7th Day Sabbath not for New Testament believers

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You occasionally ("MANY times"?) refer to the Sabbath as ritual, and have expressed the idea that as Christians we have moved beyond ritual. Thus, my statement, showing that the line of reasoning that goes "Sabbath keeping is ritual, but we're above all that" is erroneous and result in conclusions only the most hardcore antinomian pietists would accept. Thus, not only is that line of reasoning about ritual false, it also reduces to an absurdity. "That which proves too much, proves nothing."

You have not proved it’s not ritualistic. Again, as any one can plainly see, because God rested the seventh day and commanded man, ONLY UNDER LAW to res the seventh day of each following week (seeing as NO ONE KEPT SBBATH BEFORE MOSES BUT GOD), it’s a ritual or maybe ceremony is a better word. A memorial . Why not rest the 3r5d day of the week instead? Can’t do that, because the ritualistic elemen t says it must be the day God rested.

This has nothing to do with the ridiculous claim of antinomianism. It has everything to do with being able to distinguish what is ritual and what is not.

Like what, exactly?

Like a memorialized ritual of repeating something God did or didn’t do.

The weekly Sabbath is mentioned two times in chapter 4: in verses 4 and 10; possibly a third time depending on how one views verse 9. The weekly Sabbath is NOT the subject of chapter 4. The "rest" spoken of as the subject of the chapter, in verses 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 are NOT about the weekly seventh day Sabbath rest, but about a rest that God has which is available to God's people. (Verse 10 contains an allusion to both types of rest, and again verse 9 is disputable as to which rest is in view, depending on one's understanding of the verse as previously mentioned.)

Verse 9 is not disputable. It clearly is speaking beyond a Sabbath day, seeing as David distinctly said, as per Paul’s explanation, that long after sabbath day and long after entrance into Canaan occurred, there was a day people never rested in yet.

Anyway, I am glad you finally clarified your view on the rest of the overall point of Hebrews 4 not being Sabbath day.

There is a rest God has, which He makes available to His people. Israel under Joshua did not enter that rest.

Israel under Joshua DID enter the rest of Canaan. Israel also DID keep seventh day rest. But Hebrews 4 is saying long after those two forms of rest were kept there was still a form of rest no one kept yet. THAT is the rest available to us ONLY IN the new covenant.

They did keep the weekly Sabbath, however. So we know the rest which is the subject of the chapter isn't THAT (weekly Sabbath) rest, but something else. They couldn't enter it because of the hardness of their unbelieving hearts.

Agreed, but to be more correct, the younger generation did enter it, when their elders did not.

Paul references Psalm 95 repeatedly in this connection, and shows there was and still is a rest for the people of God. And, important to note, this is NOT the weekly Sabbath rest.

Amen. Again, thanks for clarifying that.

Paul brings in the weekly Sabbath in verse 4 to prove a point he made in verse 3, that there is a rest for the people of God, entered into by those who believe, that God in the Psalm said the unbelieving (like those in the wilderness) will not and cannot enter into that rest. ALTHOUGH GOD'S WORKS WERE FINISHED FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD, as the Scripture says "And God rested from all His works." Paul is pointing out the Divine rest he is talking about is NOT the weekly Sabbath rest, it is something none of unbelieving Israel was able to enter into, it IS something the believers enter into.

I think you veer offtrack here. Paul referred to the seventh day Sabbath when he said God rested the seventh day, which is where the fourth commandment comes from. Paul is actually saying that the entrance into Canaan somehow melds together with the thought of Sabbath day rest, because the Sabbath day rest originated from God’s rest in Genesis shows a completion of a work. The same can be said for entrance into Canaan. There were cities they did not have to build, etc., but merely enter into them and enjoy the. Rest. All of that is combined to give us a better glimpse of what he means by the rest into which we must enter in the new covenant. Christ’s rest from HIS new creation.

Paul is NOT teaching "the weekly Sabbath is a type and shadow of the believer's rest in God by faith."

He is by implication. If Sabbath day is nto the overall rest God is getting at in Hebrews 4, but it is referred to by indicating God finished his work and rested the seventh day, then he is using the background thought of sabbath day as a shadow, because as God rested from that work and completed his work, there is a work that’s been completed that we must enter into. It makes no sense to consider the sabbath apart from that when Paul spoke of God resting after his work was completed.

Rather, he is pointing out the believer's rest in God by faith is NOT the weekly Sabbath rest, that the weekly Sabbath rest is NOT the only "rest" God desires His people to enter into. It is, in fact, "another day", specifically "TODAY, if you will hear His voice, and not harden your heart."

Amen. I agree there.

Verse 10 points out that when a man enters his rest, he ceases from his labours, like God ceased from the works of Creation on the seventh day. The point is that those who believe cease from their labours, that is, their works, when they enter into Covenant with God by faith in Christ. They cease from dead works (sin, transgressing God's commandments), they cease from trying to be justified (declared righteous) by the works of the law (the old covenant with its various sacrifices for sin, which cannot truly purify the heart).

But one must realize the works of law were instituted to make one rigjteous by kee[ping them, as Paul noted in Gal 3 when he quoted that purpose in Lev 18:5.

[quote]Paul is not in any way saying those who become believers cease to obey the commandments of God, nor is he saying the weekly Sabbath is a dispensible shadow of the believer's rest in Christ.{/quote I never said he told us to abrogate the commandments, but his reference to God resting is implying there is a shadow in Sabbath keeping, however, Col 2 plainly stated Sabbath is a shadow.

What is the rest? What is Paul's entire point? It is summarized in verses 13-16, especially verse 16 which is a summation of the whole argument: we are to come to the mercy seat (throne of grace) and find mercy and help by virtue of our high priest Jesus Christ, rather than the Levitical system of sin offerings and Aaronic priests which Israel of old had, but which did not enable them to enter in to the Divine rest.

I agree there.

Errors being repeated require repeated corrections. It is interesting that in all this discussion, where Paul is supposedly teaching what YOU teach, he never actually says what you say, nor concludes what you conclude. He never says "the seventh day Sabbath is a shadow of our rest in God, it is a shadow of Jesus, it is a shadow of His physical body, it is a shadow of the church" (which, exactly, is it, anyway?). He never bothers to take this most splendid and opportune time to simply say "Therefore stop resting on the seventh day of the week." Funny, that.

You are NOT correcting ANYTHING when you do not take what I said and detailing show how my points of logic do not follow through, but instead just repeat something by argument does not even refute. He does indeed say what I say in stating Col 2’s words of Sabbaths being a shadow. JESUS IS OUR REST. It is not a shadow of his physical body. By using the body to speak of the shadow, he is saying that the Sabbath day and the other drinks and new moons, etc. are the shadows. Are they physical shadows from his physical body like dark spots on the wall in the shape of his body? You have to say so if you claim the body is the physical body of Jesus. He is speaking allegorically. The body of Christ IS CHRIST. His purpose and person and everything about Him including a myriad of things that only all the shadows surveyed together could come closest to without actually giving us Him. The shadows of him vary from one perspective of his purpose shown in the Sabbath day, to a totally different aspect referring to something like his sacrifice. Of course not. They’re days of rest and other days of memorials and ritualistic . The body is used as an allegory as the thought of a shadow is used, in the sense that bodies cast shadows. And as much as the Sabbath was not a literal shadow on the wall behind Christ’s body that cast the shadow due to a bright light on the other side of his body, reference to his body is an allegory as well. HE is the BODY. Not his physical body HIS REST provided by finishing creation and then sitting at the right hand throne is what the BODY represents in this illustration. Just as a shadow on the wall cast from the light on the other side of a body is a vague glimpse of the characteristics of the body, the Sabbath is a vague glimpse of the quality of the rest Christ provides. Sabbath day is like a shadow compared to the fulfillment of the greater Sabbath which is compared by contrast to the shadow by the physical body of Jesus. I’d sooner see the physical body of Jesus than I would his shadow on the wall as much as I would sooner have the rest He provided after new creation was worked then the 24 hour day period of Sabbath day that God rested after first creation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Regarding "it is fulfilled", the argument is thus:
The Fourth Commandment tells us to enact a ritual that typifies a higher spiritual reality. That reality was fulfilled in Christ, and so by being in Christ, we obey the " true meaning" of the Fourth Commandment, and are freed from obligation to re-enact the typifying ritual."

This argument contains an unspoken premise, namely, "If the higher spiritual reality of a typical action is achieved, the typical action is dispensed with."

But this is not true.

The Lord's Supper is a recurring, ritual action that typifies or represents higher spiritual realities: not only the historical death of Jesus, but the making of the New Covenant, the (new) Atonement accomplished, the (new) Passover offered and eaten, the uniting of believers into the mystical Body of Christ, the spiritual unity of believers with one another, and the spiritual unity of the believers with Christ, etc. These spiritual realities have taken place, the believer partakes of those higher realities by faith, through union with Christ.

You miss the all-important aspect of Paul’s words in Colossians 2 telling us that we have Christ who was foreshadowed by sabbath , along with the words of Gal 4 telling us not to keep holy days from law. There is no such thing about the other commandments as these references to the fourth in the bible. I know it’s an interpretation issue, but I am not going to sacrifice my interpretation for your accusation that it’s incorrect just because you say it is incorrect. So, until you see the true context of Gal 3 through 4, you will always make this blunder of a wrong accusation about my viewpoint.

So, it is TRUE IN PART ALONE that if the issue is a shadow fulfilled in a greater manner then we dispense of the old shadow, BUTU ONLY IF WE ARE TOLD TO DISPENSE OF IT as we are about Sabbath in Gal 4. Without that last aspect, I would agree with you! It’s like CIRCUMCISION. Circumcision as a required law that one could not avoid under law or else be considered outside the covenant. So, there is another example. We do not need to be circumcised physically to be covenant people because it was a shadow and the reality is baptism into Christ’s death removing the body of sins of the flesh. Or DO YOU DEMAND PHYSICAL CIRCUMCISION?

So then, the Lord's Supper is now "fulfilled" and we need not actually DO it? We may dispense with the typical physical action of blessing, breaking and sharing the loaf of bread, and of blessing and sharing the cup? Well, if the argument about "fulfillment" concerning the Sabbath is correct, the answer is YES, and the "spiritual communion" folks have it right.

Nope. We are not told to stop keeping the Lord’s supper as we are told to stop keeping Sabbath day and all the other feast days in Gal 3 through 4.

And, so do the Quakers, in regard to their doing away with water baptism, and for the exact same reasons.

Strawmen arguments continue to abound.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Paul is not in any way saying those who become believers cease to obey the commandments of God

Strawman. I never said he did.

Hebrews 8:10 brings this out quite clearly:

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

The New Covenant is characterized by God writing His laws in the hearts and minds of His people. He does not say, "I will take away the old laws, and give them new laws". He says He will write His laws in their hearts.

The Old Covenant had God's laws written on tables of stone, and in a book. The New Covenant has God's laws written in the mind and heart. This is further brought out in chapter 9:13-14:

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

The New Covenant results in a purging of the heart and mind. What is purged out? "Dead works." The result? The ability to serve God (obey God). In other words, the New Covenant purges out sin (transgressions, breaking of God's commandments) and replaces it with genuine obedience to the commandments of God. As Paul says in chapter 10 of the same epistle:

5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

The old covenant with its sacrifices could never actually take away sins (transgressions). But the New Covenant does, because the offering of Christ sanctifies and perfects the believer, who now has God's laws written in his heart and mind.

So, it is completely contrary to the teaching of the apostle that the New Covenant authorized us to transgress the commandments of God, including the Fourth Commandment, which specifically says to remember the Sabbath DAY to keep IT holy.

I never said we should transgress the commandments. And once AGAIN you IGNORE all my reasoning by virtue of not actually showing how my thoughts of Sabbath being directly stated to us to be dropped because it is a shadow that is more perfectly fulfilled by resting in Christ are in error by directly responding to that logic and reasoning. This entire post is a strawman argument, because I never told anyone nor stated that I should break any commandments. I actually said Sabbath is KEPT more perfectly by resting in Christ’s finished work, instead of the finished work of God in old creation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Regarding the "new creation doing away with seventh day Sabbath" argument.

This is an old argument, typified in the Epistle of Barnabas.

Funny how I never read the epistle of Barnabas at all.

I read HEBREWS 4!! That is where I got this from.

This argument is, in fact, the basis for Sunday keeping. Jesus did a "new creation" (the traditional argument places it on resurrection Sunday, not the day of His death, by the way) and we are to celebrate this new creation by keeping the first day of the week, instead of the seventh day of the week which is a memorial to the old creation.

NONSENSE. There go the strawman arguments again. SOMEONE may have made that argument, BUT I DID NOT. So please respond to what I SAID, not someone else.

We are not meant to celebrate new creation by KEEPING ANY DAY WHJATSOEVER. When Pau said to not keep days, etc., he never meant to tell us we can keep OTHER days. Keep none, period. Sunday is not a day I “keep” like some holy day.

The way we ACTUALLY are meant to celebrate new creation is not by keeping at day, but rather ceasing from our works to make ourselves righteous, and resting in His righteousness provided by HIS work on the cross after which HE RESTED on the throne to which we are meant to come and rest there with HIM! We rest simply by ceasing from works to make ourselves righteous and to solve all our own problems in our human ways. We rest IN HIS finished work, by coming to HIM. He sat down and rested on the throne after He worked new creation. Hebrews 10 does not say to keep the first day of the week holy because of his finished work of new creation. It tells is to COME BOLDLY to that right h throne . We OVERCOME and SIT DOWN WITH HIM IN THAT THRONE. Nothing to do with the first day fo the week.

[quote]Jesus resurrecting on the first of the week is interpreted as "the eighth day" (day after the weekly Sabbath), which becomes emblematic of the resurrection, the new creation, the new and better covenant, etc. See the Epistle of Barnabas for a concise statement of the argument:[/qujote]

STRAWMAN.

Barnabas 15:8
Finally He saith to them; Your new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot
away with. Ye see what is His meaning ; it is not your present
Sabbaths that are acceptable [unto Me], but the Sabbath which I have
made, in the which, when I have set all things at rest, I will make
the beginning of the eighth day which is the beginning of another
world.
Barnabas 15:9
Wherefore also we keep the eighth day for rejoicing, in the which
also Jesus rose from the dead, and having been manifested ascended
into the heavens.

This Sunday keeping, tied theologically to "new creation", resurrection, and the "eighth day/first day", gave rise to the ochtoechoi, or "eight modes" in Byzantine church music, and "eight tones" in Western (Gregorian) church music, the number eight being used as a template for modes or scales. These modes are, by the way, the basis of all Western music (folk, country, blues, rock, pop, classical, Baroque, Genevan psalm tunes, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant hymnody, including all the tunes in the UPC hymnbook).

I can see a SHADOW in the first day, but certainly not the antitype which is th actual rest we are meant to enjoy. Jesus sat down FORTY DAYS AFTER He resurrected What day of the week was that? WHO KNOWS? WHO CARES? The point is that he ascended and sat down after he worked.

But all this new creation, eighth day philosophy is a gnostic theology, derived from the cult of Sol Invictus (Roman Sun God, known as Mithra, Ra, Baal, etc) and imported into Christendom via the catholic heretics. Along with their Sunday keeping and anti seventh day Sabbath beliefs, they also brought in other pagan solar worship ideas, such as triads and trinities, clericalism, sacramentalism (talismanic ritual magick), and neo-Platonic ideas concerning "higher spiritual realities, or Idealism".

The pagan solar worshippers were obsessed with the number 8, as typified in the 8 holy days of Celtic Druidism, the "Feast in the Eighth Month" instituted by solar Baal worshipping king Jereboam as an alternative to Tabernacles, etc. It is interesting that sun god worshippers have a consistent history of attempting to institute solar days and paradigms as substitutes and replacements for God's appointed times, especially the weekly seventh day Sabbath.

The phrase "new creation" does not appear in the Bible, according to MySword. The phrase "new creature" occurs twice (2 Cor 5:17, and Gal 6:15), and refers to the believer being a new person with a new life.

I have not found any Bible verses which speak of "God doing a New Creation on the cross, or at the resurrection", as in a higher, newer antitype to the original six day Creation. It is a popular belief amongst Christians, but I suspect that is due to the pervasiveness of sun worship and solar religious ideas rampant in Christendom.

No verses about a new creation at the cross?

Hebrews 10 tells us flatly that JESUS RESTED after his work of atonement by the cross, and Hebrews 4 tells us to go to that throne when speaking of the rest we must enter. One has to force one’s eyes away from it to not see it.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Me: Paul said they are shadows of things to come. Did those things come? What were those things, and when did they come?

Blume: Yes they came.

The thing that sabbath day was a shadow of was Christ's rest after the work of NEW CREATION when he sat down on the right hand throne after the work of the cross and atonement

Christ sat down upon the right hand of God BEFORE Paul wrote that the new moons etc are a shadow of things to come. Therefore, you do err.

Of course he sat down before Paul wrote anything. That is why Paul said THERE WAS a rest to enter into when he wrote Hebrews 4.

Whatever the "things" are that the new moons etc are a shadow of, they were things "to come" when Paul wrote what he wrote.

No no no.

A child could see the difference in this issue. When I read that, I saw Paul speaking from the perspective of WHEN THOSE THINGS WERE INSTITUTED, not from the time he wrote them, just like Hebrews 8:

Hebrews 8:8-13 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (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.



Jeremiah wrote there was a new covenant coming. Paul referred to that and FROM THE TIME OF WRITING OF JEREMIAH he said that the old covenant was waxing old. Not from the time Paul wrote about it.. Many preterists think that’s saying law was still hanging around and was gone in AD70. I disagree. Law was gone at the cross. And from the perspective of the time those laws were in effect before the cross, THEY WERE SHADOWS OF THINGS TO COME.

He said they ARE shadows of coming things, ARE, present tense. So whatever they were shadows of, it hadn't yet come when Paul wrote Colossians. Since Jesus came, died, resurrected, ascended, and sat down on the right hand of power, it is plainly clear THAT cannot be the "things to come", since THAT already came.

That’s the most weak argument of all of your arguments, when, no insult intended, a child could see the difference.

And therefore they are NOT a shadow of Christ's prior or current work, rest, ascension, enthronement, etc.

The rest of your entire argumentation concerning Colossians fails on that simple point.

Wrong. Weak argument.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

More on "new creation vs seventh day Sabbath":

Campbellite website bible.ca (Canadians, eh?) says this:

The first day of the week (Sunday)
The weekly memorial of the new creation and our deliverance from sin.

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (2 Cor 5:17)"

...


Notice that Athanasius, in about 345 AD actually stated that that the Sabbath was a memorial of the first creation and that Sunday was a memorial of the new creation in Christ:
345 AD Athanasius "The Sabbath was the end of the first creation, the Lord's day was the beginning of the second, in which he renewed and restored the old in the same way as he prescribed that they should formerly observe the Sabbath as a memorial of the end of the first things, so we honor the Lord's day as being the memorial of the new creation" (On Sabbath and Circumcision 3).

...

In honor of our new creation and new redemption, Christians honor the day that made it all possible - the first day of the week:

...

The resurrection of Christ was on the first day of the week. This is the foundation of the Christian religion.

...

This is why the day of the Sun, or Sunday, is the day the early Christians consistently referred to as the "Lord's Day" (Revelation 2:10) in all their writings in the first, second, third, and later centuries.
The seventh day of the week belongs to the "ministration of death, written and engraven in stones" (2 Corinthians 3:7). This is the only full day our Lord was dead. Instead of remembering this day given under the Old Law, let us remember and rejoice on the first day of the week, the day our Lord rose from the dead and made true salvation possible. http://www.bible.ca/7-sunday-weekly-...w-creation.htm

What is interesting, is the Bible does speak of a "new heavens and new earth". This would certainly qualify as a "new creation" in the cosmic sense as an antitype to the original six day Creation. But even more interesting is God said His Sabbath and new moons would feature prominently in that new creation!


Isaiah 66


22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Notice too the "all flesh", indicating the universality of Sabbath keeping in the new heavens and new earth.

A royal strawman of a post seeing I never claimed keeping sunday honours new creation. Utter nonsense. I see a shadow in that, but certainly not the body that casts the shadow.

Wish you could see the true sabbath hat is greater than that day, although you know it’s there but cannot let go of the shadow.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

When not arguing that the Sabbath is a shadow of Jesus' work on the cross, or His exaltation and enthronement, or of the church, or of a new cosmic Creation, antisabbatarians will sometimes bring in the "Sabbath is a shadow of the Holy Ghost, which is the rest signified by the Sabbath. So we enter the Sabbath rest by receiving the Holy Ghost."


From the other thread "Why Don't Muslims Keep Sabbath?" :

Isaiah was rebuking Israel for unbelief, and Paul kept the same context (unbelievers would conclude Christians are crazy if there's a bunch of tongues and no interpretation). Isaiah was speaking of chastising Israel through foreign oppression, the foreign tongues wasn't the rest nor was the Holy Ghost the rest. The rest was the Way appointed by God (see Jeremiah 6:16) which is exactly in line with what Jesus said about His doctrine and lordship (Matt 11:29). Paul did not say the Holy Ghost is the rest, he was saying (unknown) tongues (alone) will not bring people to obedience, which is exactly what Isaiah was saying.

Quote: Blume
Jesus came to give rest .

Matt 11:..29....Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Finding rest is dependent upon submitting to Jesus' yoke, which means His teachings/commandments (John 15:10). There is no rest for those who do not obey His commandments. And His commandments include "remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy", because it was Christ who led Israel and Christ is the incarnate Word of God.

His commandments are not the ten commandments you always cite. That is a favouritie sabbatarian argument. MY COMMANDMENTS must refer to the ten and none others. Meanwhile Jesus contrasted his commandments from some of the ten here:

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

He takes the sixth commandment and instead says HIS WORDS. HIS COMMANDMENTS are never stipulated to be the ten from Sinai. That is not to say He is not the God who issued those ten. But as Son of man comer to redeem and bring in the new covenant, not intending us to break any old commandments, he brought HIS commandments which go far beyond the ten!

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Mat 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Here he againsdistinguishes what HE SAYS in the new covenant from the ten commandments. Again, don't put words in my mouth and claim he is giving people license to commit adultery or murder. Let’s not be politicians.

HIS commandments and HIS YOKE are far higher than the obedience to commandments by making flesh keep them. His yoke is not doing anything on his own but what His father tells Him. As He lived by the father we live by HIM. THAT is his yoke.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Which raises the question, "Why don't antisabbatarians seem to know exactly what the Sabbath is supposed to represent?"

I plainly stated it! It's the rest Jesus rested in after his work of new creation when he sat down on the right hand throne, where we are meant to come and rest in his works, instead of avoiding that entrance by continuing to do OUR BEST to get by in righteousness and/or general life itself.

Why do you keep asking this when I plainly stated it already?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

His commandments are not the ten commandments you always cite. That is a favouritie sabbatarian argument. MY COMMANDMENTS must refer to the ten and none others. Meanwhile Jesus contrasted his commandments from some of the ten here:

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

He takes the sixth commandment and instead says HIS WORDS. HIS COMMANDMENTS are never stipulated to be the ten from Sinai. That is not to say He is not the God who issued those ten. But as Son of man comer to redeem and bring in the new covenant, not intending us to break any old commandments, he brought HIS commandments which go far beyond the ten!

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Mat 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Here he againsdistinguishes what HE SAYS in the new covenant from the ten commandments. Again, don't put words in my mouth and claim he is giving people license to commit adultery or murder. Let’s not be politicians.

HIS commandments and HIS YOKE are far higher than the obedience to commandments by making flesh keep them. His yoke is not doing anything on his own but what His father tells Him. As He lived by the father we live by HIM. THAT is his yoke.

You complained about straw man arguments, yet I did not say YOU believe xyz which is wrong... when you never affirmed or supported xyz. I DID provide you and the readers with more information about some of the arguments you try to use, showing their historical and theological background.

But more to the point, your post quoted above IS INDEED a genuine strawman argument. I never asserted or affirmed that when Jesus said "My commandments" that He "must refer to the ten and no others." I said His commandments INCLUDE the ten commandments. They include EVERY COMMAND/TEACHING IN THE WORD OF GOD.

I would have thought you understood that.

The other straw man argument is your constant arguing against "flesh making flesh obey in one's own will power" (paraphrasing). I never suggested that, I don't know ANYBODY who would suggest that except deists and atheists and possibly some liberalised catholics (?), and in fact I have repeatedly shown how it is the HOLY GHOST that leads and empowers us to OBEY GOD'S LAWS, according to the Bible.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Of course he sat down before Paul wrote anything. That is why Paul said THERE WAS a rest to enter into when he wrote Hebrews 4.

No no no.

A child could see the difference in this issue. When I read that, I saw Paul speaking from the perspective of WHEN THOSE THINGS WERE INSTITUTED, not from the time he wrote them, just like Hebrews 8:

Hebrews 8:8-13 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: (11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (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.



Jeremiah wrote there was a new covenant coming. Paul referred to that and FROM THE TIME OF WRITING OF JEREMIAH he said that the old covenant was waxing old. Not from the time Paul wrote about it.. Many preterists think that’s saying law was still hanging around and was gone in AD70. I disagree. Law was gone at the cross. And from the perspective of the time those laws were in effect before the cross, THEY WERE SHADOWS OF THINGS TO COME.




That’s the most weak argument of all of your arguments, when, no insult intended, a child could see the difference.


Wrong. Weak argument.

A child can see that when an apostle says something is (presently) a shadow of (future) coming things, that whatever they are a shadow of cannot have already come. Well, a child who knows basic grammar, at least.