Why Sunday

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Did Paul say Sabbath keepers are weak in the faith?

Emphatically NO.

Yes, they most certainly are. I will explain how. Let me give a hint by saying it is such infatuation with natural things like a day and physical rest. It betrays the outward emphasis as though it's more about how we live in this world.

Weak in the faith comes from here:

Romans 4:18-22 KJV

Abraham was not weak in faith, meaning he fully accepted what God said and acted on it. He obeyed, in fact.

When it said he was not weak in faith, it meant that he believed what was written and stood strong on that belief until it affected his actual life in this world. Like you said, James also noted that faith without works is dead.

Romans 14:1-2 KJV
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. [2] For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

The vegetarian is weak in the faith because he is worried about eating something that will defile him. Whether this applies to rabbinical fasting days or to abstaining from animal products produced by gentiles (rabbinically prohibited, by the way, not prohibited by God) or meats offered in sacrifice to idols (or a surefire way to avoid doing such a thing by just going vegetarian), the end result is the same. The weak brother believes if he does these things it will be displeasing to God and the community of faith.

Is it weak in the faith for a Christian to abstain FROM SIN? Hardly.

This has nothing to do with sin. It has to do with converted Jews who held onto elements of the Law as if Christ demanded them to do so, when in reality He did not. They're not totally established in the faith. Colossians 1 and 2 speaks of being made grounded in Christ, before we get into the issue of being judged about sabbaths, etc, which is very noteworthy. Paul wanted to present everybody perfect or complete in Christ. And Col 2 tells us that we are complete in Christ and must not allow anyone to remove us using elements/rudiments of the world, which as I explained were Old Covenant carnal ordinances that were only imposed for a time seeing as they served as shadows. The handwriting of ordinances against us were tenets of ceremonial law.

Law of Moses contained ceremonial Law that was a handwriting of ordinances in and of itself. The Law actually made a statement about a writing that was related to the concept of blotting out.

Numbers 5:23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:

The curses were written in a book and blotted out with the bitter water in a rite in reference to a case of alleged adultery. If the woman was innocent, the curses were blotted out. But if her thigh rotted and belly swelled, she was guilty. This is where get the concept of blotting out handwriting of ordinances.

If people neglected to keep these ceremonies, they were condemned. Law was against us because, as Paul said, sin in our flesh would use a good thing like the Law to kill us! Law was not against us as though it was evil. It was against us because sin is evil, and sin forced us to do wrong whenever we tried to keep the Law in order to do good.

We see the first two verses showing weakness of faith. One weak in faith eateth herbs, fearful, as you say, about particular meats forbidden in Mosaic Law. Our relationship with God is not affected by what we eat. Even meats offered to idols are only FOOD, in reality, and the false gods don't exist, anyway.

So, eating herbs was being fearful of eating something among Gentiles LIKE PORK, etc. Pork was forbidden by Mosaic Law. That's why Paul said the kingdom is not about rules of meats and drinks, but far larger things like righteousness, peace and joy in the Spirit. It;'s not about eating or not eating PORK., etc.

Romans 14:5 KJV
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike . Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Notice the pattern. One eats all things, and the other who is weak is said to only eat herbs. The Verse shows all days are alike whereas the weak in faith is distinguished in the similar pattern of saying some days are esteemed above other days as better. Days and food are spoke of similarly as all are okay as opposed to some are better spiritually in some manner.

Notice, there is no mention of weakness in this passage.

It's implied and presented as granted quite emphatically by the pattern set forth in the issue of food. Weak people restrict their diet of food before God, and stronger ones eat all things. Naturally, the implication is a given to know that weak people esteem one day about another and the stronger do not. This sense is understood and to be carried through the whole chapter, as the next chapter summarizes it like this:

Romans 15:1.. We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

The strong are contrasted with the weak all through chapter 14 and its various examples of contrast, and chapter 15:1 shows that.

If one were to say well it's parallel to the food one so there is still weakness being discussed? Well, following the parallel from earlier in the chapter, the SECOND one mentioned is weak. In this verse it would be the guy who esteems every day alike who is weak in the faith!

The pattern is not in which order something is mentioned (!!), but which holds a restriction compared to who holds no restrictions at all.

But nevermind, because this isn't about the Sabbath anyway. It is about "doubtful disputations" and there is no doubt about the sanctification of the seventh day as the Sabbath.

No. It is about food restrictions and days being esteemed over others. That includes sabbath, hands-down. In fact, sabbath day is the single most common day repeated every week, for goodness' sake, that immediately comes to mind as soon as Paul mentioned esteeming days!

It is about personal estimation of the value of certain days, not about God's estimation of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is never even mentioned in the chapter.

When something is obvious, it does not need mention, like you describe. Sabbath is just ONE day that people esteem above others, and those days that are similar in estimation include many other similar holy ones.

The chapter is about accepting brethren despite their weakness, BROTHER..

Romans 14:21 KJV
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

Weakness is equated with stumbling and offending. Biblically, stumbling and offending have to do with sinning (transgressing God's commandments, including Sabbath breaking). So making your brother weak is not done by encouraging OBEDIENCE TO GOD, but by encouraging DISOBEDIENCE.

It's not disobedience if God says the new covenant is bot about natural seventh days but a spiritual one of rest.

1 Corinthians 8:4-7 KJV
As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. [5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) [6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. [7] Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

Faith is not here said to be weak, but the conscience.

The two are related, obviously.

Those whose conscience is weak are those who do not know that idols are nothing and powerless. Kind of like today people think a Buddha statue has some occultic power in itself. Truth is it is nothing, nothing but a memorial to foolishness, if anything. So some were refusing to eat gentile food because butchers and hosts were sanctifying the animal from which it came to pagan gods, and these believers wanted nothing at all to do with idolatry.

Agreed.

1 Corinthians 8:8-13 KJV
But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. [9] But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. [10] For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; [11] And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? [12] But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. [13] Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Again, we are not to encourage a brother to eat such meat IF that brother believes it is wrong because of the idol connection. But notice:

1 Corinthians 10:18-31 KJV

If it is made known that food is offered to idols, we are not to partake because of the idolatry connection. Partaking becomes an act of intentional worship in such a case. So we abstain in such situations.

So that's about it in regard to being weak in the faith. Nothing in scripture suggests Sabbath keeping is a weakness of faith.

I disagree completely, again because you are patently esteeming sabbath day to be better than other days and are so concerned over it.

So much concern over a natural day of the week and natural rest, when the bigger things of the kingdom are righteousness, peace and joy. Weak teachings put much focus on the natural while strong teachings focus on larger more important things. For that reason, I spend time pushing out toward the spiritual and away from the natural focus of sabbath keeping, for I want to be strong in that manner Paul described.

The amount of time spent pointing to a natural day is in itself weakness.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Fair enough. But being strong or weak in faith is a reality, and I do believe ther eis weakness of faith in sabbath keeper on that issue when compared to those who claim otherwise. You obviously believe you are more advanced in this issue than I am, or you would not disagree with my stance, on thie issue. But I do claim that's what Paul spoke about by describing those weak in faith, for that is the context, and it's nothing personal. Neither is it anything to brag about, for Paul stated that the more he learned about what was true, the more he realized that he knew nothing. For God to speak to someone about an issue is nothing to boast about. While the legalist is warned to not judge, the enlightened are warned to not despise.



It's not doing, and Paul addressed that in Colossians 2 as part of the touch not, taste not handle not ordinances of the elements of the world, which I know you claim are not what Paul meant by elements of the world.



As I said, someone I know honestly and sincerely set out to do that with twice of much work on a Friday as any other day, so that Saturday's food was all prepared. And it is more work on the sixth. It just is. You work twice as much on the sixth day to do none of the seventh, so far as food is concerned, and other things that must be done before the
seventh day arrives when it cannot be done. Chores. etc. This person told me it was really wracking. They were not engaging in it to argue a point, but to honestly try it. And to think that all of that change and effort is necessary to keep the sabbath, shows quite an effort to change, let alone work twice as much on the sixth day.



..if you are right in saying sabbath day is not fulfilled with a spiritual rest instead of the shadow.

But go for it! If that's what you see in the word, do so. I disagree with you on this in very strong terms. But we are not serving each other. We serve God. Blessings!

Brother Blume,

If I understand the debate, you believe that all of the Ten Commandments but the one concerning the sabbath, are still in effect.

Esaias believes that ALL ten of the commandments including observing the sabbath are still in effect.

I believe you are both wrong. You are wrong about nine commandments, and Esaias is wrong about ten. Because I believe that the OLD covenant WAS the Ten Commandments.

I have already posted scripture that shows that the covenant was referred to as the Ten Commandments. But there are two. Then there is the fact that God ordered Moses to have an ark built to house the tables of stone.

Deut.10

[1] At that time the LORD said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood.
[2] And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark.

God told Moses to build an ark.

What is an ark?

Let me quote Merriam Webster:

\ ˈärk \
Definition of ark (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : a boat or ship held to resemble that in which Noah and his family were preserved from the Flood
b : something that affords protection and safety

If you go with definition b, which I believe applies here, you actually have God telling Moses to build a structure that will provide protection and safety for the two “tables of stone” that the Ten Commandments were written on.

So it shouldn’t be any surprise that the structure built to protect the ”covenant” aka the Ten Commandments would come to be known as the Ark of the Covenant. It is this covenant that is referred to as the OLD covenant in Hebrews. The old covenant is the Ten Commandments.

Therefore the commandment to observe the sabbath is long gone. And so are the others. Now it is interesting that the other commandments are reiterated in the NT, but the admonition to observe the sabbath is not.

So Esaias and I agree on one thing. If the sabbath commandment is gone, or vanished, so are the others. Which brings up another key point in . . .

Hebrews 8

[13] In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

If the old covenant was ready to vanish away, some two thousand years ago, what are the chances that it is still hanging around today? Because if it was ready to vanish, that would mean all of the necessary conditions were met for it to vanish. So if this old covenant, that has vanished away, doesn’t refer to the covenant known as the Ten Commandments, or the Ten Commandments known as the covenant, then pray tell what covenant is this verse referring to?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother Blume,

If I understand the debate, you believe that all of the Ten Commandments but the one concerning the sabbath, are still in effect.

Esaias believes that ALL ten of the commandments including observing the sabbath are still in effect.

I believe you are both wrong. You are wrong about nine commandments, and Esaias is wrong about ten. Because I believe that the OLD covenant WAS the Ten Commandments.

I have already posted scripture that shows that the covenant was referred to as the Ten Commandments. But there are two. Then there is the fact that God ordered Moses to have an ark built to house the tables of stone.

Deut.10

[1] At that time the LORD said unto me, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first, and come up unto me into the mount, and make thee an ark of wood.
[2] And I will write on the tables the words that were in the first tables which thou brakest, and thou shalt put them in the ark.

God told Moses to build an ark.

What is an ark?

Let me quote Merriam Webster:

\ ˈärk \
Definition of ark (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : a boat or ship held to resemble that in which Noah and his family were preserved from the Flood
b : something that affords protection and safety

If you go with definition b, which I believe applies here, you actually have God telling Moses to build a structure that will provide protection and safety for the two “tables of stone” that the Ten Commandments were written on.

So it shouldn’t be any surprise that the structure built to protect the ”covenant” aka the Ten Commandments would come to be known as the Ark of the Covenant. It is this covenant that is referred to as the OLD covenant in Hebrews. The old covenant is the Ten Commandments.

Therefore the commandment to observe the sabbath is long gone. And so are the others. Now it is interesting that the other commandments are reiterated in the NT, but the admonition to observe the sabbath is not.

So Esaias and I agree on one thing. If the sabbath commandment is gone, or vanished, so are the others. Which brings up another key point in . . .

Hebrews 8

[13] In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

If the old covenant was ready to vanish away, some two thousand years ago, what are the chances that it is still hanging around today? Because if it was ready to vanish, that would mean all of the necessary conditions were met for it to vanish.

The old covenant is gone. NOt sure why you claim that I think it is not.

The old covenant was represented by the first tabernacle and you could not get into the second tabernacle if the first was still standing. So, the first tabernacle was removed as much as you can only get into the new covenant if the first is removed.

But if you think that the ten commandments are the old covenant, and claim that my belief that the nine are still in effect then I do not think the old passed away, you have to first prove that I believe the old covenant remains. I never said anything about the old covenant still being in effect, but directly the opposite. And when I said the nine are still in effect, I did not mean anything in the way that you claim I meant. I simply said murder is wrong as much as adultery, etc.

So if this old covenant, that has vanished away, doesn’t refer to the covenant known as the Ten Commandments, or the Ten Commandments known as the covenant, then pray tell what covenant is this verse referring to?

I never actually stated nine are in effect, as such. But I am not sure what you are proposing. What do you mean the Old Covenant in the form of the Ten Commandments passed away?

You agree that nine of the ten were reiterated by Jesus because they were not shadows. That's all that I meant by the fourth is changed into the spiritual rest. Esaias always said that I think one is abolished, but I never said that. I said the fourth is in effect spiritually since it was a foreshadow because they remain in what Jesus and the apostles presented.

The Old Covenant though is far more than the ten commandments. The Old Covenant is a body of covenant that was represented by Hagar and issued at Mount Sinai. It's everything that went forth from Mount Sinai, not just the ten commandments. It involved tabernacle/temple worship. Yes, you could say it is the ten commandments, because everything God gave additional to that was actually applications of the ten

It's more complex than saying that the ark was the ark of the covenant, therefore the ten commandments put inside the ark are the covenant, itself. It's true in one sense. The truth is that everything in the Law of 613 precepts are based on the Ten Commandments. The Ten commandments are the simple form and the rest of the law was all stemmed from them. So, everything Moses was given at Sinai stands for the ten. So, it's the same thing really.

Jesus broke it down further and said Love God and Love your neighbour as yourself. That is basically what the ten commandments are, and in turn, is basically what everything else in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and Exodus are.

[mfblume]

I agree that Law is synonymous with ten commandments, and sabbatarians are wrong in saying it is not.

The letter is the ten commandments.

2 Corinthians 3:6-7.. Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. ..(7).. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

2 Corinthians 3:11.. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.

2 Corinthians 3:15.. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.


When Moses is read, the ten commandments are read.

[mfblume]

Sabbath-keeping is not moral, other than the reasoning that we morally must do whatever God says to do even if the thing he says to do is not moral in itself..

God would not grow weary in any way if someone was faithful to refraining from adultery or refraining from murder. Would God ever say that our forbiddance from murder and theft and adultery were troublesome to him like he said sabbath-keeping of Israel was troubling to him?

Isaiah 1:13-14.. Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. ..(14).. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.

How can sabbath keeping be a trouble to God if sabbath keeping in and of itself is moral? Could you see God speaking of their refusal to murder and commit adultery in those verses instead of feast keeping and sabbath keeping? Of course not.

Israel trusted in these things when their hearts were not right. Can that be said about refraining from adultery? No, because refusing to commit adultery is in and of itself moral and can never be part of anything that makes its value into something of no value.

You can hypocritically keep sabbath but you cannot hypocritically refrain from adultery or murder, etc.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I agree that Law is synonymous with ten commandments, and sabbatarians are wrong in saying it is not.

You are wrong in saying that Sabbath keepers say the law and ten commandments are different things.

I have pointed out repeatedly for YEARS that the word "law" has multiple meanings. I will now prove it:

Matthew 22:35-40 KJV
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question , tempting him, and saying, [36] Master, which is the great commandment in the law? [37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. [38] This is the first and great commandment. [39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The two commandments Jesus said are the greatest commandments in the law are not in the ten commandments. One is in Deuteronomy in the Shema, the other is in Leviticus. Jesus then said on these two hang all the law and the prophets. Law there means the Pentateuch (Genesis - Deuteronomy).

John 10:34-35 KJV
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? [35] If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Here law refers to the Psalms.

Romans 3:10-19 KJV
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: [11] There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. [12] They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. [13] Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: [14] Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: [15] Their feet are swift to shed blood: [16] Destruction and misery are in their ways: [17] And the way of peace have they not known: [18] There is no fear of God before their eyes. [19] 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.

Here the prophet Isaiah's writings are called the law.

Romans 7:1-3 KJV
Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? [2] For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. [3] So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Here law refers in the first case to the "Mosaic law", that is, the commandments contained in the Pentateuch, and in the latter case to the specific requirements regulating marriage and remarriage. Her being a widow and dead to the law which bound her to theprevious husband does not mean she is free from the ten commandments or any other law.

Romans 7:7 KJV
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Here the law mentioned specifically includes the tenth commandment.

1 Corinthians 14:21 KJV
In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

Here law means the prophet Isaiah.

2 Kings 17:13 KJV
Yet the Lord testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets.

Here the law is the commandments and statutes which were given through Moses AS WELL AS the later instructions and warnings and admonitions given by the prophets.

I could go on by I think this should it make it clear that the word "law" does not mean the same thing in all cases. I don't know anyone who says the ten commandments are not the law, or vice versa, in any generalised sense. The meaning of the word law is determined by its usage and context.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Therefore the commandment to observe the sabbath is long gone. And so are the others. Now it is interesting that the other commandments are reiterated in the NT, but the admonition to observe the sabbath is not.

So Esaias and I agree on one thing. If the sabbath commandment is gone, or vanished, so are the others.

This is the "new testament is the replacement legislation" view, maintained by Campbellites and some others. The problem is this view fails to identify the giving of the new legislation. "The new testament repeats x, y, and z." Actually it doesn't. There is no place in the new testament writings where an official repeal of the laws, commandments, statutes, and judgments took place. Nor where a replacement legislation took place. The new testament does, however, repeatedly affirm the continuing validity of God's instructions. Thus the new testament affirms the continuous existence of the laws of God. Were some changed in the transition from old COVENANT to new? Yes. The priesthood and law of sacrifice, atonement, and offerings was changed, for one. Yet these changes are predicted and prophesied in the old testament writings, and referenced in the new testament writings. Such is NOT the case with the Sabbath, the rest of the Decalogue, or a whole host of other instructions.

Case in point: bestiality is nowhere mentioned in the new testament as a forbidden activity. Using Tithemeister's hermeneutic, Jesus died and made bestiality completely lawful. This is where bad doctrine and bad hermeneutics lead.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

As I said, someone I know honestly and sincerely set out to do that with twice of much work on a Friday as any other day, so that Saturday's food was all prepared. And it is more work on the sixth. It just is. You work twice as much on the sixth day to do none of the seventh, so far as food is concerned, and other things that must be done before the
seventh day arrives when it cannot be done. Chores. etc. This person told me it was really wracking. They were not engaging in it to argue a point, but to honestly try it. And to think that all of that change and effort is necessary to keep the sabbath, shows quite an effort to change, let alone work twice as much on the sixth day.

Fascinating. I don't mean to be rude, but how is this any different than all the other "ex-whatever testimonies" we are all familiar with? Tried the Holy Ghost, it wrecked my life. Tried holiness it wrecked my life. Tried homeschooling, it ruined my family. Etc.

We prepare every Friday. The day goes smoothly. Sabbath is a "Feast of the Lord", a festival if you will. A nice meal, a day to relax, a day to focus more on God than we can during the other days (because we are no longer as busy on that day than on all the other days, what with work etc).

Preparing food a day in advance is "wracking"? Seriously? I would say there is certainly a transition period, like with ANY new habit, but seriously if Sabbath keeping is a burden you ain't doing it right.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Hebrews 8:13 (AV)
Brother Avery suggested that I reference this verse concerning the old covenant versus the new. The prevailing opinion is that this reference to the OLD covenant is not referring to the Ten Commandments. I contend that it is.

So let’s parse the verse below. My commentary will be in red. What I would like to focus on is the pronoun “he”.


In that he saith,
A new covenant, he hath made the first old.
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away

So who is the “he” that’s referenced in this verse? I believe it is God. So if the “he” is God, it must mean that God has made the first covenant old. So since God made the new covenant, and in so doing made the preceding one old, and the old covenant is ready to vanish away, who is responsible for making the old covenant “ready to vanish away “? The answer would be God. So if we resist the vanishing away of the old covenant, would we not be contrary to the will of God? I believe we would!

So the next logical question would be; What is the old covenant?

My opinion is that the old covenant that was ready to vanish away (almost two thousand years ago), was the Ten Commandments.

This attempt to have a New Testament doctrine abolishing or the Royal Law, the decalogue, the 10 Commandments (perhaps at 70 AD) is exceedingly weak, and not historical Christianity.

There may be some full-blown hyper-preterists with this error, but I think even the Max King crew might balk at this extreme. Maybe I will do some checking. This is a type of antinomism that links well with the universalism error.

Abolishment of the Decalogue is definitely not New Testament Christianity. E.g. read James, and the words of Jesus.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You are wrong in saying that Sabbath keepers say the law and ten commandments are different things.

....

I could go on by I think this should it make it clear that the word "law" does not mean the same thing in all cases. I don't know anyone who says the ten commandments are not the law, or vice versa, in any generalised sense. The meaning of the word law is determined by its usage and context.

However, sabbath keepers can easily say that Mosaic ordinances are very distinct from the 10 Commandments.

Thus, Hebrews 8:13 has zero application to the Decalogue, see the post above.

The 10 are not the “old covenant”.
And are not subject to any decay or waxing between 30 AD and 70 AD.