WHY THE LORD'S DAY IS NOT SATURDAY

[BobRyan]

The context was "only the KJV says it" - in your first provided lis

I thought you were making your own assessment that only the KJV says it - I did not know you wanted a full list "from me" .

I hope you find the new updated list helpful in that regard.

I can post it again if you like

 

[trophy33]

I thought you were making your own assessment that only the KJV says it - I did not know you wanted a full list "from me" .

I hope you find the new updated list helpful in that regard.

I can post it again if you like

Not needed, the Greek is clear - the KJV reading is an interpretation, not a translation - together with any other translation you can find that supports the KJV reading.

The majority of English translations got it right, though - lawlessness. That "lawlessness" means "breaking the law" is purely an interpretation of the KJV translators.

 

[Leaf473]

Appreciated @Leaf473, I didn't see this concept of explaining the Sabbath as a day of complete rest in achieving Righteousness by not working. This really ties in to Hebrews 4 with another day called "today" means. This is a bit deep understanding to grasp. Thank you.

You're very welcome

So, if you don't mind, I have couple of questions;

1) So since we credited righteousness through faith without our works (Romans 4:5) then is faith also is something we have without our works?

The short answer is Yes.

The relationship between faith and works is something that people often talk about and sometimes end up talking past each other. This idea came to me after praying about a good way to describe it. It's not perfect, but hopefully it will make sense:

Suppose I walk into a room and flip the switch that turns on the ceiling light. Then a few weeks later I get an electric bill for the electricity that I used to turn on the light.

I could also change the wiring in my house so that the ceiling light gets electricity from a plain old AA battery. But it turns out that kind of electricity won't actually make the light go on.

Both the electric company and the battery will produce electricity, but only one kind of electricity will make the ceiling light go on. It takes the kind of electricity that produces an electric bill.

The electricity, all by itself, made the light go on. So it wasn't that electricity plus the electric bill made the light go on, but it did take a certain kind of electricity.

So it is with faith, works, and righteousness. It is faith, apart from works, by which we obtain righteousness. But it's the kind of faith that, sooner or later, produces good works.

2) So who does the work in achieving Righteousness for us if we are not working?

Thank you again.

Well, here's one way to look at it: the kind of righteousness that Romans 4 is talking about is a decision made by God. He simply decides to consider us as though we have never sinned. Work is not really involved in obtaining righteousness.

I hope all of the above makes sense. If anything doesn't, I invite more comments and questions from everyone.

It's actually a very important subject, in some ways it's at the heart of every thread in the Sabbath and the Law section.

 

[Leaf473]

Your suggestion that the Ten Commandments are not the moral law of God applicable to all mankind, and written on the heart under the New Covenant -- is not very logical.

My post was about the law having a shadow. Did you want to talk about a different subject, such as the moral law of God? If so that's fine, I just wanted to ask

But you have free will and can suggest whatever you wish.

Actually, several of the groups and theologians you list below would say that we do not have free will, I think. But that's a subject for a different thread

Sabbath is for mankind since Eden Gen 2:1-3 which Ex 20:11 specifically points to - so it is no surprise that in the New Earth for all eternity after the cross - "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" Is 66:23

If you would like me to explain more on why almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN"

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy
[*]many others as well..

I am happy to assist.

Yes, I would like to hear more on why those various groups think that. And, if you wish, please include details about which groups do not. And, again if you wish, please talk about why those groups essentially change the Sabbath to Sunday.

 

[expos4ever]

Within this context it does.

Your "wink" is ill-advised unless you have an actual case that we have to interpret "lawlessness" as you have. I will be interested to see your argument.

 

[BobRyan]

My post was about the law having a shadow.

I also mentioned the shadow feasts in Lev 23 based in animal sacrifice pointing to the sacrifice of Christ
(And of course - animal sacrifices and offerings end at the cross as we see in Heb 10:4-12)

But Gen 2:1-3 has no animal sacrifice associated with the 7th day of the week.
Ex 20:8-11 is the commandment for it - which also has no sacrifice.

Is 66:23 shows us all mankind keeping Sabbath for all eternity after the cross in the new Earth -- no animal sacrifice there either.

I guess we all could see that clearly.

Did you want to talk about a different subject

No I am fine with the fact that the TEN are not ceremonial - but rather - they are the moral law of God for all mankind written on the heart under the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34. Son then "not deleted".

, such as the moral law of God? If so that's fine, I just wanted to ask

The Sabbath commandment is in the TEN - so it is one of those moral laws - written on the heart under the New Covenant.

Actually, several of the groups and theologians you list below would say that we do not have free will

Indeed they would - but that is another topic.

Yes, I would like to hear more on why those various groups think that.

One reason is "He spoke the Ten Words and added NO MORE" Deut 5:22-23 -

said in reference to the Sinai event 40 years prior to Deut 5.

Deut 5:
22 “These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly, in the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.
23 “So it was, when you heard the voice from the midst of the darkness, while the mountain was burning with fire, that you came near to me, all the heads of your tribes and your elders. 24 And you said: ‘Surely the Lord our God has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice from the midst of the fire. We have seen this day that God speaks with man; yet he still lives. 25 Now therefore, why should we die? For this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the Lord our God anymore, then we shall die. 26 For who is there of all flesh who has heard the voice of the living God speaking from the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? 27 You go near and hear all that the Lord our God may say, and tell us all that the Lord our God says to you, and we will hear and do it.’

And of course all humanity knows it is a sin to "take God's name in vain" going all the way back to Eden. We also know that when God sanctifies something, makes it devoted to holy use - mankind is obligated to comply with God's declaration

Thanks for asking

 

[expos4ever]

You are attempting proof by "harrumph" followed by imaginary student.

We need actual facts.

Evasion. You know that lawlessness, as a generic concept is not specific to any particular law.

What facts are you asking for? This request would not be a thinly veiled attempt at dancing away from the fact that lawlessness is not specific to the law of Moses, would it?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Your "wink" is ill-advised unless you have an actual case that we have to interpret "lawlessness" as you have. I will be interested to see your argument.

my argument is in the context of the passage...

 

[expos4ever]

my argument is in the context of the passage...

This seems unclear, can you point me to a specific post where you make your context argument?

 

[Leaf473]

I also mentioned the shadow feasts in Lev 23 based in animal sacrifice pointing to the sacrifice of Christ

But Gen 2:1-3 has no animal sacrifice associated with the 7th day of the week.
Ex 20:8-11 is the commandment for it - which also has no sacrifice.

Is 66:23 shows us all mankind keeping Sabbath for all eternity after the cross in the new Earth -- no animal sacrifice there either.

I guess we all could see that clearly.

I don't see a place in Hebrews 10 where it talks about only the instructions about animal sacrifices having a shadow.

It simply says the law has a shadow. Yes, animal sacrifices are part of the law, so they form part of that shadow.

Are you seeing something in the passage that limits the shadow to only animal sacrifices?

No I am fine with the fact that the TEN are not ceremonial - but rather - they are the moral law of God for all mankind written on the heart under the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34. Son then "not deleted".

Okay, I was talking about the law having a shadow. Did you want to talk about the idea of the moral law of God?

The Sabbath commandment is in the TEN - so it is one of those moral laws - written on the heart under the New Covenant.

Well, first, I think we would want to establish the idea of the moral law of God. Is the phrase "moral law" found in the Bible that you generally use?

Indeed they would - but that is another topic.

Now this is an interesting situation. In my post that you are quoting, I say that it would be a subject for a different thread, but you cut that part off. Why did you do that?

One reason is "He spoke the Ten Words and added NO MORE" Deut 5:22-23 -

said in reference to the Sinai event 40 years prior to Deut 5.

Deut 5:
22 “These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly, in the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.
23 “So it was, when you heard the voice from the midst of the darkness, while the mountain was burning with fire, that you came near to me, all the heads of your tribes and your elders. 24 And you said: ‘Surely the Lord our God has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice from the midst of the fire. We have seen this day that God speaks with man; yet he still lives. 25 Now therefore, why should we die? For this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the Lord our God anymore, then we shall die. 26 For who is there of all flesh who has heard the voice of the living God speaking from the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? 27 You go near and hear all that the Lord our God may say, and tell us all that the Lord our God says to you, and we will hear and do it.’

And of course all humanity knows it is a sin to "take God's name in vain" going all the way back to Eden. We also know that when God sanctifies something, makes it devoted to holy use - mankind is obligated to comply with God's declaration

Thanks for asking

Do you have references where these groups say this is why they say the ten commandments are in effect?

Looking forward to a great discussion ❤️

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

This seems unclear, can you point me to a specific post where you make your context argument?

It is the passage itself! The Greek word used is "anomia"...without law, lawlessness, disobedience...sin. Without which laws, disobedience to which laws???? Within Jewish context it was written it means THE Law. You can't make an argument out of context of the passage and expect people not to challenge you...

 

[SabbathBlessings]

This is one of many obviously flawed arguments from those who insist the Law is still in force despite clear Biblical evidence to the contrary. We are, of course, and this is clearly Biblical, endowed with the Holy Spirit to guide us.

So you are saying we are allowed to covet now? The Holy Spirit guides us to keep the commandments, not break them John 14:15-18

And I suspect the Holy Spirit is capable of nudging us back into line if we take it upon ourselves to decide to worship other gods.

Just like the rest of the commandments because if your break one commandment you break them all. James 2:10-12

Another flawed argument. Yes, the law revealed (past tense) sin to Paul, but that does not mean God cannot decide that it is time to replace this role of the Law with the teachings of Jesus and the guidance of the Spirit

There is no scripture that says the coveting commandment is a “past law” but instead it says it reveals sin Romans 7:7 which came in a unit of Ten that God personally placed together written by His own finger than no man can add or subtract from. Deut 4:2

Don’t take my word for it what does scripture say is coveting a “past law”?

Colossians 3:5
Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Revelation 22:15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

What is truth?

Psalms 119:151You are near, O Lord,
And all Your commandments are truth.

What is practicing a lie?
1 John 2: 4 He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

Think, people think! The horse and buggy used to get us from A to B. Does this mean we cannot dispense with the horse and buggy and still get from A to B?

Yes, its only common sense that we should keep God’s commandments and if keeping the law of God is perfect and converts the soul, its not wise to think not keeping them keeps us in Christ instead of being an enmity of God the way the scripture tells us. Romans 8:7 and leads us down the wrong path Romans 6:16 Revelation 22:15 Matthew 7:21-23

 

[Leaf473]

It is the passage itself! The Greek word used is "anomia"...without law, lawlessness, disobedience...sin. Without which laws, disobedience to which laws???? Within Jewish context it was written it means THE Law. You can't make an argument out of context of the passage and expect people not to challenge you...

I hope you don't mind my jumping in here, but does 1 John have a Jewish context? Do you mean a Jewish author and a Jewish audience?

The author of the book is not stated, traditionally it is John the Apostle.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

does 1 John have a Jewish context? Do you mean a Jewish author and a Jewish audience?

Yes

 

[expos4ever]

Mark has nothing to do with breaking Kosher laws. It is about eating with unwashed hands, that is the context of the passage. You can debate it all you want, but that does not change the context of the passage...

In Mark 7, Jesus says "nothing that goes into a man will defile him". That seems pretty clear - a piece of shellfish or a bit of pork certainly is a thing that can go in to you. So how do the Law supporters explain this? They frequently maintain that the entire conversation with the Pharisees is about handwashing since that is what it begins and ends with. They seem to think that no matter what Jesus goes on to say, the focus must, by some strange principle of necessity, remain solely on handwashing. But this is manifestly absurd - certainly, Jesus can take a discussion of handwashing and then bend the conversation to a more general discussion of what actually defiles a man.

It must be acknowledged, although of course it will not be, that this is a very natural transition to make. But, of course, the Law supporters cannot allow for this possibility. Yes, I know the confrontation both begins and ends with the subject of handwashing. But this does not support the idea that, in the preceding discussion, Jesus could not have spoken more generally about what defiles, and then used the general principle He has elaborated - namely that nothing that goes in to you will defile you - to answer the specific question about handwashing.

To show how manifestly silly the handwashing argument is, consider this scenario which is structurally analogous to the Mark 7 encounter over food. Suppose I go to my doctor and ask him or her about the efficacy of homeopathic ("natural medicine") drugs for my cold. And let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that it is the case that there are no kinds of treatment whatsoever to shorten a cold (whether this is true or not is obviously beside the point). My doctor, knowing full well at nothing I can take will cure my cold, will tell me "There is nothing you can take into your body that will cure your cold. Therefore, homeopathic treatments will not cure your cold"

Nobody who knows the first thing about how English sentences work would walk out of the doctor's office believing that the doctor has not ruled out all drugs, including the natural ones.

And yet this is precisely what we are being asked to believe about the Mark 7 encounter. The two scenarios are structurally equivalent in the important respects. In both cases:

1. The conversations begin with a question about a particular thing going into you (food eaten with unwashed hands vs natural medicines)

2. In both conversations, the authority figure make a general statement - "nothing that goes in you........"

3. Both conversations end with a statement about the particular thing that was the issue at first.

Yet, we know that the logic of the doctor scenario requires us to believe that the doctor believes that truly nothing that you can take into your body will cure your cold. So, how does this same logic not apply in the Mark scenario?

What kind of person would say "nothing that goes into can defile you" and mean "nothing except for A, B, and C"?

Context has a role, but it cannot miraculously make the word "nothing" mean "a whole bunch of things".

 

[expos4ever]

It is the passage itself! The Greek word used is "anomia"...without law, lawlessness, disobedience...sin. Without which laws, disobedience to which laws???? Within Jewish context it was written it means THE Law. You can't make an argument out of context of the passage and expect people not to challenge you...

Can you make a case that the letter was written to an exclusively Jewish readership. If you cannot, then your argument fails since Gentile readers are not even under the Law of Moses. At least one commentator believes it was primarily directed to Gentiles:

Ernest DeWitt Burton found it likely that its audience was largely gentile rather than Jewish, since it contains few Old Testament quotations or distinctly Jewish forms of expression (Wikipedia)

Besides, if one were to follow your reasoning - that is, that "lawlessness" is specific to the Law of Moses - then the only way to sin is to break the Law of Moses. And yet we all know that there are many things that are clearly sin that are not outlawed by the Law of Moses. Is it sin to publish child pornography? Of course it is? Is it prohibited by the Law of Moses? Not as far as I can tell.

 

[expos4ever]

Cherry picking what?

this??

The NT says "Sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4 , NKJV, KJV
KJV -Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
AKJV Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
CJB Everyone who keeps sinning is violating Torah — indeed, sin is violation of Torah.
CEV Everyone who sins breaks God’s law, because sin is the same as breaking God’s law.
KJ21- Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law.
BRG Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
ERV Anyone who sins breaks God’s law. Yes, sinning is the same as living against God’s law.
EXB
·The person [L Everyone] who ·sins [commits sin] ·breaks God’s law [commits lawlessness/iniquity; C referring to the false teachers; 2:19–20]. Yes, sin is ·living against God’s law [lawlessness; iniquity].

GNV Whosoever commiteth sin, transgresseth also the Law: for sin is the transgression of the Law.
GW Those who live sinful lives are disobeying God. Sin is disobedience.
GNT Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God's law, because sin is a breaking of the law.
HCSB Everyone who commits sin also breaks the law; sin is the breaking of law.
ICB When a person sins, he breaks God’s law. Yes, sinning is the same as living against God’s law.
ISV Everyone who keeps living in sin also practices disobedience. In fact, sin is disobedience.
PHILLIPS Everyone who commits sin breaks God’s law, for that is what sin is, by definition—a breaking of God’s law. You know, moreover, that Christ became man for the purpose of removing sin, and he himself was quite free from sin. The man who lives “in Christ” does not habitually sin. The regular sinner has never seen or known him.
MOUNCE Everyone who makes a practice of · sinning is also breaking the law; indeed, · sin is · lawlessness.
NOG Those who live sinful lives are disobeying God. Sin is disobedience.
NCV The person who sins breaks God’s law. Yes, sin is living against God’s law.
NIRV Everyone who sins breaks the law. In fact, breaking the law is sin.

Do you really think readers will not know what you are up to?

Here, you simply double-down on your misrepresentation - you cynically pick out those versions that line up with your position and remain conveniently silent about versions that refer simply to "lawlessness", or something equivalent. Out of 21 total, 17 of these line up with your position. But what about these versions:

ASV: Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
CSB: Everyone who commits sin practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
CEB: Every person who practices sin commits an act of rebellion, and sin is rebellion.
DARBY: Every one that practises sin practises also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
DLNT: Everyone doing sin also is doing lawlessness. Indeed sin is lawlessness.
DRA: Whosoever committeth sin committeth also iniquity; and sin is iniquity.
EHV: Everyone who commits sin also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness.
ESV: Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
ESVUK: Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practises lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
LSB: Everyone who does sin also does lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
LEB: Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
TLB: But those who keep on sinning are against God, for every sin is done against the will of God.
MSG: All who indulge in a sinful life are dangerously lawless, for sin is a major disruption of God’s order. Surely you know that Christ showed up in order to get rid of sin. There is no sin in him, and sin is not part of his program. No one who lives deeply in Christ makes a practice of sin. None of those who do practice sin have taken a good look at Christ. They’ve got him all backward.
MEV: Whoever practices sin breaks the law, for sin is lawlessness.
NABRE: Everyone who commits sin commits lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness.
NASB: Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
NASB1995: Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
NCB: Everyone who sins breaks the law, for sin is lawlessness.
NET: Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; indeed, sin is lawlessness.
NKJV: Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.
NMB: Whoever commits sin, commits unrighteousness also. For sin is unrighteousness.
NRSVA: Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
NRSVACE: Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
NRSVCE: Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
NRSVUE: Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
NTE: Everyone who goes on sinning is breaking the law; sin, in fact, is lawlessness.
RSV: Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
RSVCE: Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.
TLV:Everyone practicing sin also practices lawlessness—indeed, sin is lawlessness.
VOICE: Everyone who lives a life of habitual sin is living in moral anarchy. That’s what sin is.
WEB: Everyone who sins also commits lawlessness. Sin is lawlessness.
WYC: Each man that doeth sin, doeth also wickedness, and sin is wickedness.
YLT: Every one who is doing the sin, the lawlessness also he doth do, and the sin is the lawlessness,

Well? Come on now, how do you explain that these 30 versions - all which do not claim that lawlessness is defined specifically in relation to the Law of Moses - are absent from your list? Granted, there are a small number of other translations that assert that lawlessness is relative to the Law of Moses.

But, and you really should stop with the deceptive cherry-picking - a substantial majority of English translations do not support your view.

 

[expos4ever]

I only need one.. meanwhile you need something that says "Lawlessness is not transgression of the law" ---

What?! Why do you only need one? Are you seriously suggesting that if 99 out of 100 translations have "sin is lawlessness" and only 1 has "sin is transgression of the Law", this makes your case? How does that work?

And the idea that I "need something that says "Lawlessness is not transgression of the law" ---" is obviously wrong - no one who know a smidgen about proper reasoning will fall for this. Imagine if I claimed scripture said "lawlessness is eating a cherry cheesecake on Mondays" and insisted that, to prove me wrong, you need to show scripture that says "lawlessness is not eating a cherry cheesecake on Mondays"?

Please, have a little respect for the intelligence of the readers.

 

[BobRyan]

What?! Why do you only need one?

first of all you already admitted I have more than a dozen but then complain that I do not have 51. ... I see a game being played in that case.

But meanwhile you need something that says "Lawlessness is not transgression of the law" ---to get your argument off the ground. Instead you leave your case dead in the water. Why not at least try to rescue it.

"sin is lawlessness" and only 1 has "sin is transgression of the Law", -- turned out to be untrue. you ignored almost examples to the contrary of your claim.

The NT says "Sin IS transgression of the Law" 1 John 3:4
KJV -Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
AKJV Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
CJB Everyone who keeps sinning is violating Torah — indeed, sin is violation of Torah.
CEV Everyone who sins breaks God’s law, because sin is the same as breaking God’s law.
KJ21- Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law.
BRG Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
ERV Anyone who sins breaks God’s law. Yes, sinning is the same as living against God’s law.
EXB
·The person [L Everyone] who ·sins [commits sin] ·breaks God’s law [commits lawlessness/iniquity; C referring to the false teachers; 2:19–20]. Yes, sin is ·living against God’s law [lawlessness; iniquity].

GNV Whosoever commiteth sin, transgresseth also the Law: for sin is the transgression of the Law.
GW Those who live sinful lives are disobeying God. Sin is disobedience.
GNT Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God's law, because sin is a breaking of the law.
HCSB Everyone who commits sin also breaks the law; sin is the breaking of law.
ICB When a person sins, he breaks God’s law. Yes, sinning is the same as living against God’s law.
ISV Everyone who keeps living in sin also practices disobedience. In fact, sin is disobedience.
PHILLIPS Everyone who commits sin breaks God’s law, for that is what sin is, by definition—a breaking of God’s law. You know, moreover, that Christ became man for the purpose of removing sin, and he himself was quite free from sin. The man who lives “in Christ” does not habitually sin. The regular sinner has never seen or known him.
MOUNCE Everyone who makes a practice of · sinning is also breaking the law; indeed, · sin is · lawlessness.
NOG Those who live sinful lives are disobeying God. Sin is disobedience.
NCV The person who sins breaks God’s law. Yes, sin is living against God’s law.
NIRV Everyone who sins breaks the law. In fact, breaking the law is sin.

I only need one.. meanwhile you need something that says "Lawlessness is not transgression of the law" ---

I don't see any effort in that direction.

The point remains.

you call that "only 1"????

meanwhile you need something that says "Lawlessness is not transgression of the law" ---

I don't see any effort in that direction.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't see a place in Hebrews 10 where it talks about only the instructions about animal sacrifices having a shadow.

Did you read Hebrews 10??? Did you lose track of the point we were discussing?

Heb 10

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.​

5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said:​

“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,​

But a body You have prepared for Me.​

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin​

You had no pleasure.​

7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—​

In the volume of the book it is written of Me—​

To do Your will, O God.’ ”​

8 Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second.​

​

Meanwhile we see the shadow element for those Lev 23 annual feasts in 1 Cor 5 "Christ our PASSOVER has been sacrificed". No wonder Heb 10 puts sacrifices and offerings at an end saying "He takes AWAY the first that He may establish the second".​

​

No wonder - Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN"

[*]The Baptist Confession of Faith section 19
[*]The Westminster Confession of Faith section 19
[*]Voddie Baucham
[*]C.H. Spurgeon
[*]D.L. Moody
[*]Dies Domini by Pope John Paul II
[*]D. James Kennedy

At the same time that they admit that the Sacrifices and offerings ended at the cross. This is the easy part.

I think we can all see that detail.