[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Realy, that doesn't prove that Jesus was going to introduce a religion void of a sabbath.

No, but it also does not prove Jesus meant for his church to keep the sabbath day either. It merely meant it was law in that day to not travel far on sabbath, and it applied to those who did not keep sabbath as well.

The commandments themselves have don't commit murder with keep the sabbath.

Sabbath was the only commandment that was explicitly stated to have been a shadow of the body of Christ, not forbiddance to murder, or forbiddance against committing adultery.

Why? It certainly we are not given any indication that it was to be nullified in the future.

Jesus knew when destruction was coming to the city. He knew it would give rise for them to flee while sabbath day journey law in Jerusalem was imposed on everyone in the city, not just sabbath keepers.

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.

And sabbath was to culminate as well as COl clearly says.

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.

That's not the meaning of legalist in the sense we are accustomed to. Legalism means without those things being done one is lost, when Lev 18:5 said keeping the law justifies one to not be lost. Paul contrasted Lev 18:5 with the grace of Christ. Ask sabbath keepers if we're lost if we do notkeep sabbath.

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.

Actually Paul did indeed teach them to not keep holy days, months and years, and that was not a change of calendars but context shows law was over as far as being a schoolmaster with its feasts and holy days was concerned.

Jesus taught all of the commandments except sabbath. And when he mentioned sabbath he referred to coming to him, not a day of the week for sabbath. Becuase it was a shadow when the others weren't. So those who rest in Christ are the real sabbath keepers not the ones today who keep the seventh day.

It's s
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.

Like I've said to Esaias many many times, the day is now a spiritual fulfillment that we do keep. It's truly keeping sabbath when we experience its antitype and go beyond the mere physical day.

It's so plainly stated in Gal 4 and Rom 14 that one has to go through hoops to say otherwise.

Esaias believes that he doesn't have to go to Jerusalem in the middle east in order to keep the feasts that he believes he must keep. He says this because he feels New Jerusalem is everywhere and the old is culminated, as you put it. But that is inconsistent, because the sabbath day is also culminated.

And sabbath is part of Mosaic law for Israel.

Never before Moses was any man commanded to keep sabbath.