Are we are under the commands of the first 5 books

[Esaias]

The two Greatest Commandments are Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18:

And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
(Deu 6:5)

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
(Lev 19:18)

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 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. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
(Mat 22:35-40)

All the revealed Word of God, all of God's instruction to us, what theonomists call "God's Law", is based upon those two commandments. All of God's moral demands upon mankind are expressions in various circumstances of those two commands, to love God supremely and your neighbour as yourself.

This rules out selfishness. Sin is at its core selfishness, it is a refusal to love God supremely and to love one's neighbour as oneself. God's entire moral law can be summed up as "Love God with all you've got and love your neighbour as yourself." Since sin is transgression of the law, it necessarily follows that sin is selfishness and self centeredness. It is to love oneself above one's neighbour and above God. It is manifested by seeking one's own interests at the expense of God and others.

Many people think that because "love" is the greatest commandment, and that because "love is the fulfilling of the law", they may "love" God and others while dispensing with God's commandments. But this of course is nonsense. And in fact they themselves don't believe it. They themselves prove the lie, because they readily admit that for example loving your neighbour implies not stealing their property, or murdering them, or coveting their stuff. So they accept that the various commands of God are simply the ways to fulfill the command to love God and your neighbour, depending on the context and situation. Or to put it another way, the various commandments of God are simply expressions of HOW to love God and your neighbour in various situations and relations.

But as soon as one of those commandments interferes with their own personal wants and supposed interests, all of a sudden they find every possible way to NOT obey the command. As long as loving God and their neighbour is fulfilled in a way suitable to their own perceived self interests, all is well. But when the command requires them to deny themselves and take up their cross as it were, lo and behold "loving God and your neighbour" becomes some kind of SUBSTITUTE for the Divine instruction! How strange that loving God and one's neighbour is to be carried out by refusing to love God and one's neighbour in the context and in the manner deemed expedient by God!

So the antinomian exclaims "Oh! But I DO obey God! See here and here and there and there!" But do they really? No, they simply happen to obey God when it is convenient and when God's will just happens to align with their own. But as soon as God's will and their own depart, who do they follow? Their own will. So any obedience on their part is simply a matter of "coincidence". Much like the "blood of Jezreel" which led to the downfall of the House of Israel:

And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.
(Hos 1:4)

Jezreel ws the location where Jehu had Jezebel tossed to her death and where the entire lineage of Ahab was wiped out, all in obedience to the words of the prophet Elijah. And immediately after overthrowing the Ahab dynasty, Jehu executed all the priests and prophets of Baal. In return, God promised Jehu the throne of Israel and that his sons would reign up to the fourth generation:

And the LORD said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel.
(2Ki 10:30)

So why would God be interested in avenging the blood of Jezreel, and causing not only the dynasty of Jehu to cease but the entire kingdom as well? Very simply, because Jehu carried out this "holy war" for his own interests:

Thus Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel. Howbeit from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, Jehu departed not from after them, to wit, the golden calves that were in Bethel, and that were in Dan. And the LORD said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel. But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the LORD God of Israel with all his heart: for he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, which made Israel to sin.
(2Ki 10:28-31)

Jehu's "zeal for Jehovah" was simply a zeal for his own advancement to the throne. God's will and Jehu's aligned in this respect. But in respect of the golden calves and the fake Jehovahism set up by Jereboam Jehu had no intention of dispensing with. THAT part of God's will was at cross purposes to Jehu's, so Jehu (being selfish even in his "zeal" for God) followed his own will rather than God's.

Note: what exactly was the sin of Jereboam which was the downfall of the House of Israel?

And Jeroboam said in his heart, Now shall the kingdom return to the house of David: If this people go up to do sacrifice in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, then shall the heart of this people turn again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah, and they shall kill me, and go again to Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin: for the people went to worship before the one, even unto Dan. And he made an house of high places, and made priests of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi. And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made. So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon the altar, and burnt incense.
(1Ki 12:26-33)

Jereboam created a substitute counterfeit form of Jehovahism. He didn't tell the people to worship Baal, at least not directly. Instead, he made some idols and said THAT was Jehovah who brought Israel out of Egypt. He abandoned the Divinely ordained Feast of Tabernacles and substituted in its place some invented manmade feast in the eighth month. All as part of the new worship of the elohim that brought Israel out of Egypt. He created a fake counterfeit version of the true religion. Sound familiar?

[Esaias]

List of Objections to Sabbath Keeping
Categorized by the Basic Premise of Each,
And Refuted, as follows:

Trivialised (God doesn't care, so we shouldn't care, either)
Reconstructed (Two versions: 1 - The OT scriptures have been abrogated and replaced with the NT scriptures as a new replacement law, thus anything not "repeated" in the NT is abolished; 2 - The commands of the OT scriptures have been abrogated and replaced with two commands - love God, love your neighbour)
Transferred (Sabbath has been transferred to Sunday via the resurrection and early church practice)
Judaised (Sabbath is for the Jews only, not Gentile Christians)
Idealised (Sabbath DAY was a carnal and temporary representation of the Ideal sabbath, which is either Christ, our position in Christ, or the baptism with the Holy Spirit)

The refutations follow a simple path, as follows:
Trivialised - God counts the hairs on our heads so nothing is unimportant to God. This is essentially a cop-out argument for not even caring about investigating doctrine.
Reconstructed - There is no stated abrogation or repeal of the Fourth commandment or of the Decalogue, in fact NT Scripture teaches the perpetuity and continuity of the Decalogue into the new covenant era. There is no stated "new law" whereby it is made clear that Sinai has been repealed and a new law has been instituted. The NT Scriptures never make a claim about themselves that the reconstructionists/new law proponents make. "Love" is too generic a term that requires definition in terms of righteous behaviour, otherwise one could love while stealing their neighbour's stuff.
The standard of righteousness cannot be defined by some nebulous personal opinion as to what "common sense" would affirm. This is essentially a rationalisation for sabbath breaking while trying to avoid charges of antinomianism.
Transferred - There is no statement that Sabbath has been transferred to any other day of the week. It is illogical and a logical impossibility for this supposed transference to occur, since the seventh day of the week cannot become the first day of the week by anything other than a divine promulgation of a new calendar system. The early church never considered or declared the first day of the week to be Sabbath, instead all through the apostolic writings the Sabbath is still called the Sabbath and the first day is still called the first day, proving the early church considered the Sabbath to be the seventh day of the week. This is essentially an attempt to maintain theonomy and the perpetuity and continuity of the Decalogue while avoiding conflict with man made tradition, avoiding charges of Judaising, and perpetuating Sun worship.
Judaised - The Sabbath was made before any Hebrew walked the earth, the Fourth commandment was delivered to all twelve tribes of Israel, and Christ Himself affirmed the Sabbath was made for "man" (ie Adam), thus establishing its universality. This is an attempt to perpetrate Talmudic (Pharisaic) doctrine which asserts a gentile who keeps Sabbath should be put to death and that Sabbath and Torah are only for Jews.
Idealised - There is no Scripture which states "Jesus is the Sabbath" or that Christ is our Sabbath. It is patently absurd to affirm that Jesus is the seventh day of the week. Proponents of this view hold that Sabbath is a separable thing, distinct from the day. But God Himself declared "the seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah". Sabbath is not something that can be transferred from one day to another, or from the seventh day to a person, activity, or event. A Divinely instituted Sabbath is what it is, and cannot be transferred to something else by the very nature of the case. And the seventh day Sabbath is just that - the seventh day itself. When God established the Sabbath, He did it by sanctifying the seventh day itself, because in it He rested. The rest and the day are two different things. One was an action, the other is a time. The time was declared holy by God because of His action on that original seventh day. All the talk of "shadows pointing to Christ" do nothing but avoid the simple truth that the seventh day IS the Sabbath. This is an attempt to avoid actual Sabbath observance based on the theory that as a Christian one is freed from obedience to certain specific commands that require actual actions.

Of these various theories, the two most difficult to address are the Reconstructed and Idealised views, since both of them rely upon numerous Biblical (especially New Testament) passages for their support, whereas the other three rely on scant or even no biblical passages. Also, both the Reconstructed and Idealised views incorporate an entire paradigm (each), rather than being strictly limited to Sabbath questions per se. Refutation usually requires deconstructing each paradigm to its presuppositions and foundational assumptions, a task that (as this thread proves) can be rather convoluted and difficult to follow. In other words, lots of rabbit trails to hunt down.

The simplest answer to all of the theories, of course, is simply this: God commanded observance of the Sabbath, Jesus affirmed it's perpetuity and the NT writings confirm its continuity. To suggest the fourth commandment was changed, or abrogated, or that its observance was changed in such a way that actual cessation of work on the seventh day and actually keeping it separated from the other six days as devoted to Father is no longer obligatory would have required MASSIVE amounts of apologetics on the subject by Christ and His apostles - of which there is literally NONE. (Consider the amount of material contained in the New Testament concerning the subject of circumcision for a glimpse of the controversy such Sabbath-changing would have introduced, and the amount of direct teaching that would have been necessary on the subject that is curiously missing...) Therefore, Sabbath observance remains.

The historical record confirms this understanding, as Sabbath observance continued well into the medieval period, and was vigorously opposed by the rising catholic trinitarian sun worshipping cult.

[Esaias]

"But, trying to obey God's commandments places you under condemnation because you can't keep them all, or at least not consistently!"

The Bible teaches that if you offend against one commandment you are a law breaker, you have offended against the law, you are just as guilty as if you had broken some other or a multitude of other commandments. And this is common sense and plain to be seen. For some reason, people can see clearly many subjects. But when it comes to religion, all of a sudden they get into a fog and everything gets all twisted and confused.

If you do not rob banks, but you kidnap people, you are a criminal, a felon. One cannot pick and choose which laws they will obey and then say 'see, I am law abiding.' Either you obey the law, or you don't, regardless of which commandment (statute) you violate. If you don't kidnap people, but yet you rob banks, you are still guilty, in fact you are guilty of 'the whole law' meaning you are not excused, you are in rebellion against the entire system of law and the against the lawgiver. As applied to scripture, this should be plain to see: the same God who said 'do not steal' also said 'do not commit adultery'. So if you abstain from stealing, yet you commit adultery, you are not excused, you are a criminal, a transgressor of the law, a transgressor against the one and same Lawgiver. The law, as an entire system of legislation, stands against you and condemns you.

There is nothing in there about 'obeying consistently', whatever that means.

Again, I challenge anyone to point to any commandment of God that CANNOT BE OBEYED.

Further, think about this: if you can go one moment without violating ANY of God's commandments, you can go two moments. If you can go any one moment without violating God's commandments, you can go any other moment, or all of them altogether.

The question is not 'can you', the question is 'WILL you'...


"But, those who keep God's law are under a curse, Paul said so!"

Nonsense. First of all, Paul said no such thing. He did NOT say 'those who keep law are under a curse'. If that's true then Paul and Jesus were under a curse. Here is what he actually said:

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
(Galatians 3:10-12 KJV)

He is not talking about people who obey God, he is not talking people who 'keep the law of God'. He is talking about those who seek to BE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW. Those who seek to be justified by the law are under a curse, because 'cursed is everyone who continues not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them'. And the fact is, NOBODY CAN SAY THEY HAVE KEPT THE LAW OF GOD IN ALL THINGS WITHOUT FAIL in such a way as to BE DECLARED RIGHTEOUS BEFORE GOD. This is Christianity 101, this is so basic it is amazing people get confused about this. Paul's doctrine is clear, it's all through his writings - justification does not come via the law, but via faith.

The law's declarations say nothing to suggest 'no one can faithfully keep it'. Again, there is not one verse that says such a thing. Imagine, God says 'here is my law, you shall keep it on pain of death. Guess what, by the way, you cannot keep it. Prepare to die.' What is this?

Ridiculousness, is what it is.

The law itself declared 'the just shall live by faith', meaning that the RIGHTEOUS shall LIVE (have life, eternal life, covenanted life with God) BY FAITH. The law itself declared 'there is none righteous, no not one' and Paul reminds us that 'whatsoever the law says, it says to those who are under the law'. This means the law itself condemns everyone under the law. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's 'natural inability to obey the law of God'. It has everything to do with justification and being declared righteous.

Again, the fact is, everyone has sinned. Everyone has transgressed the law of God. Everyone OUGHT to not have sinned, but they did anyway. This requires the ability to obey, otherwise there is no 'ought' involved. And this is why sin is punished, this is why God hates sin, this is why sin and sinners are odious in God's sight - they CHOOSE TO DISOBEY GOD. And nobody can claim they have never chosen to disobey God. At least not honestly.

And that is why justification is not and CANNOT POSSIBLY be 'by the law'. The code of legislation you and I have broken cannot possibly be the basis upon which we are found 'not guilty' in court! Therefore, there can only be two ways to be justified - either the law is abrogated, and there is no such thing as sin anymore because the law has been repealed, and the government has been abdicated... OR the King issues a pardon.

The Bible teaches that God issues us a pardon, and this is how we are justified. It is by GRACE through FAITH. It is not by 'the deeds of the law'. If you are judged by your deeds, you will be found guilty. So, you have to be judged by whether or not you have been given a pardon.

Now, suppose you have been given a pardon. Who in their right mind would ever suppose a pardon is a license to break more laws, and continue a criminal lifestyle? Who in their right mind would ever suppose that the Governor's pardon is a declaration the individual is 'not subject to the laws and is not to be detained' for any of their actions?

Only in religion do people lose their right minds, it seems... Well, that and politics.

[good samaritan]

“So the antinomian exclaims "Oh! But I DO obey God! See here and here and there and there!" But do they really? No, they simply happen to obey God when it is convenient and when God's will just happens to align with their own. But as soon as God's will and their own depart, who do they follow? Their own will. So any obedience on their part is simply a matter of "coincidence"

The other extreme is the legalist that combs through the law of Moses and heralds about his own righteousness in keeping the law. The balanced saint is the one that follows the doctrine of the apostles teaching.

Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

So why would God be interested in avenging the blood of Jezreel, and causing not only the dynasty of Jehu to cease but the entire kingdom as well? Very simply, because Jehu carried out this "holy war" for his own interests:
Thus Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel. Howbeit from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, Jehu departed not from after them, to wit, the golden calves that were in Bethel, and that were in Dan. And the LORD said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel. But Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the LORD God of Israel with all his heart: for he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, which made Israel to sin.
(2Ki 10:28-31)
Jehu's "zeal for Jehovah" was simply a zeal for his own advancement to the throne. God's will and Jehu's aligned in this respect. But in respect of the golden calves and the fake Jehovahism set up by Jereboam Jehu had no intention of dispensing with. THAT part of God's will was at cross purposes to Jehu's, so Jehu (being selfish even in his "zeal" for God) followed his own will rather than God's.”

Good eisegesis but not exegesis. Jehu certainly did not continue to follow God and execute Gods commands, but there is no scripture to support that he only obeyed God for his own selfish motivations. Like many in the scripture, people often begin their journey for God but they don't follow through. Jehu is commended by God for his obedience, it was his failure to continue keeping Gods commands that brought about the end of his house. In addition, this has zero relevance to teaching Gentiles in the NT to come under the law of Moses.

“Jereboam created a substitute counterfeit form of Jehovahism. He didn't tell the people to worship Baal, at least not directly. Instead, he made some idols and said THAT was Jehovah who brought Israel out of Egypt. He abandoned the Divinely ordained Feast of Tabernacles and substituted in its place some invented manmade feast in the eighth month. All as part of the new worship of the elohim that brought Israel out of Egypt. He created a fake counterfeit version of the true religion. Sound familiar?”

Not familiar at all in this discussion. We must believe on Jesus and follow His commands. Jeroboam caused Israel to commit idolatry. I don't see this as a parallel for Gentiles keeping the law of Moses.

[good samaritan]

Reconstructed - There is no stated abrogation or repeal of the Fourth commandment or of the Decalogue, in fact NT Scripture teaches the perpetuity and continuity of the Decalogue into the new covenant era.

Be specific, where in the NT does the apostles teach the continuation of the decalogue? Matter of fact, where is the law refered to in the NT as the decalogue or the ten commandments?

Here is the consistent NT teaching:

Galatians 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

There is no stated "new law" whereby it is made clear that Sinai has been repealed and a new law has been instituted.

Galatians 4:30
Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

Who is the bndwoman?

Galatians 4:24
Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

The NT Scriptures never make a claim about themselves that the reconstructionists/new law proponents make. "Love" is too generic a term that requires definition in terms of righteous behaviour, otherwise one could love while stealing their neighbour's stuff.

No one ever could love while stealing their neighbors stuff. It doesn't matter if it is people under the law, or people who are not under the law. Love is one of the most taught concepts in all the scripture and is the basis for it all. There is no law that can legislate love, but it must be in the heart of the Christian.

The standard of righteousness cannot be defined by some nebulous personal opinion as to what "common sense" would affirm. This is essentially a rationalisation for sabbath breaking while trying to avoid charges of antinomianism.

The Bible is full of illustrations of what love is. We can draw from all of the examples, but love is not legislated. It doesn't even matter about personal opinion.

Romans 14:4
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

[good samaritan]

Judaised - The Sabbath was made before any Hebrew walked the earth, the Fourth commandment was delivered to all twelve tribes of Israel, and Christ Himself affirmed the Sabbath was made for "man" (ie Adam), thus establishing its universality.

The Sabbath was not commanded as an observance until Moses. Creation is six days and God ceased on the seventh day. This was not a command to observe until Moses. There is no mention of Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or anyone before the law ceasing before the law was given. There is not one NT command to cease from work on the seventh day.

It does say this:

Hebrews 4:3
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Matthew 11:28
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Romans 14:5-6
5......One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6......He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

Colossians 2:16
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:

This is an attempt to perpetrate Talmudic (Pharisaic) doctrine which asserts a gentile who keeps Sabbath should be put to death and that Sabbath and Torah are only for Jews.

It was for the Jew only. Now Christ fulfilled the law for everyone.

[good samaritan]

Idealised - There is no Scripture which states "Jesus is the Sabbath" or that Christ is our Sabbath. It is patently absurd to affirm that Jesus is the seventh day of the week.

You are elevating the day above the purpose.

Exodus 23:12
Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.


The purpose of the Sabbath is rest. This was Jesus message:

Matthew 11:28
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Of course Jesus isn't a day, but He does fulfill the purpose of the Sabbath. While, we cannot love someone if we physically overload them with cruel bondage.

Proponents of this view hold that Sabbath is a separable thing, distinct from the day. But God Himself declared "the seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah". Sabbath is not something that can be transferred from one day to another, or from the seventh day to a person, activity, or event.

Fulfillment can take place anyway God wants it to. Just because it is against your logic, doesn't mean it isn't so.

A Divinely instituted Sabbath is what it is, and cannot be transferred to something else by the very nature of the case. And the seventh day Sabbath is just that - the seventh day itself. When God established the Sabbath, He did it by sanctifying the seventh day itself, because in it He rested. The rest and the day are two different things. One was an action, the other is a time. The time was declared holy by God because of His action on that original seventh day. All the talk of "shadows pointing to Christ" do nothing but avoid the simple truth that the seventh day IS the Sabbath. This is an attempt to avoid actual Sabbath observance based on the theory that as a Christian one is freed from obedience to certain specific commands that require actual actions

Sadly Christian sects place more emphasis on the Sabbath observance than Christ.

Mark 2:27
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Of these various theories, the two most difficult to address are the Reconstructed and Idealised views, since both of them rely upon numerous Biblical (especially New Testament) passages for their support, whereas the other three rely on scant or even no biblical passages. Also, both the Reconstructed and Idealised views incorporate an entire paradigm (each), rather than being strictly limited to Sabbath questions per se. Refutation usually requires deconstructing each paradigm to its presuppositions and foundational assumptions, a task that (as this thread proves) can be rather convoluted and difficult to follow. In other words, lots of rabbit trails to hunt down.

On the contrary, it is clear NT teaching that we are no longer Mosaic law. It is difficult because it is hard to disagree with truth.

The simplest answer to all of the theories, of course, is simply this: God commanded observance of the Sabbath, Jesus affirmed it's perpetuity and the NT writings confirm its continuity. To suggest the fourth commandment was changed, or abrogated, or that its observance was changed in such a way that actual cessation of work on the seventh day and actually keeping it separated from the other six days as devoted to Father is no longer obligatory would have required MASSIVE amounts of apologetics on the subject by Christ and His apostles - of which there is literally NONE.

Yet there is this:



Colossians 2:16
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:

And this:

Romans 14:5-6
5......One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6......He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God

(Consider the amount of material contained in the New Testament concerning the subject of circumcision for a glimpse of the controversy such Sabbath-changing would have introduced, and the amount of direct teaching that would have been necessary on the subject that is curiously missing...) Therefore, Sabbath observance remains.

The historical record confirms this understanding, as Sabbath observance continued well into the medieval period, and was vigorously opposed by the rising catholic trinitarian sun worshipping cult.

The historical records are mixed. The historical records are as diverse as our opinions on this subject. We can can find history for about any view we want to believe. There are several references to the church coming together on the first day of the week biblically and historically before there was a roman catholic org. I don’t think that means there is a changing to another Sabbath day, instead it is the changing from following the letter to following the Spirit. When we walk in the Spirit we fulfil the righteous purpose of the law. Sabbath included.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The historical records are mixed. The historical records are as diverse as our opinions on this subject. We can can find history for about any view we want to believe. There are several references to the church coming together on the first day of the week biblically and historically before there was a roman catholic org. I don’t think that means there is a changing to another Sabbath day, instead it is the changing from following the letter to following the Spirit. When we walk in the Spirit we fulfil the righteous purpose of the law. Sabbath included.

This is called "gaslighting", folks. The historical record is most definitely not "mixed" about Sabbath keeping.

Further, this poster has literally just said Sunday meetings are the result of following the Spirit. Which is nonsense as I have proven over and over again that following the Spirit produces obedience to God's commands. Never mind we aren't discussing the frequency of church meetings.

The righteous purpose of the law is not fulfilled by wilfully doing the opposite of the commandment. That was how Pharisees worshipped God, and according to Jesus that kind of worship is vain and dishonours God.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This is called "gaslighting", folks. The historical record is most definitely not "mixed" about Sabbath keeping.

Further, this poster has literally just said Sunday meetings are the result of following the Spirit. Which is nonsense as I have proven over and over again that following the Spirit produces obedience to God's commands. Never mind we aren't discussing the frequency of church meetings.

The righteous purpose of the law is not fulfilled by wilfully doing the opposite of the commandment. That was how Pharisees worshipped God, and according to Jesus that kind of worship is vain and dishonours God.

Where did I say that the Spirit led us to change any day of the week? My whole point has been we are not under the law and instead we are to be led by the Spirit. The Sabbath observance is a part of the law of Moses that we are no longer under. You read into what people say rather than reading what they actually say. The Bible does not teach that gentiles keep sabbath day observances nor does history. There is no command as to which day the NT church must gather. The “righteousness” of the law is the “purpose” or “point” for which it was written. The sabbath was given so we cease from our labors

Hebrews 4:10
For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

This is how the church is supposed to observe the Sabbath

[loran adkins]

Exo_20:8.. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

This was the command that was given to the children of Israel. It was about remembering God. But today as the days of the past, we are to remember God every day of the week not just on Saturday/Sunday, and that is the problem with keeping one day of the week above the other.

To many, Christians are just Christians on Sunday/Saturday and the rest of the Christians need to hold God up and worship him every day of the week not just when we come to service. This is why Jesus said "I am the rest" we need to rest in Christ every day of the week not just one day of the week. Yet this is what we do when we hold one day of the week over every other day.