Should we still observe the sabbath?

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I don't think you have been paying attention to what I have been posting. I explained all this numerous times.

One LAST time for you:

God's law is THE ENTIRE BIBLE. "Man shall live by every word of God". Thus, every word of God is the rule of conduct for man. A rule of conduct for humans is a "law". Thus, the entire Bible is God's law.

Within the Bible, the word "law" occurs numerous times, and there are DIFFERENT MEANINGS to the word depending on the context.

For example, the word "law" can refer to the Pentateuch as written literature, it can refer to the various commands of God, it can refer to the old covenant, it can refer to Judaism (the traditions of the elders aka the Talmud), it can refer to human decrees, it can refer to various customs practiced by various people groups and nations, etc. But in its widest theological sense it means the entire Bible as the final authority for faith and practice.

The laws of God, that is to say, God's commandments, statutes, etc, existed prior to Sinai and the old covenant. When the covenant was made at Sinai, they were incorporated into that covenant, along with the priesthood and the laws of sacrifice and offering.

With the new covenant, the laws of sacrifice and offering and priesthood underwent a change, from Levi to Melchizedek.

The moral laws of God which govern human behaviour, which were incorporated into the old Sinaitic covenant, were incorporated into the new covenant.In the old covenant at Sinai, they were written on tables of stone and copied into a book (the "letter"). In the new covenant they are written on the heart and placed into the minds of God's people. The old covenant could not produce obedience, because the law of God was EXTERNAL to the individual member of the covenant. The new covenant does produce obedience because the law of God is now INTERNAL to the individual member of the covenant.

I know full well you disagree with all of this, but I have seen that quite frankly you yourself don't even rationally know why you disagree or in what way, OTHER than by golly you are just not going to be remembering the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Your responses and statements and assertions and "reasons" are proof positive your doctrine is irrational, contradictory, and unscriptural. You keep making statements that demonstrate you simply don't seem to know what the Bible actually says (let alone what the Bible actually means). I mean, it is what it is.

As I said before, the more I interact with antisabbatarians, the more I hear and read their "arguments and proofs", the more I am convinced they absolutely have no idea what they are talking about.

This is the most comprehensive posts of your position that I have read. I believe this is the first time you have posted a distinction between moral law and ceremonial law (priesthood, sacrifices, etc..). My position is much the same as yours, but I don’t agree with you as the Sabbath being a moral issue. You say I just refuse to keep the Sabbath, and that infers that I am just a reprobate who refuses to believe the truth, which is not the case. There are many scriptures that have been posted that speak of this better covenant we are now under. This scripture below is support of the fact, we no longer must observe sabbatical days and dietary laws.

Colossians 2:16-17
16......Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17......Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

I have said before, I don’t think someone is wrong to keep a sabbath day on Saturday. God honors faith and if someone believes Saturday is a day they must keep as a sabbatical day, then that is fine. I just don’t think you can keep “the Sabbath” outside of entering the rest that Jesus promised to his believers.

IMO, If keeping the law of a Sabbatical day was a moral law of God, there would be the establishment of it in the epistles to the NT Church. Instead, the mention of a sabbath in the epistles are in verses like this one in Colossians.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

IMO, If keeping the law of a Sabbatical day was a moral law of God, there would be the establishment of it in the epistles to the NT Church. Instead, the mention of a sabbath in the epistles are in verses like this one in Colossians.

Obviously you haven't searched a concordance for the term "Sabbath".

BTW, your logic here means cross dressing and bestiality are ok, they aren't moral issues.

Just more of the crazy irrational results of taking up unscriptural doctrines, like antisabbatarianism, trinitarianism, antibaptism, etc.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

There are many scriptures that have been posted that speak of this better covenant we are now under.

This is an example of what is called gaslighting. There's a Southron aphorism that explains it but I won't repeat it here. If you know, you know. If not, never mind.

The new covenant is better. Not because it made it okay for you go shopping on Saturday, though. It is better because it produces the performance of the things contained in the law. You sir have it exactly backward, unfortunately.

[loran adkins]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The question is plainly answered in the Scripture. It's not complicated!

Exodus 20:8-11 KJV
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. [9] Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: [10] But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: [11] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Matthew 12:10-12 KJV
And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him. [11] And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? [12] How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

You say it is plainly answered, but as I said, the word only says six days shall you work and, rest on the seventh day. So first what is the seventh day? You say it is Sat. most of the world and tradition say it is Sunday, scripture does not point it out. As I see it if we take one day out of seven we obey the word.
The next question is how we are to keep it holy and to what degree. Are we to do no work at all? Years ago I was a Sunday school bus driver, Sunday school teacher, Choir musician, so my day on Sunday started early to drive the bus, by the time we would get home Sunday after Sunday school and morning church service would be well after 1:00 or 2:00 and then back by 5:00 for choir practice. With getting home well after 10-11:00, so Sunday was not really a day of rest. Next what does it mean to keep the sabbath holy? For most of the world it means to go the church, but is that what the word means?

[mfblume]

GALATIANS PART 1.
Paganism mixed with Law or Law mixed with Grace?


Galatians chapter 1 begins with the rebuke of the people having turned to another gospel which was actually a distortion of the true gospel. Paul then recounted his conversion and how he received the gospel directly by revelation from God. And the manner in which Paul continues to speak of his conversion is related to the controversy on this thread about whether or not Galatia had a problem with mixing paganism with the New Testament gospel, or LAW with the New Testament gospel. The nature of the other gospel is a point of discussion to which this thread has led us.

He began to speak about Titus not being circumcised in chapter 2. He referred to bondage, which is the huge controversy here. Recall that circumcision is again mentioned in Galatians 5 which is a distinct tenet of Law.

Galatians 2:3-4 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: (4) And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

This was in Jerusalem. Notice how the subject is false brethren who compelled circumcision.

Keep in mind that the Galatians had some people influence them, as well, as we continue reading. Let’s see if Paul deals with paganism in these introductory remarks to the Galatians. We must understand that all of these words in the introductory chapters in this epistle are leading up to a point to which these words relate.

Galatians 2:5-7 To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. (6) But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: (7) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Circumcision is noted again. Here, though, it’s simply referring to the Jews, because the people of the old covenant who were circumcised were called “the circumision.” Keep in mind that circumcision was part of the initial requirements for a person to fall under the Old Covenant system.

Exodus 12:48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it [PASSOVER]; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Let’s continue in Galatians 2. Paul stated that the apostles at Jerusalem confirmed that his message was correct and that they fully endorsed his ministry (2:2-10), after having mentioned he would not allow the people who compelled Gentile believers to be circumcised to have any influence on him, calling them false brethren.

Here is where something interesting is stated. Remember, the entire controversy is whether or not Galatians mixed LAW with the New Covenant or Paganism with the Law.

Galatians 2:11-17 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he

was to be blamed. (12) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. (13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. (14) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (15) We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, (16) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (17) But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Was Peter mixing paganism with Law? Of course not! He was living as a gentile lived, apart from the Law, and when brethren from James’ church arrived, he separated himself from eating with the Gentiles so as to not let these brethren know that he discarded the law concerning meats that gentiles ate in their homes while Old Covenant Law forbade them.

How did Peter live like a Gentile? What lifestyle had Peter lived by that would incite Paul to say that he lived like a Gentile? What has been the distinction so far in the epistle that Paul used to prepare his readers for the issue about which he would deal with
them?

Was this example of Peter anything whatsoever to do with paganism? Of course not! Was it an introduction to how the Lord used this epistle to teach believers to not mix Law with Paganism? Not at all!

Barnabas was even caught up in that! So, Paul rebuked Peter openly and told him that he was in effect demanding that Gentiles live like Jews, while Peter, himself, lived like Gentiles free of dietary laws and such things that we later find include holy days and feasts, which implies justification by works.

Law was justification by works.

Paul quoted Leviticus 18:5 later in the Galatians 3, which explained that people who will live MUST DO the works of the Law in order to attain that life.

Leviticus 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

(More about this when we get into Gal 3.)

So, it is correct to learn that justification by faith is being proposed as the truth rather than justification by works. However, that does not include any iota of thought about paganism being mixed with anything.

CONTINUED….

[Esaias]

Most of the world thinks the seventh day is Sunday? What world are you living in?

Very first result from a search for "August calendar":



This is ridiculous.

[mfblume]

...CONTINUED

GALATIANS PART 2.
Paganism mixed with Law or Law mixed with Grace?

What we are reading in Galat8ans 2-3 is an introduction to the problem of the Galatians in these first two chapters of the epistle. Nothing is mentioned about paganism. The subject is justification by works USING ELEMENTS OF LAW, not Law mixed with paganism. Had paganism been an issue in this epistle, then Paul would have introduced the epistle with references to that as he did with references to Judaizing law-keepers.

For those who do not keep holy days in order to be justified before God, that is far better than those who do them for justification.

Chapter 2 ends with yet another emphasis on LAW coming into the equation, not paganism.

Galatians 2:17-18 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. (18) For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

Justification through works of law is synonymous with achieving righteousness by the Law. But take special notice how that all of this introduction to the problem with Galatian believers says nothing about Paganism. It’s not the subject whatsoever.

When Paull stated the words of verse 17, he was actually referring to the question of lawkeepers that the Christian grace gives license to sin. So, Paul said that, hypothetically, if people claim justification by faith, but at the same time are living a sinful life and are “found sinners,” it’s not the Lord and His gospel that made them sinners. It’s they, themselves. He stressed this because Jews were accusing Christians of giving license to sin since they were not holding themselves to keep the rituals of Law.

Galatians 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

Here Paul said in plain language that he was dead to the Law! But, as he just confirmed in verses 17 and 18, the grace of God through justification by faith, does not give a believer the go-ahead to live in sin and all will be okay, as they were all being accused of. He says he indeed is DEAD TO THE LAW, but it is for the purpose of LIVING UNTO GOD RIUGHTEOUSLY, not sinfully, and NOT UNTO SIN.

He contrasted that which his accusers were saying about his doctrine when they said this grace leads to sinful living, by stating he was not dead to law (as he preached he was) to live unto sin. It was dead to the law to live unto God! And living unto God means righteous, holy living!

He repeated the CORRECT view to understand that freedom from Law and how it did by no means allow lives of sin in verses like these:

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Colossians 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

Rudiments of the world are NOT paganism. They are the ceremonies of the law that were OVER. Rudiments and elements are the same thing. They are NECESSARY AND GOOD building blocks. When lawkeepers insist that rudiment and elements are paganism, they do not understand the definition of the terms. Rudiments/elements are like ABC building blocks for reading and writing. They are necessary bare=bone beginnings of what we must learn. Once we learn them, we abandon the ABC building blocks of kindergarten and move on to actually sue what they taught us to read and write! Paganism is not necessary and good things for believers to build from and then abandon! How could paganism be considered a good and necessary thing to lead us to Christ as Paul said Law was in Gal 3 through 4?

TO BE CONTINUED.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Most of the world thinks the seventh day is Sunday? What world are you living in?

Very first result from a search for "August calendar":



This is ridiculous.

The 7th day is on Sunday.

Just take another look at the month of August…..

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

The 7th day is on Sunday.

Just take another look at the month of August…..

[diakonos]