Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
But simply because of the Sabbath was made for man doesn't mean that man is supposed to always keep the Sabbath.
|
Realy, that doesn't prove that Jesus was going to introduce a religion void of a sabbath. The commandments themselves have don't commit murder with keep the sabbath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
It doesn't mean that the Sabbath is always going to be in effect.
|
Why? It certainly we are not given any indication that it was to be nullified in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
The temple and the animal sacrifices were also made for a man, but both of them are gone now and we have what those things merely foreshadowed.
|
Actually they weren't the same as what Jesus was dealing with when eating wheat kernels with His disciples.
Matthew 24, clearly shows Jesus' intention for the temple law system. The animal sacrifices, priesthood were all to culminate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
When Colossians talked about nobody judging, it's not talking about people who were keeping those things and were criticized for doing them. It was talking about the handwriting of ordinances that was removed out of the way, and Legalists generally are the ones who judge those for not doing this things, while liberals are the ones who despise those who do. Romans 14 was dealing with Legalists esteeming one day above another, and the stronger Brethren of faith despised them in return. It's not days of fasting, since the day is not esteemed in a fast. But the fast itself. However, the day is esteemed in sabbath keeping. |
Jesus was a legalist, Paul was a legalist, everyone from the Essenes, and the different schools of the Pharisees were legalists. Paul is dealing with the Judaic calendar, and the rabbinical traditions concerning that calendar. Not dealing with the sabbath instruction in the commandements. We run into some funny logic when we want to extrapolate one of the ten.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
And the reason that Sabbath day's journey was mentioned in Matthew chapter 24, is because you can only go a certain Distance by law on sabbath. So when Jesus said pray that your journey be not on the Sabbath, he was saying by law they wouldn't be able to flee like they should be able to otherwise on a sabbath day. That proves that it's a first-century fulfilment because it's not a law that requiring anybody to not go a certain distance on a Sabbath today.
|
Again, if Jesus was teaching that the sabbath wouldn't be an issue for His followers, then no matter what the length of difficulty. It would of been a moot point. Again, one doesn't need to be a Sabbath Keeper to see the obvious. But teaching that Jesus taught to disregard the sabbath isn't found in the Gospel. Paul certainly didn't teach to disregard the commandment. Definitely not to the first century Judean converts. They were dealing with issues, issues which pertained exclusively to their time. Which we don't have, going on today. New moons? Days of fastings? Meat offered to idols? mandatory circumcision of children? We are told not to commit adultery? Respect and care for parents? But a day? Nope, No day, that seems to missing? That is all I am saying here. No consistency means bad argument.