One thing we can be assured of, Jesus did not, ever, work at His carpentry table on Sabbath.

Well, it was nice talking to you. I think I have heard all of your angles and yet I remain unconvinced as I do not have the witness of the Spirit or the Word. For the record, I did not call you anything or say you were not a Christian. In fact I said, enjoy your day. Don't let anyone take it from you.

And also for the record, I can fellowship with Sabbatarians who truly love Christ, and endeavor to keep Him preeminent in their speech and actions. Can you fellowship with non-sabbatarians? If you prefer to use "anti", I think I understand why.

Peace to you and phoneman.

 

[justaname]

Bad analogy...you can't nail stone to a cross. What is in Scripture is a figure of speech. (Colossians 2:14) No one literally walked up with the Law and nailed it to the cross...Why would you place literal values on a figure of speech?

Bad exegesis...The 10 commandments existed before Sinai. No where is Scripture does it say this.

Bad interpretation...The Shabbot was expected to be observed before Sinai. No where in Scripture does it say this.

And to better understand the Galatians passage...the Law was added to the promise...

To give a human example, brothers:6http://www.esvbible.org/Galatians+3/#f6-1 zeven with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now athe promises were made bto Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, c“And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came d430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as eto make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but fGod gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? gIt was added because of transgressions, huntil the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was iput in place through angels jby an intermediary. 20 Now kan intermediary implies more than one, but lGod is one.

For the record Law is used in Scripture to refer to the Law of Moses which includes the ten...it came 430 years after the promise to Abraham. This is what Scripture teaches.

 

[Phoneman777]

Bad analogy...you can't nail stone to a cross. What is in Scripture is a figure of speech. (Colossians 2:14) No one literally walked up with the Law and nailed it to the cross...Why would you place literal values on a figure of speech?

Bad exegesis...The 10 commandments existed before Sinai. No where is Scripture does it say this.

Bad interpretation...The Shabbot was expected to be observed before Sinai. No where in Scripture does it say this.

And to better understand the Galatians passage...the Law was added to the promise...

To give a human example, brothers:6http://www.esvbible.org/Galatians+3/#f6-1 zeven with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now athe promises were made bto Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, c“And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came d430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as eto make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but fGod gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? gIt was added because of transgressions, huntil the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was iput in place through angels jby an intermediary. 20 Now kan intermediary implies more than one, but lGod is one.

For the record Law is used in Scripture to refer to the Law of Moses which includes the ten...it came 430 years after the promise to Abraham. This is what Scripture teaches.

I agree, you can't nail stone to anything, so whatever was nailed to the Cross was NOT written in stone.

Of course the Scripture says the Ten Commandments existed before Sinai, and here are just five examples:

• Adultery - "How can I commit this great wickedness and sin against God?"
• Blasphemy - "Neither shall thou profane the name of your God".
• Murder - "He was a murderer from the beginning."
• Idolatry - "You shall not let your sons and daughters pass through the fire of Molech".
• Stealing - "Every one that is not speckled or spotted among the goats or brown among the lambs shall be considered stolen".

It is faulty exegesis to insist that no law existed before Sinai when the text plainly says "transgression" was why the law of Sinai was added and before you can have "transgression" you must first have a law to transgress! I know you must at all costs deny the existence of the Ten Commandments before Sinai so that the Sabbath may be legitimately denied, but I'm afraid the weight of Biblical evidence is against the idea that no law existed before Sinai, especially when Abraham kept God's laws, commandments, statues, and covenant.

***Proof that the Sabbath was kept before Sinai***

W. W. Oliphant, an African church leader in the early years of the twentieth century says that the "Sabbath in Ethiopia has been kept from the days of Nimrod, about 2140 B.C. (read Gen. 10:8, 10), that is 700 years before the birth of Moses. . . . Africans or Ethiopians had been Sabbath observers from the days of Nimrod" (Quoted in Bradford C.E. Sabbath Roots, The African Connection. L. Brown and Sons, Barre (VT), 1999, p. 26).

 

[justaname]

I agree, you can't nail stone to anything, so whatever was nailed to the Cross was NOT written in stone.

Of course the Scripture says the Ten Commandments existed before Sinai, and here are just five examples:

• Adultery - "How can I commit this great wickedness and sin against God?"
• Blasphemy - "Neither shall thou profane the name of your God".
• Murder - "He was a murderer from the beginning."
• Idolatry - "You shall not let your sons and daughters pass through the fire of Molech".
• Stealing - "Every one that is not speckled or spotted among the goats or brown among the lambs shall be considered stolen".

It is faulty exegesis to insist that no law existed before Sinai when the text plainly says "transgression" was why the law of Sinai was added and before you can have "transgression" you must first have a law to transgress! I know you must at all costs deny the existence of the Ten Commandments before Sinai so that the Sabbath may be legitimately denied, but I'm afraid the weight of Biblical evidence is against the idea that no law existed before Sinai, especially when Abraham kept God's laws, commandments, statues, and covenant.

Nothing what you posted confirms your position...

I never said "no law existed", just that the 10 commandments that are included in the Law did not exist. The Royal Law is eternal as is God because God is love. We were made in His image...

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

To sin is to profane love and the image He made you in. We are called to holiness and to rule. We are called to love.

If you sin against another person it is a sin against God...as you have done to the least of these so have you done to Me. All sin is against God.

W. W. Oliphant will have to come up with some evidence, not just because he says so. Perhaps they started practicing the Shabbot after the Queen of Sheba came back from meeting Solomon...a more likely story. Also some Ethiopians are said to be of Jewish DNA...

 

[Phoneman777]

Nothing what you posted confirms your position...

I never said "no law existed", just that the 10 commandments that are included in the Law did not exist. The Royal Law is eternal as is God because God is love. We were made in His image...

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

To sin is to profane love and the image He made you in. We are called to holiness and to rule. We are called to love.

If you sin against another person it is a sin against God...as you have done to the least of these so have you done to Me. All sin is against God.

W. W. Oliphant will have to come up with some evidence, not just because he says so. Perhaps they started practicing the Shabbot after the Queen of Sheba came back from meeting Solomon...a more likely story. Also some Ethiopians are said to be of Jewish DNA...

Well, I'm encouraged that you at least acknowledge that a law existed before Sinai. But, how can you say "thou shalt not commit adultery" did not exist in the time of Joseph, when he himself tells Mrs. Potiphar that what she wanted him to do was "great wickedness" and "sin against God" ("sin" defined as "transgression of the law") ?

 

[justaname]

Not only would it be a sin against God, but against Potiphar, Mrs. Potiphar, and Joseph himself.

And as Jesus says...but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Romans 2:14-15
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

We are made in the image of God. God is love. Note here it says "do by nature." It is not our sin nature being referenced here.

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
Shalom...

 

[Phoneman777]

Not only would it be a sin against God, but against Potiphar, Mrs. Potiphar, and Joseph himself.

And as Jesus says...but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Romans 2:14-15
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. [/size]They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)[/size]

We are made in the image of God. God is love. Note here it says "do by nature." It is not our sin nature being referenced here. [/size]

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.[/size]
Shalom...[/size]

I think your theology is a little off. David said "against Thee, Thee ONLY have I sinned" in Psalm 51. That is because sin is breaking God's law, not Bathsheeba's law or Uriah's law.

So, do you acknowledge that "thou shalt not commit adultery" was part of the law that existed before Sinai?

 

[JimParker]

We keep the Sabbath in the same way Jesus and the apostles did.

If Paul taught that the laws of God (the Ten Commandments) had been abrogated, or that the Sabbath in particular was no longer to be observed, how could he claim the above without the Jews coming down on him like the proverbial ton of bricks?

You keep Sunday today as an obedient and slavish devotion to a tradition that had its roots in Mithra

<<We keep the Sabbath in the same way Jesus and the apostles did.>>

Do you do all of these?

EX 16:29 Bear in mind that the LORD has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out." 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.

Don’t travel on the Sabbath. A Sabbath's journey was limited to approximately one mile.

EX 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates.

1. Don’t you or anyone in your household do any work on the Sabbath.
2. It also includes animals which have been replaced by cars, trucks, tractors, buses, airplanes, trains, etc., So don’t work and don’t use any sort of motorized vehicle on the Sabbath. (Which means you don't drive to whatever meeting you might attend on Saturday.)

EX 31:14 " `Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. 15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. 16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.' "

1. The seventh day is for rest; do not work on the Sabbath.
2. Israelites are to observe the Sabbath. (not gentiles, Israelites)
3. The Sabbath is a sign between God and Israel. (Again: Israel; not gentiles)
4. God abstained from work and rested on the 7th day and Israel is to do the same.

EX 35:1 Moses assembled the whole Israelite community and said to them, "These are the things the LORD has commanded you to do: 2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death. 3 Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day."

1. The command concerning keeping the Sabbath Holy came from the LORD not from Moses.
2. Rest on the Sabbath and do no work.
3. Do not light a fire in your dwelling on the Sabbath. (Furnace, oven, light bulb)

LEV 23:3 " `There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a Sabbath to the LORD.

DT 5:12 "Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do.

Don’t use any utility (electricity, gas, internet, telephone, etc.) or public service (roads, police, radio, TV, bus, etc.) that requires anyone to work on the Sabbath in order to provide the service.

<<You keep Sunday today as an obedient and slavish devotion to a tradition that had its roots in Mithra>>

ROLF!!!!!! That's beyond ridiculous. Where do you get that baloney? Find another deli!

We celebrate the Lord's resurrection on the first day of the week (Mar 16:9) just like the church (not the Jews) always did.

Justin Martyr : The First Apology of Justin C.100-162 AD
But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples,…

The Teaching of the Apostles. (1st Century)
The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation: because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the place of the dead and on the first day of the week He arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week He ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week He will appear at last with the angels of heaven.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians C. 50-117 AD, Bishop of Antioch
Chapter IX.—Let Us Live with Christ.

If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day[SIZE=1.5pt][1][/SIZE]…

…And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]. Looking forward to this, the prophet declared, “To the end, for the eighth day,” on which our life both sprang up again, and the victory over death was obtained in Christ, …

…At the dawning of the Lord’s day He arose from the dead, according to what was spoken by Himself, “As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man also be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial; the Lord’s Day contains the resurrection.

It has absolutely nothing, zero, zip, nada, to do with Mithras.

<<If Paul taught that the laws of God (the Ten Commandments) had been abrogated, or that the Sabbath in particular was no longer to be observed, how could he claim the above without the Jews coming down on him like the proverbial ton of bricks?>>

Hello-ooo!!! Paul WAS A JEW. Most Christians are not.

In that passage, Paul was talking to JEWS.

But in Acts 15 he specifically argued, and the JEWISH APOSTLES agreed, that the gentiles were not required to keep the law and be circumcised.

 

[OzSpen]

Jim,

Thanks for an outstanding expose of Sabbath-keeping that was for Jews and not for Gentiles or Christians. What you shared from Scripture and the early Church Fathers made this fact clear.

Acts 20:7 states, 'On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight' (NIV).

Oz

 

[Phoneman777]

Jim,

Thanks for an outstanding expose of Sabbath-keeping that was for Jews and not for Gentiles or Christians. What you shared from Scripture and the early Church Fathers made this fact clear.

Acts 20:7 states, 'On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight' (NIV).

Oz

You should know that some new Bible versions translate Acts 20:7, "On the SATURDAY NIGHT, the disciples came together..."

This is due to the fact that most scholars know that a Bible day begins and ends with sunset, so what we read in Acts 20:7 KJV is that the seventh day Sabbath sun was setting and the first day of the week was beginning at which time the disciples came together to eat with Paul and listen to him preach for what many thought would be the last time they'd see him. His preaching went on well into the night which is why Eutychus fell down and died. Paul revived him, went back up to continue eating and preaching and finally when the sun came up (what we'd call Sunday morning) Paul left on a 30 mile foot journey to Troas. No Sunday morning service at all and no hint that Paul considered it sacred by virtue of his decision to walk 30 miles on that day.

The reason for the passage is not to identify a new day of worship, but to chronicle the miracle of the resurrection of Eutychus, but the passage is misused so much to try and establish Sunday sacredness that the miracle is often just an almost overlooked byword.