• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

To whom and why God gave the Sabbaths?

Bob S

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 5, 2015
4,947
2,355
90
Union County, TN
✟834,111.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
[/QUOTE]
God told Israel, "in the place where it was said you that you are not my people, there I will say to you that you are sons of the Living God." Bob, God did not do away with Israel, Christian theology did. God was very plain about Him NOT being done with Israel in Deut. 30:1-6 and all of Hosea 1 (to name 2 of many places). Don't not read the verses because you don't like me... just go read the references I just shared and let the truth be whatever it is.

Put your mouse over this verse Hosea 1:10

Hi Ken, I am very sorry that you have the opinion that I do not like you. I hope I have never indicated such. You are my brother is Christ. My point in all my discussions is that I love everyone just as Jesus loves me. Do I care for the theology you represent? Well, I think you know where I stand on that issue.
I love to tell the story of unseen things above,
Of Jesus and His glory, of Jesus and His love.
I love to tell the story, because I know ’tis true;
It satisfies my longings as nothing else can do.

Refrain

I love to tell the story, ’twill be my theme in glory,
To tell the old, old story of Jesus and His love.

It is all about Jesus and all I need is Jesus. Man gets so involved with rituals that they become more important than Jesus. It is not about what rituals we observe, it is about what we do for the least of our brothers. I am sure you know this and I am preaching to the choir. Sometimes though we do loose track of why we became Christians. I speak from past experience. I was so caught up in rules that I lost track of reality. The plan of salvation is very simple. It is amazing that the very young can grasp things that some adults never understand.

The covenant with Israel was a conditional covenant. God said the big word IF if you will I will, they didn't. Israel lost the most wonderful opportunity to not only keep the promised land, but also claim eternity as a nation. God does not have favorites today. We are all children of Abraham and we all come to Jesus as individuals. Israel's loss is mankind's gain.
 
Upvote 0

Shimshon

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2004
4,355
887
Zion
✟114,964.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Israel has not lost a thing. The One you claim to serve is the Holy One of Yisrael, and will redeem us as promised. NOT according to your replacement theology either. Continually you misrepresent the people of Yisrael as declared, commanded and promised by God himself. Your witness is not that of God, nor does it represent the heart of God when you misrepresent the status of Israel, as you do here. You can not find favor in God's eyes while misrepresenting those He represents. He IS the Holy One of Yisrael. He IS our King, our Redeemer, and our Keeper. He keeps us from all the lies of the evil one. That you seem to repeat daily here. Like the following:
Israel lost the most wonderful opportunity to not only keep the promised land, but also claim eternity as a nation.
Your witness is corrupt, it does not reflect the scriptures, nor the heart of God. Nor the Word given Messiah to 'us', Yisrael.

Replacement theology is the curse that will destroy any true witness of the Holy One of Yisrael, our Messiah and King. If you strip us from Him, you strip yourselves from God. Simple as that.
 
Upvote 0

Bob S

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 5, 2015
4,947
2,355
90
Union County, TN
✟834,111.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Please tell us Shimshon, why did Jesus leave His heavenly home to come to this corrupt Earth if Israel was just doing fine and was on track? I am very sorry that you think my views are corrupt. You must think the same of Paul and John if you have taken the time to study their writings. I wish you the best serving under the yoke of the old covenant of death. 2Cor 3
 
Upvote 0

Shimshon

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2004
4,355
887
Zion
✟114,964.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Please tell us Shimshon, why did Jesus leave His heavenly home to come to this corrupt Earth if Israel was just doing fine and was on track? I am very sorry that you think my views are corrupt. You must think the same of Paul and John if you have taken the time to study their writings. I wish you the best serving under the yoke of the old covenant of death. 2Cor 3
Please tell me which scripture has taught you that condescension is a character of the Spirit of God? I've read your witness here for sometime now. Israel=lost, Church=neo-Israel. Supersessionism. You seemingly have no real idea why our Messiah came to us, and was offered to the world. And you seemingly have no desire to truly understand it. Your mind is made up, your witness has been corrupted. As it does not reflect the testimony of the Holy One of Yisrael.

I wish you would not deny the witness of our Messiah. You claim and teach things opposed to what was given. And it's not for me to correct you, but to simply witness that which was given us.


He sustains the living in grace, resuscitates the dead with abundant mercy, supports the fallen, heals the sick, releases those who are bound, and establishes assurance with those who sleep in the dust. Who is like You, O Master of might, and who compares to You, O King, Who causes death and restores life and brings forth salvation!

His witness is one of grace, mercy, and restoration. Not condemnation and rejection. He restores all, not condemns. You seem to be like the curses of God, only focusing on the bad. Our Messiah has removed the curse from the peoples, not the peoples themselves. Your witness is one of condemnation, not the witness the Holy One of Yisrael spoke to us while in the flesh as he tabernacle among us.

You have our Messiah coming to condemn us and remove all that was given us. Satisfied ONLY if we would convert to 'the Church'. Again, NOT the witness of the Holy One of Yisrael, our Messiah, the one you call Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I appreciate your position but can't follow with you. Whether one says, "the house is red" or "red is the house" the point is the same. The "Day of the Lord" and "The Lord's day" are not a day of the week but an event as recorded in the Prophets. John was not sitting there in the spirit on a Sunday, well, he may have been but that isn't what he was speaking about. He was watching end time events unfold, thus he was in the spirit on the Lord's day, the day of the Lord as recorded in places like Joel 2:31.



I think you are forcing a little too much western understanding on the text. "Gathering to break bread" is a well understood Hebraic idiom that refers to eating a meal. It isn't "day"specific brother, it is simply a meal.

Also... a biblical day begins and ends at sundown. If they gathered to break bread (eat dinner) on the first day of the week and he was leaving "the next DAY," then this gathering of brothers for a meal takes place in the evening. This means they were gathered for havdalah, the close of Shabbat meal and then Paul taught. This isn't a mandate to keep Sunday... no Scripture supports a Sunday Sabbath.



I would like to see the context... is it Halacha, Jewish law OR God's law. You see, a mainstream Christian will look at the feasts and say, "Feasts of the Jews." Yet Leviticus calls them "the Feasts of the LORD," and He calls them, "My feasts." So it would be interesting to see the context, I have not read that book in some time.



Respectfully, you lack some historical understanding here. 50 years before the Council in Acts 15, there was a debate between the two school of Pharisaical thought. Hillel (Beit or School of Hillel which taught the "spirit of the law") debated Shamai (Beit Shamai, which taught the "letter of the law") about what should be expected of a Jewish proselyte. Hillel essentially listed the 4 things we see in Acts 15 and said that the new convert would learn the rest as they go. Shamai agreed on the 4 things but added that one needed to recite ALL 613 commandments AND.... be circumcised. Hillel opposed this because he knew that the commandment to be circumcised was not given to the newborn child, after all, an 8 day old male isn't performing his own bris. The commandment was given to the child's father. Anyway.... the people accepted the ruling of Shamai and that was the law of the land. Fast forward 50 years and we see a couple of followers of Shamai claim that new Christians (Christianity was a sect of Judaism in the first century) needed to be circumcised in order to be part of the sect. Paul RIGHTLY disagreed and we get the Council of Jerusalem. What happened there? A BAD 50 year old decision was reversed. New converts into the faith should not have too much put on them at first just as Naaman was told to "go in peace" by Elisha when he had his fill for that day. So 4 things were listed... NOT an exhaustive list... after all, loving God and neighbor aren't on that list, not stealing or having homosexual sex... not on the list. What was on the list as a "starting point," and the NEXT VERSE states that Moses (an idiomatic reference to the Torah) is read in the synagogues each Sabbath. In other words, this is a marathon and here is a place to start... now go and get discipled and learn the rest.



That's fine, we don't need to agree on every detail. However, we have historical evidence that half the Jewish believers in Yeshua left for the mountains when the temple was destroyed. We KNOW that... so I believe it played a roll. Ultimately, it was what happened later... but I will address this in a second.



Jewish law or God's law? Not all of Israel is Jewish my new friend. And while I agree that we are NOT to become Jewish, we ARE supposed to follow Yeshua. And if it was ok and acceptable to the Father that he refrained from unclean meat, or kept the feasts, then why is it ok for him and not for us? If I were doing this thinking it saved me, that would be wrong... but if I am doing this because I love God ( 1 John 5:3 ) then it is acceptable before Him.

Brother... I don't expect you to accept this, but it is true and if you search it out and just let the truth fall where it may, you will see this. A gentile Christian is an oxymoron. In the early English bibles, ethnos was translated as nations or gentiles. Specifically, that is any nation NOT Israel or pagans. Proof? The Webster's 1828 defines gentiles as, "pagans, heathens, anyone who is not a Jew >>OR<< or Christian." Today, we define a gentile as, "any believer in Jesus who is not Jewish." Here is the problem... ethnos means pagan, heathen, a nation that is not Israel and in 1611 that is why the word "gentile" was chosen as the word to translate it into. However, the definition has changed and now we read the MODERN definition into a word that when first used meant something else. You are not a gentile... Paul said you WERE a gentile but you are NOW a fellowcitizen of the Commonwealth of Israel. We are a part of Israel... which must be the case because you will not find a covenant made with gentiles. Hebrews 8:8-11 (which quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34) is tied to the work of Yeshua and is clearly what we are apart of... AND... is no made with gentiles but rather with Judah (the Jews) and Israel (us).



What you see as a yoke I see as a blessing. However, I want to be clear... I am NOT looking for you to walk or think or act like me. Just follow your own convictions and in the end we will ALL stand corrected for many things.



If you went to a theater for a 2 hour movie and managed to only catch the last 1/2 hour.. you might get hooked in and enjoy what you did see... but the context and relationships and many things that went into making the last 1/2 what it is, was missed, if you did not see the first hour and a half. The OT is 75% of the bible and without it you can find the Lord in the NT, discern some of God's will, but you are leaving food on the table that God desires us to eat. I am saying this because the modern Christian interpretation has Israel cut off and that is that... no longer a people of God. But Deuteronomy 30:1-6, all of Hosea (especially chapter 1) and so many more places speak of repeated promises to bring Israel back from their punishment. "In the place where I said you that you are not my people, there will I call you sons of the Living God." We have Israel cut off and done, God doesn't.



Jeremiah 31 has the words "new covenant." The word for "new" is chadasha which is the adjective form of a verb that means 'to renew.' In Hebrews 8 we see the same and where we see "new" we see kainos. Kainos means "new in regards to freshness, renew" whereas "nehos" (or neos) means "new in regards to AGE." It isn't a brand new covenant, it is the everlasting covenant (see Psalm 105:8-10) renewed through the blood of Yeshua.



Not at all.... He was killed at the 9th hour on Passover, the 14th of Nisan. The 9th hour is 3:00PM and when Passover ends at sundown you have a High Sabbath, the first day of Unleavened bread. We know he was dead for 3 DAYS >>AND<< NIGHTS.... so it is simple math from there....

Thursday - day 1 (Passover, the 14th of Nisan)
Thursday night - night 1 (begin High Sabbath)
Friday - day 2 (High Sabbath all day)
Friday night - night 2 (end High Sabbath, begin weekly Sabbath)
Saturday - day 3 (weekly Sabbath all day)
Saturday night - night 3 (end weekly Sabbath)

Mat 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.

If he was in the tomb on Sunday after sunrise, that would mark day 4... he was dead 3 days and nights. So, sometime before dawn, after the weekly Sabbath he rose and the empty tomb was found at sunrise Sunday morning.



Again, Matthew 28:1 is very clear. Also, there is a language variation between a weekly Sabbath and a High Sabbath which is why my chart above contains the High Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath.



"Under the law" is an idiomatic reference to one's guilt... we are no longer under the law, no longer guilty. We are under grace... forgiven, declared innocent. The idea that God gave Torah and called it everlasting and then nailed it to the cross and did away with it causes all kinds of issues that you may, or may not, be ready to deal with. I don't mean that in a condescending way, but if God calls something everlasting it is.... and if our theology causes us to make the everlasting go away, it isn't the Scripture that has the issue, it is our theology. I have this discussion all the time brother. Usually when I make the comment I just did I get the Hebrews 8 priesthood "change" thrown at me. Instead of taking the time to consider the words, WAIT on God and ask Him, "is there anything here for me Father?" and then WAIT for Him to answer... we go on defense, call names, malign brothers, cause division... for what? Because of a difference in understanding? Sad... and I am not saying you have done anything like that. We don't agree but you have been respectful and I appreciate that so much!

By the way, "heresy" is another word that has changed in meaning. Look it up in Thayer or Liddle-Scott. :)

Blessings.
Ken
Hello Ken.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Though I need to address this first point you mentioned in your reply.
I appreciate your position but can't follow with you. Whether one says, "the house is red" or "red is the house" the point is the same. The "Day of the Lord" and "The Lord's day" are not a day of the week but an event as recorded
in the Prophets. John was not sitting there in the spirit on a Sunday, well, he may have been but that isn't what he was speaking about. He was watching end time events unfold, thus he was in the spirit on the Lord's day, the day of the Lord as recorded in places like Joel 2:31.

Ken, we need to examine the text with the reference to the Lord's day, as recorded in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 1
9 I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s
day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, 11 saying, “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches".

John is telling us where he was, what he was doing, and on what day it occurred. John was on the island of Patmos, the physical location. Then John states that he was also in the Holy Spirit while on the island of Patmos. Now there remains only one other point that John feels he needs to mention. The time that this revelation was disclosed to him, the time is given as the Lord's day.

This is the background information that John provides, just before he hears the loud voice behind him. This information was before the revelation actually began. John is not in the vision, John only hears the voice behind him at this point.

The appalling attempt to associate the 'Lord's day', with the cataclysmic final day, 'the day of the Lord', by you is alarming.

Here is the final great and terrifying day, the end of human history, the very last day when Christ returns in power.

Joel 2
30 I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth, blood, fire and columns of smoke. 31 The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.

The vision has not yet begun, John was on the island of Patmos. This island of Patmos is not in the vision, Ken.

May I ask where you read this appalling association between 'the day of the Lord', and 'the Lord's day'?
 
Upvote 0

1John2:4

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2016
1,204
361
48
New Braunfels, TX
✟40,108.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Hello Ken.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Though I need to address this first point you mentioned in your reply.


Ken, we need to examine the text with the reference to the Lord's day, as recorded in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 1
9 I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s
day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, 11 saying, “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches".

John is telling us where he was, what he was doing, and on what day it occurred. John was on the island of Patmos, the physical location. Then John states that he was also in the Holy Spirit while on the island of Patmos. Now there remains only one other point that John feels he needs to mention. The time that this revelation was disclosed to him, the time is given as the Lord's day.

This is the background information that John provides, just before he hears the loud voice behind him. This information was before the revelation actually began. John is not in the vision, John only hears the voice behind him at this point.

The appalling attempt to associate the 'Lord's day', with the cataclysmic final day, 'the day of the Lord', by you is alarming.

Here is the final great and terrifying day, the end of human history, the very last day when Christ returns in power.

Joel 2
30 I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth, blood, fire and columns of smoke. 31 The sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.

The vision has not yet begun, John was on the island of Patmos. This island of Patmos is not in the vision, Ken.

May I ask where you read this appalling association between 'the day of the Lord', and 'the Lord's day'?
Revelation is all about the day of the Lord, that is what Revelation is, a book about the day of the Lord. That is why he was in the spirit on the Lord's day (day of the Lord) the end of days. It does not say he was in the spirit on the first day of the week because that is what Sunday is referred to in the Bible. It has no special name it is only called the first day of the week.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ken Rank
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Revelation is all about the day of the Lord, that is what Revelation is, a book about the day of the Lord. That is why he was in the spirit on the Lord's day (day of the Lord) the end of days. It does not say he was in the spirit on the first day of the week because that is what Sunday is referred to in the Bible. It has no special name it is only called the first day of the week.
Hello John.

Thanks for the reply.

There seems to be a background distortion that is disrupting the text.
Revelation is all about the day of the Lord, that is what Revelation is, a book about the day of the Lord.
Where have you read John, that the book of Revelation is all about the
great and terrifying day of the Lord?

The text does not seem to support this summary.

Revelation 1
19 Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are,
and the things which will take place after these things.

The things which are now are different to the things that will take place
later. Revelation is not just talking about a single day in the future. The
text covers vast periods of time.
 
Upvote 0

Bob S

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 5, 2015
4,947
2,355
90
Union County, TN
✟834,111.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Please tell me which scripture has taught you that condescension is a character of the Spirit of God? I've read your witness here for sometime now. Israel=lost, Church=neo-Israel. Supersessionism. You seemingly have no real idea why our Messiah came to us, and was offered to the world. And you seemingly have no desire to truly understand it. Your mind is made up, your witness has been corrupted. As it does not reflect the testimony of the Holy One of Yisrael.

I wish you would not deny the witness of our Messiah. You claim and teach things opposed to what was given. And it's not for me to correct you, but to simply witness that which was given us.


He sustains the living in grace, resuscitates the dead with abundant mercy, supports the fallen, heals the sick, releases those who are bound, and establishes assurance with those who sleep in the dust. Who is like You, O Master of might, and who compares to You, O King, Who causes death and restores life and brings forth salvation!

His witness is one of grace, mercy, and restoration. Not condemnation and rejection. He restores all, not condemns. You seem to be like the curses of God, only focusing on the bad. Our Messiah has removed the curse from the peoples, not the peoples themselves. Your witness is one of condemnation, not the witness the Holy One of Yisrael spoke to us while in the flesh as he tabernacle among us.

You have our Messiah coming to condemn us and remove all that was given us. Satisfied ONLY if we would convert to 'the Church'. Again, NOT the witness of the Holy One of Yisrael, our Messiah, the one you call Jesus.
Your personal attacks on my character is noted. And I note when people are backed into a corner and have no answers the only recourse they seem to have is admit they cannot respond or go on the defensive and attack in some way. Jesus stomped the dust from His feet and went on to spread the good news to those who had willing hearts. I am sorry you will not even entertain the thoughts I have presented with scripture to back up my statements and tell me I am like the curses of God. My goal is focused on helping those who are carrying the yoke of bondage and probably unknowingly spreading false doctrines. Doctrines like telling us we are to be under the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone. Yes, that is what Paul wrote. If you don't believe it take it up with Paul.
 
Upvote 0

Shimshon

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2004
4,355
887
Zion
✟114,964.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Your personal attacks on my character is noted.
I never attacked your person nor your character, only your witness of our Messiah. You're welcome to try and shift the blame. You've responded this way to me before.

And I note when people are backed into a corner and have no answers the only recourse they seem to have is admit they cannot respond or go on the defensive and attack in some way.
And that is exactly what you do. I've laid out the scriptures before you many times. Each time you responded with sarcasm, condescension, and paint me as the aggressive one. All for doing what you want, showing God' witness about his Son and his inextricable connection to the "existing" nation of Israel's redemption and restoration. Of which you appear to totally reject.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I appreciate your position but can't follow with you. Whether one says, "the house is red" or "red is the house" the point is the same. The "Day of the Lord" and "The Lord's day" are not a day of the week but an event as recorded in the Prophets. John was not sitting there in the spirit on a Sunday, well, he may have been but that isn't what he was speaking about. He was watching end time events unfold, thus he was in the spirit on the Lord's day, the day of the Lord as recorded in places like Joel 2:31.



I think you are forcing a little too much western understanding on the text. "Gathering to break bread" is a well understood Hebraic idiom that refers to eating a meal. It isn't "day"specific brother, it is simply a meal.

Also... a biblical day begins and ends at sundown. If they gathered to break bread (eat dinner) on the first day of the week and he was leaving "the next DAY," then this gathering of brothers for a meal takes place in the evening. This means they were gathered for havdalah, the close of Shabbat meal and then Paul taught. This isn't a mandate to keep Sunday... no Scripture supports a Sunday Sabbath.



I would like to see the context... is it Halacha, Jewish law OR God's law. You see, a mainstream Christian will look at the feasts and say, "Feasts of the Jews." Yet Leviticus calls them "the Feasts of the LORD," and He calls them, "My feasts." So it would be interesting to see the context, I have not read that book in some time.



Respectfully, you lack some historical understanding here. 50 years before the Council in Acts 15, there was a debate between the two school of Pharisaical thought. Hillel (Beit or School of Hillel which taught the "spirit of the law") debated Shamai (Beit Shamai, which taught the "letter of the law") about what should be expected of a Jewish proselyte. Hillel essentially listed the 4 things we see in Acts 15 and said that the new convert would learn the rest as they go. Shamai agreed on the 4 things but added that one needed to recite ALL 613 commandments AND.... be circumcised. Hillel opposed this because he knew that the commandment to be circumcised was not given to the newborn child, after all, an 8 day old male isn't performing his own bris. The commandment was given to the child's father. Anyway.... the people accepted the ruling of Shamai and that was the law of the land. Fast forward 50 years and we see a couple of followers of Shamai claim that new Christians (Christianity was a sect of Judaism in the first century) needed to be circumcised in order to be part of the sect. Paul RIGHTLY disagreed and we get the Council of Jerusalem. What happened there? A BAD 50 year old decision was reversed. New converts into the faith should not have too much put on them at first just as Naaman was told to "go in peace" by Elisha when he had his fill for that day. So 4 things were listed... NOT an exhaustive list... after all, loving God and neighbor aren't on that list, not stealing or having homosexual sex... not on the list. What was on the list as a "starting point," and the NEXT VERSE states that Moses (an idiomatic reference to the Torah) is read in the synagogues each Sabbath. In other words, this is a marathon and here is a place to start... now go and get discipled and learn the rest.



That's fine, we don't need to agree on every detail. However, we have historical evidence that half the Jewish believers in Yeshua left for the mountains when the temple was destroyed. We KNOW that... so I believe it played a roll. Ultimately, it was what happened later... but I will address this in a second.



Jewish law or God's law? Not all of Israel is Jewish my new friend. And while I agree that we are NOT to become Jewish, we ARE supposed to follow Yeshua. And if it was ok and acceptable to the Father that he refrained from unclean meat, or kept the feasts, then why is it ok for him and not for us? If I were doing this thinking it saved me, that would be wrong... but if I am doing this because I love God ( 1 John 5:3 ) then it is acceptable before Him.

Brother... I don't expect you to accept this, but it is true and if you search it out and just let the truth fall where it may, you will see this. A gentile Christian is an oxymoron. In the early English bibles, ethnos was translated as nations or gentiles. Specifically, that is any nation NOT Israel or pagans. Proof? The Webster's 1828 defines gentiles as, "pagans, heathens, anyone who is not a Jew >>OR<< or Christian." Today, we define a gentile as, "any believer in Jesus who is not Jewish." Here is the problem... ethnos means pagan, heathen, a nation that is not Israel and in 1611 that is why the word "gentile" was chosen as the word to translate it into. However, the definition has changed and now we read the MODERN definition into a word that when first used meant something else. You are not a gentile... Paul said you WERE a gentile but you are NOW a fellowcitizen of the Commonwealth of Israel. We are a part of Israel... which must be the case because you will not find a covenant made with gentiles. Hebrews 8:8-11 (which quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34) is tied to the work of Yeshua and is clearly what we are apart of... AND... is no made with gentiles but rather with Judah (the Jews) and Israel (us).



What you see as a yoke I see as a blessing. However, I want to be clear... I am NOT looking for you to walk or think or act like me. Just follow your own convictions and in the end we will ALL stand corrected for many things.



If you went to a theater for a 2 hour movie and managed to only catch the last 1/2 hour.. you might get hooked in and enjoy what you did see... but the context and relationships and many things that went into making the last 1/2 what it is, was missed, if you did not see the first hour and a half. The OT is 75% of the bible and without it you can find the Lord in the NT, discern some of God's will, but you are leaving food on the table that God desires us to eat. I am saying this because the modern Christian interpretation has Israel cut off and that is that... no longer a people of God. But Deuteronomy 30:1-6, all of Hosea (especially chapter 1) and so many more places speak of repeated promises to bring Israel back from their punishment. "In the place where I said you that you are not my people, there will I call you sons of the Living God." We have Israel cut off and done, God doesn't.



Jeremiah 31 has the words "new covenant." The word for "new" is chadasha which is the adjective form of a verb that means 'to renew.' In Hebrews 8 we see the same and where we see "new" we see kainos. Kainos means "new in regards to freshness, renew" whereas "nehos" (or neos) means "new in regards to AGE." It isn't a brand new covenant, it is the everlasting covenant (see Psalm 105:8-10) renewed through the blood of Yeshua.



Not at all.... He was killed at the 9th hour on Passover, the 14th of Nisan. The 9th hour is 3:00PM and when Passover ends at sundown you have a High Sabbath, the first day of Unleavened bread. We know he was dead for 3 DAYS >>AND<< NIGHTS.... so it is simple math from there....

Thursday - day 1 (Passover, the 14th of Nisan)
Thursday night - night 1 (begin High Sabbath)
Friday - day 2 (High Sabbath all day)
Friday night - night 2 (end High Sabbath, begin weekly Sabbath)
Saturday - day 3 (weekly Sabbath all day)
Saturday night - night 3 (end weekly Sabbath)

Mat 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.

If he was in the tomb on Sunday after sunrise, that would mark day 4... he was dead 3 days and nights. So, sometime before dawn, after the weekly Sabbath he rose and the empty tomb was found at sunrise Sunday morning.



Again, Matthew 28:1 is very clear. Also, there is a language variation between a weekly Sabbath and a High Sabbath which is why my chart above contains the High Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath.



"Under the law" is an idiomatic reference to one's guilt... we are no longer under the law, no longer guilty. We are under grace... forgiven, declared innocent. The idea that God gave Torah and called it everlasting and then nailed it to the cross and did away with it causes all kinds of issues that you may, or may not, be ready to deal with. I don't mean that in a condescending way, but if God calls something everlasting it is.... and if our theology causes us to make the everlasting go away, it isn't the Scripture that has the issue, it is our theology. I have this discussion all the time brother. Usually when I make the comment I just did I get the Hebrews 8 priesthood "change" thrown at me. Instead of taking the time to consider the words, WAIT on God and ask Him, "is there anything here for me Father?" and then WAIT for Him to answer... we go on defense, call names, malign brothers, cause division... for what? Because of a difference in understanding? Sad... and I am not saying you have done anything like that. We don't agree but you have been respectful and I appreciate that so much!

By the way, "heresy" is another word that has changed in meaning. Look it up in Thayer or Liddle-Scott. :)

Blessings.
Ken
Hello Ken.

I was utterly amazed at this section of your post.
Respectfully, you lack some historical understanding here.
I do not need to know anything about the trivial arguments between the sects in Judaism. Seriously Ken, you need to read the text (Acts 15) very carefully. If you had read the text properly, you would have understood the council of Jerusalem.

Acts 15
8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor
we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.

Ken, the text states, 'cleansing their hearts by faith'. There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, 'no distinction between us and them'. The next statement is directed to you, Ken. 10 ...'why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?'

Let's read line eleven again, and again, and again.

But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.


Tell me Ken, why don't people read the text?

I am convinced that people read everything else but the text.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,946
11,096
okie
✟222,536.00
Faith
Anabaptist
11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.
A lot of people here have read this, some for decades.
Problem is,
they never identify "we" correctly, from YHWH. (well, rarely)
and they never identify "they",perhaps.... don't know yet....

The early/some Anabaptists and Waldensians and, later, other assemblies in the last 100 years slaughtered around the world for their faith
often got slaughtered for identifying "we".
(and everything else that goes with this; i.e. .not just for knowing who it is, but everything about the life that goes with it too, and doing it).
 
Upvote 0

1John2:4

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2016
1,204
361
48
New Braunfels, TX
✟40,108.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Hello John.

Thanks for the reply.

There seems to be a background distortion that is disrupting the text.

Where have you read John, that the book of Revelation is all about the
great and terrifying day of the Lord?

The text does not seem to support this summary.

Revelation 1
19 Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are,
and the things which will take place after these things.

The things which are now are different to the things that will take place
later. Revelation is not just talking about a single day in the future. The
text covers vast periods of time.
David,
Thanks for your reply,
When reading the entire book of Revelation it speaks of what is to come in the end of days. This book is consistent with other scripture that speaks of the day of the Lord. Many of the prophets speak of this same thing for example Zechariah 14 and on speaks of the day of the Lord when He will stand on the Mount of Olives and it will split in two and there will be a great war against the nations. Ezekiel 37 until 48 speaks of raising the dead, a great battle and a new temple where the glory of the Prince will fill the temple just like the new Jerusalem in Revelation living water flowing from the middle so all nations can drink of it. Amos 5 the day of the Lord. I would encourage you to read these books in just one sitting I found it is a great way to understand the context. I am not in any way trying to belittle you I am just saying for myself when I read a book out of the Bible from start to finish I tend to have much more understanding as opposed to when I used to skip around when I study.(not that you may or may not do that I am just offering a suggestion that helped me understand :). I am curious why do you belive that the Lord's day in Revelation 1 means Sunday? Where do you glean that understanding from?
Thanks again,
Crystal
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,222
5,564
Winchester, KENtucky
✟331,515.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes, the Bible says the following: Heb8:6 But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. 13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

I suppose, like Bill Clinton, we could debate what the meaning of "is" is. I take it that the writer believed that the new covenant is now in force. He has not will made the first one obsolete. AD 70 pretty much made the first one completely obsolete. The Temple and the priesthood were the focal points of Torah. Ad 70 marked the date of the beginning of the worldwide spread of Judaism. The old covenant was completely defunct. Nothing can ever bring it back.

By the way, the writer of Hebrews was, of course, quoting Jeremiah. Of course Jeremiah would be pointing to the future. Your comments clearly do not hold water. We are clearly in "the days are coming".
Greetings Bob. An interesting phenomena we find within Christianity is that when we find some verses in Scripture that seem to stand in contrast to other verses in Scripture, we either choose one and pit it against the other, or choose one and ignore the other. We see this in the predestination/free will debate. The truth is that both free will (Deuteronomy 30:19) and predestination (Ephesians 1:11) exist in Scripture. But rather than attempting to reconcile these two very different and contrasting positions, people choose one and either pit their choice against the other and divide from ANYONE who doesn't choose the side they chose, or... they choose one and ignore the other. You are doing that here....

Twice now I have posted the mark of the new covenant. It is found within the wording of the prophesy (Jeremiah 31:33-34) and in the fulfillment reference (Hebrews 8:10-11) where it is tied to you and I. Instead of addressing it, you have gone off and found another verse that you apparently don't think I have considered, and thrown that out there as your response. So, I will answer that, and then repost the question. I am hoping you address it this time, if you don't I am afraid, this conversation is over as I don't have any desire for this to be me answering your charges and you ignoring anything I ask in reply. Fair? I am not trying to be a jerk in any way... but this won't be a one-way street brother. :)

Hebrews 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

Amen to this.... but WHAT is better, Bob? I should really just stop and allow you to define what is better but because my time is limited, I will just dive in. What is better? Well, at Sinai the law was written on stone and commanded that it be kept on our heart BY US (Deuteronomy 6:6 and Deuteronomy 6:8). As you know, God's people could keep it there for a while, but the idea of keeping it there 24/7/365 just wasn't happening and so God decided long ago that HE WOULD write it on our hearts so that we might not sin against Him. So, He promised first in Deuteronomy 30:6 (better to read verses 1 through 6 for better context) that HE WOULD circumcise the hearts of His people. Did you think the circumcision of the heart was a NT idea given to Paul? No... Paul was referencing the verse above. We also find in Ezekiel 11:19 and also in Ezekiel 36:26 (and there are others) where God promised through His prophets that He would (God would) remove the stony heart (the heart that relied on what was engraved on stone) and replace it with a heart of flesh (the circumcised heart, the heart that has His will/instructions written directly on it by God Himself).

So what is better, Bob? What is better is that the law is written not on stone but on the heart. It won't be something we read, it will be something written inside us, probably part of our DNA, and we will no longer be able to sin. That is better, that is what guarantees life because... if the wages of sin is death... and God's perfect will is written in us so we cannot sin.... then death will be always part of history and we will live forever with the Lord. Amen.

Hebrews 8:13 is the same... it is the stone, the law written and needing to be followed that is obsolete and it is replaced with the law written on the mind and heart by God Himself. Law on stone... obsolete... on heart as written by God both new and better.

Now... I have directly answered your questions. Let's return to mine. You took issue with me saying the new covenant was not in place yet and I replied and I need you to address them now. The wording is clear, when this occurs, the implementation of the new covenant... the law will have been written on our minds and hearts by God and I am saying that this work might have begun, but won't be completed until His return. In fact, 2 Corinthians 1:22 and 2 Corinthians 5:5 both say that the Holy Spirit was given as a deposit, as a down payment, as an earnest... toward more to come. The more to come is the completion of the law written by God on the mind and heart. Since that has not happened, and since we STILL need to to teach our neighbor because ALL do not know the Lord (do >>ALL>> know the Lord, Bob?) then Yeshua has earned the right to implement this through His blood... but hasn't yet and won't until His return.

That is NOT TO SAY we are not children of God NOW... it simply means that the renewed or new covenant... where God writes His law on the mind and heart and we lose the ability to sin... has not occurred yet.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,222
5,564
Winchester, KENtucky
✟331,515.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hi Ken, I am very sorry that you have the opinion that I do not like you. I hope I have never indicated such. You are my brother is Christ. My point in all my discussions is that I love everyone just as Jesus loves me. Do I care for the theology you represent? Well, I think you know where I stand on that issue.
I love to tell the story of unseen things above,
Of Jesus and His glory, of Jesus and His love.
I love to tell the story, because I know ’tis true;
It satisfies my longings as nothing else can do.

Refrain

I love to tell the story, ’twill be my theme in glory,
To tell the old, old story of Jesus and His love.

It is all about Jesus and all I need is Jesus. Man gets so involved with rituals that they become more important than Jesus. It is not about what rituals we observe, it is about what we do for the least of our brothers. I am sure you know this and I am preaching to the choir. Sometimes though we do loose track of why we became Christians. I speak from past experience. I was so caught up in rules that I lost track of reality. The plan of salvation is very simple. It is amazing that the very young can grasp things that some adults never understand.

The covenant with Israel was a conditional covenant. God said the big word IF if you will I will, they didn't. Israel lost the most wonderful opportunity to not only keep the promised land, but also claim eternity as a nation. God does not have favorites today. We are all children of Abraham and we all come to Jesus as individuals. Israel's loss is mankind's gain.

Thank you for the first part. I have NOTHING against you and the lack of tone in communications like this often cause issues that end in division. I hate division, I hate confrontation. I don't mind disagreement, heck, we can't possibly expect to agree on every detail right now Bob, do you agree with that? If you say yes, that at this time we have disagreement.... then we still need teachers. And if we still need teachers, then the conditions of the new covenant have not been met.

As for Israel, I recognize the "if" but I also recognize that the most repeated prophesy in Scripture is Israel coming back from the nations they were scattered into. Like God said through Hosea, "In the place where I said you are not my people, there you WILL BE called sons of the Living God." Even in Deut. 30:1-6 that I have referenced often, you'll see God... on the heels of having given the Law, declare that they would fail and be punished but also promise to bring them back and circumcise their hearts. This is repeated so many times in Scripture it is, now that I have seen it over the last decade or so, hard for me to understand why so many others don't see it. God is not slack, brother, when it comes to His promises, I know you believe that. And God promised to bring back the ones He cut off, Israel... which means our theology cannot arrive at a conclusion that does not make room for this. If our conclusions do, we need to revisit them. That is all I did... I held your position for a long time and finally I just realized the many promises that pointed to Israel's return. Even Paul writes this repeatedly... go look at Romans 9:27 but make sure to read Isaiah 10:22 and the wording around it. We see "saved" in the Romans passage but "returned" in the verse being quoted. It is returned... the Hebrew word AND the context are speaking of Israel's return from the nations.

There are many verses I can share on this topic, when you see them together in their totality, it just can't be ignored. We actually compiled them and printed them in a booklet called, "Heresies contained within," but we only give it to those who are trying to put this together. Blessings.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,222
5,564
Winchester, KENtucky
✟331,515.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hello Ken.

Revelation 1
9 I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s
day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, 11 saying, “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches".

John is telling us where he was, what he was doing, and on what day it occurred. John was on the island of Patmos, the physical location. Then John states that he was also in the Holy Spirit while on the island of Patmos. Now there remains only one other point that John feels he needs to mention. The time that this revelation was disclosed to him, the time is given as the Lord's day.

This is the background information that John provides, just before he hears the loud voice behind him. This information was before the revelation actually began. John is not in the vision, John only hears the voice behind him at this point.

Yes, he says where he is. But he also states, "I was in the Spirit." So, what does that mean to you? To me it means God, who is a Spirit (John 4:24), had taken him in his spirit or at least otherwise engulfed him in manner that would allow John to see whatever the Lord desired for John to see... and thus his physical location is not relevant. What is relevant is that he is, indeed, "in the Spirit." I return to my question to you before, "What is it God is showing John?" And the answer is, "the things that were, that are, and that will be." Since it ALL is leading to the end time and the restoration of all things... the Lord's Day is indeed a reference to the Day of the Lord as stated in Joel. I have more to say but will hold off because of this comment by you....

The appalling attempt to associate the 'Lord's day', with the cataclysmic final day, 'the day of the Lord', by you is alarming.

Well, I am indeed sorry you see my view as appalling but it is what I believe is happening here. There is >>NO<< Scripture (none) that calls Sunday "The Lord's Day." The only reference we have to words used in this manner is "The Day of the Lord." The term, "Lord's Day" appears in Revelation and those who practice a Sunday Sabbath apply it to that day. You are welcome to do that, I understand why you are doing it and feel free to continue. I just don't see it the same and won't because no Scripture moves the Sabbath to Sunday and the idea that the first century Jews that followed Yeshua forsook the Torah/Law and began to keep Sunday is not only not in line with history, it is not in line with Scripture.

Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;

The word for "many thousands" is murias, which is the Greek word for 10,000 and it is in plural form. That means, AT LEAST, 20,000 out of the estimated 80,000 Jews in that area not only accepted Yeshua as Messiah, they also continued to be zealous for the Law. Not unto salvation... but because the Law defines what is good and evil, profane and common... and thus our daily walk with our Father is defined in terms of His expectations for those who love Him. That is why John wrote, "This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments." Not to be saved, but the saved show their love through their obedience to the one they submitted to as Lord.

May I ask where you read this appalling association between 'the day of the Lord', and 'the Lord's day'?

It is a bad practice, David, to demean what others believe. I have no evil intent, I am not in rebellion, I simply do not share your view on this topic and my view is appalling? That idea is appalling. :)

Anyway... it is in the language. Day of the Lord and Lord's Day have no difference in definition. If I said, "today is the Lord's day" or I said, "today is the day of the Lord" if we had not had this discussion, you would (or most other Sunday keepers would) assume I meant Sunday. Why? Because either way I say it... it is still designating one day as belonging to HIM. Since "Scripture" already uses the term "Day of the Lord" then to assume that those same words written in reverse (Lord's Day) but which still designate a day (or time frame/event) are NOW speaking about a day of the week comes from reading Scripture through the paradigm that the Sabbath moved to Sunday. But since Scripture does not move the Sabbath to Sunday, then we have only tradition to fall on. And while tradition can be good, tradition is not Scripture and in this case I reject the tradition. If you find that appalling, I apologize, but there is nothing you can say to change my view because you can only provide tradition as your evidence, not Scripture. And man will not live by bread alone, but by "every WORD OF GOD."

Blessings to you and yours.
Ken
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,222
5,564
Winchester, KENtucky
✟331,515.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hello Ken.

I was utterly amazed at this section of your post.

I do not need to know anything about the trivial arguments between the sects in Judaism. Seriously Ken, you need to read the text (Acts 15) very carefully. If you had read the text properly, you would have understood the council of Jerusalem.

Context is everything. Over 35 times Paul uses one of the 7 rules of Hillel. These are 'designed' to affect context and not only do we not consider the exegetical tools used by Paul in his writings, we don't even know they exist... the church in all it's forms simply does not teach what Paul is doing. That matters David... what else matters? Well, if we have two schools of Pharisaical thought and one has a slogan "spirit of the law" and the other has a slogan, "letter of the law" and then we see Paul writing about the differences between the spirit and the letter, his references would be to the common teachings of that day and their differences. Thus common teachings or differences should be something we at least become familiar with BECAUSE they are driving the context. However... we are raised to see all Pharisees as one, and don't have a clue that with the exception of divorce, it is the school of Shamai that is rebuked and corrected EVERY TIME by Yeshua, Paul, or anyone else in the NT who rebukes a certain Pharisee.

You don't view the first century Christians as Jewish. That is a strange position seeing the messiah is Jewish, his disciples were Jewish, and the message went out into Judea first. And with Acts 21:20 stating that as many as 20,000 Jews or more followed Yeshua as messiah, then I don't see anything but a Jewish sect at least until the destruction of the Temple or even as late as Bar Kokhba. There are some sources here should you want to study this possibility further.

If the arguments of the day are the backdrop for the context of what is being written, then "trivial arguments" might indeed matter David. Context matters and whatever drives the context must be considered.

Blessings.
Ken
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
A lot of people here have read this, some for decades.
Problem is,
they never identify "we" correctly, from YHWH. (well, rarely)
and they never identify "they",perhaps.... don't know yet....

The early/some Anabaptists and Waldensians and, later, other assemblies in the last 100 years slaughtered around the world for their faith
often got slaughtered for identifying "we".
(and everything else that goes with this; i.e. .not just for knowing who it is, but everything about the life that goes with it too, and doing it).
Hello Jeff.

Hello Jeff.

The context of the verses preceding verse eleven, clearly identifies those that
belong to each of the pronouns, 'we' and 'they'.

Acts 15
7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you,
that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace
of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

Simply the group identified as 'we' are the Jews, the group identified by 'they' are the Gentiles.

Here we have the additional verses that introduce verse eleven.

Acts 15
8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.

Repeating the important verse again.

11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,222
5,564
Winchester, KENtucky
✟331,515.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It would be an interesting discussion to determine what the idea of "believe" was to a first century Jew. Was it simple belief as we define the word today... or did the word carry an additional concept beyond being "convinced of something?" Perhaps another thread. :)
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,337
Sydney, Australia.
✟252,364.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Hello Crystal.

Thanks for your reply.
When reading the entire book of Revelation it speaks of what is to come in the end of days.
Revelations covers a vast period of time, certainly not one day.

Revelations 9
They have tails like scorpions, and stings; and in their tails is their power to
hurt men for five months
.

This five month period is not the singular, 'day of the Lord'.
This book is consistent with other scripture that speaks of the day
of the Lord.
I have shown above that the singular day of Christ's return, is different
from the vast time period of the book of Revelation.
I am curious why do you belive that the Lord's day in Revelation 1
means Sunday? Where do you glean that understanding from?
The use of the word 'Sunday' is not accurate, I prefer the 'first day'. Sunday
is the name of the Roman equivalent of the Jewish, first day.

The old creation was centered on a weekly time scale. The Sabbath was
a key day in the old created order, the Sabbath was the seventh day. We
notice in the New Testament that the first day, is the day when Jesus rose.

We celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we gather on the
first day to do this. We are a new creation in Christ, a new and eternal
creation, we have new day of celebration and worship.

Everything is new in Christ Jesus.
 
Upvote 0