Sabbath was made for man

[from scratch]

Nothing has come across yet that would be valid that the change to Sunday was ever made of God, Jesus or any Prophet.

Don't come out shortchanged by the clever theology of men.

Like I said it just gets thrown out like the trash.

 

[Gibs]

Like I said it just gets thrown out like the trash.

Well, there is One who will one day soon, reveal to all what the trash was.

I must take His Word as it clearly states and He wants me to hold Him to it!

 

[from scratch]

Well, there is One who will one day soon, reveal to all what the trash was.

I must take His Word as it clearly states and He wants me to hold Him to it!

What ever you say.

 

[FredVB]

What about these passages in Isaiah 56:1-2, 6-8 which speak of Sabbath, includes gentiles, and is yet unfulfilled being about the future of a time the Messiah comes.

 

[from scratch]

What about these passages in Isaiah 56:1-2, 6-8 which speak of Sabbath, includes gentiles, and is yet unfulfilled being about the future of a time the Messiah comes.

This is talking about a period of time prior to the cross and New Covenant. Furthermore one is no longer a stranger if they join that covenant as Ex 12:48 states. This doesn't mean they're still not a son or daughter of the stranger who doesn't. One must join that covenant to participate in the Israeli religious rites. Its only those former gentiles that subject themselves to the law. It must be physical circumcision for the male as the Bible states. This isn't required of a female.

 

[Gibs]

It wasn't the Sabbath that was changed with the new covenant. What was changed was the fact it was founded on better promises and the blood of Jesus simply met all the ordinances, laws of sacrifices that pointed to the Real One that could take away sin.

The law of sacrifices was all that was removed and nailed to His Cross!

 

[mercy1061]

It wasn't the Sabbath that was changed with the new covenant. What was changed was the fact it was founded on better promises and the blood of Jesus simply met all the ordinances, laws of sacrifices that pointed to the Real One that could take away sin.

The law of sacrifices was all that was removed and nailed to His Cross!

Do you have a "communion table" or altar at your local church?

Jeremiah 7
21 Thus says Adonai-Tzva’ot, the God of Isra’el: “You may as well eat the meat of your burnt offerings along with that of your sacrifices. 22 For I didn’t speak to your ancestors or give them orders concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices when I brought them out of the land of Egypt. 23 Rather, what I did order them was this: ‘Pay attention to what I say. Then I will be your God, and you will be my people. In everything, live according to the way that I order you, so that things will go well for you.’ 24 But they neither listened nor paid attention, but lived according to their own plans, in the stubbornness of their evil hearts, thus going backward and not forward. 25 You have done this from the day your ancestors came out of Egypt until today. Even though I sent you all my servants the prophets, sending them time after time, 26 they would not listen or pay attention to me, but stiffened their necks; they did worse than their ancestors. 27 So tell them all this; but they won’t listen to you; likewise, call to them; but they won’t answer you.

 

[from scratch]

It wasn't the Sabbath that was changed with the new covenant. What was changed was the fact it was founded on better promises and the blood of Jesus simply met all the ordinances, laws of sacrifices that pointed to the Real One that could take away sin.

The law of sacrifices was all that was removed and nailed to His Cross!

There is no such reference to be found in the Bible. BTW the above admits the law has changed.

 

[Gibs]

There is no such reference to be found in the Bible. BTW the above admits the law has changed.

No and no emphatically, the law of sacrifices was not the Royal law of which you will be judged!

The Royal law is as immutable as Yahweh Himself.

 

[from scratch]

It wasn't the Sabbath that was changed with the new covenant. What was changed was the fact it was founded on better promises and the blood of Jesus simply met all the ordinances, laws of sacrifices that pointed to the Real One that could take away sin.

The law of sacrifices was all that was removed and nailed to His Cross!

How so? Jeremiah says very clearly "Not according to.."

Hosea say the Sabbath will cease.

Seems you said the New Covenant is based on better promises and not the law. Did I read you wrong?

 

[from scratch]

No and no emphatically, the law of sacrifices was not the Royal law of which you will be judged!

The Royal law is as immutable as Yahweh Himself.

You're calling the Ten Commandments the Royal Law and James doesn't.


8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

James changes the subject from Royal Law to the whole law in verse 10 and then references the Ten Commandments.

 

[Gibs]

How so? Jeremiah says very clearly "Not according to.."

Hosea say the Sabbath will cease.

Seems you said the New Covenant is based on better promises and not the law. Did I read you wrong?

Yes you sure did. You don't seem to catch that the new covenant don't change or remove the Royal law. The new covenant was about the laws of sacrifices, the type that pointed to the true one and only sacrifice that could take away sins.

These were the handwritten laws given by Moses, pertaining to the sacrifices that Pointe to Christ and His shed Blood! The laws of the sacrificial system.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

There were essential defects in these sacrifices. 1st.--They were not of the same nature with those who sinned. 2nd.--They were not of sufficient value to make satisfaction for the affronts done to the justice and government of God. 3rd.--The beasts offered up under the law could not consent to put themselves in the sinner's room and place. The atoning sacrifice must be one capable of consenting, and must voluntarily substitute himself in the sinner's stead: Christ did so.

Those sacrificial laws were of course met in Christ and done away with!

 

[Gibs]

You're calling the Ten Commandments the Royal Law and James doesn't.


8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

James changes the subject from Royal Law to the whole law in verse 10 and then references the Ten Commandments.

The whole law is exactly the same as the Royal law and the law of Liberty.

You are reading it in a bias as it is very clear James is speaking of the one only law given of God to Moses which is a copy of the ones in the Ark of His Testament in Heaven by the Throne, therefore, "The Royal Law!"

 

[from scratch]

Yes you sure did. You don't seem to catch that the new covenant don't change or remove the Royal law. The new covenant was about the laws of sacrifices, the type that pointed to the true one and only sacrifice that could take away sins.

These were the handwritten laws given by Moses, pertaining to the sacrifices that Pointe to Christ and His shed Blood! The laws of the sacrificial system.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

There were essential defects in these sacrifices. 1st.--They were not of the same nature with those who sinned. 2nd.--They were not of sufficient value to make satisfaction for the affronts done to the justice and government of God. 3rd.--The beasts offered up under the law could not consent to put themselves in the sinner's room and place. The atoning sacrifice must be one capable of consenting, and must voluntarily substitute himself in the sinner's stead: Christ did so.

Those sacrificial laws were of course met in Christ and done away with!

Would you mind explaining how the sacrifices were against us?

 

[from scratch]

The whole law is exactly the same as the Royal law and the law of Liberty.

You are reading it in a bias as it is very clear James is speaking of the one only law given of God to Moses which is a copy of the ones in the Ark of His Testament in Heaven by the Throne, therefore, "The Royal Law!"

I'm really at a loss here. I just don't see James telling us to keep any law. James said "If".

 

[Gibs]

I'm really at a loss here. I just don't see James telling us to keep any law. James said "If".

He said "if" because not all do and far fewer today. James only had the one and only law in mind that God wrote in stone for us.

 

[Gibs]

Would you mind explaining how the sacrifices were against us?

They had made a burden of the sacrificial laws same as they did the Royal.

The sacrifices were a gruesome thing anyway and meant to be as they pointed to the slaughter of the Prince of Life.

The continuous killing and shedding of blood would be against me, would it not be for you. Telling each time of the coming slaughter of the Son of God.

Sure they knew of it, read all of Isa 53: here is one verse,

Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

 

[FredVB]

Isaiah 56 is talking about a general future of restoration, where the grace from Yahweh will reach Israel and way more than Israel. All of these would be brought to God's holy mountain, to be made joyful in his house of prayer. That has not really happened yet, it is in the future. Who will those who are brought be? All of them, people of Israel and those of foreigners, are who join themselves to Yahweh to serve him and love his name, and keep from defiling the Sabbath, they are blessed for keeping justice and doing righteousness, keeping from doing any evil, even anything hurtful to others. This is being said.

 

[Gibs]

Isa 53: is our first gospel, a prophecy, only 12 verses long but is a foresight of the coming Messiah.

Three Verses,

Isa 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 ¶ Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
Isa 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

I think that is to be contemplated on in regard to the Sabbath as Isaiah says much about it and that the revealed Redeemer to him was not revealed of any change and hated for that reason.

 

[from scratch]

The whole law is exactly the same as the Royal law and the law of Liberty.

You are reading it in a bias as it is very clear James is speaking of the one only law given of God to Moses which is a copy of the ones in the Ark of His Testament in Heaven by the Throne, therefore, "The Royal Law!"

What you're calling the Royal Law isn't part of the Ten Commandments. Surely you're not advocating keeping the whole law. James is speaking to Jews about what they're doing. James isn't telling us to keep the law.