Sabbath Keeping and The Gospel

pasifika · Friday at 7:34 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
Guess we shall see, my version of it doesn't lead to destruction, being without law does 1John3:4 Rom6:23 Heb10:26-30 James 2:11-12 Mat5:19-30 1John2:4 Mat7:23 Rev22:15 according to Jesus who is the Creator of Paul and everyone else. Guess we will have to agree to disagree and all will sort itself out in God's time.

Have you heard there is law that is by Faith. And a law that is by works. Romans 3. You figure out which law you're under. I know which law I'm under.

BobRyan · Friday at 7:34 PM

pasifika said:
Sure the law existed before it was "given" Romans 5. So, the law was "given" to Israel through a covenant in which Moses as the mediator. You know that see Gal etc

Existed and in full force before written in Stone at Sinai?
Sure! as Christianity affirms in its "Confessions of Faith" on BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate. they affirm ALL TEN given to MANKIND in Eden

pasifika said:
Sin started in the angel Lucifer Ezekiel 28

true. It started in in heaven with the fall of Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels

pasifika · Friday at 7:35 PM

BobRyan said:
only in "your accusation texts" not in anything I post.
Hollow factless accusations are not a substantive way to compare two opposing views.
The reader who only "has you" for his source of what "I teach" has chosen an inaccurate method to determine who is teaching what.

Is the way you present your argument and your belief.

BobRyan · Friday at 7:36 PM

pasifika said:
Is the way you present your argument and your belief.

quote an actual fact that supports your accusation, rather than merely adding more accusation

pasifika · Friday at 7:42 PM

BobRyan said:
quote an actual fact that supports your accusation, rather than merely adding more accusation

Your stance on the Sabbath and your understanding of it. It's all over your posts. It's not accusations it's facts.

Hentenza · Friday at 7:44 PM

BobRyan said:
not true. James 2 "to break one is to break THEM ALL"

Only if all remain in the new covenant. Sabbath keeping is not part of the new covenant.

BobRyan said:
The UNIT of TEN "God spoke the TEN Commandments" and "ADDED no more" Deut 5.

So then gentiles specifically singled out for Sabbath keeping in the OT in Isaiah 56

Only the ones that had converted to Judaism. You can’t continue to post this verse out of context.

BobRyan said:
Gentiles wait for Jews to leave the synagogue and then ask for MORE Gospel to be preached for them "on the NEXT Sabbath" Acts 13

Right. They want the Gospel of Good News not the law.

BobRyan said:
In fact "EVERY Sabbath" Acts 18:4 Paul preached to BOTH gentiles and Jews in the Synagogue

Yep.

“To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might gain Jews; to those who are under the Law, I became as one under the Law, though not being under the Law myself, so that I might gain those who are under the Law;”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭9‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

1 Corinthians 9:20 (NASB2020) - To the Jews I became as a Jew, so t | YouVersion

To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might gain Jews; to those who are under the Law, I became as one under the Law, though not being under the Law myself, so that I might gain those who are under

bible.com

Do you just ignore verses that you don’t like?

BobRyan said:
The great confessions of faith in Christianity affirm the SABBATH as included in the moral law of God given in the TEN Commandments to all mankind in Eden.

Nope. It’s funny that you continue to use this fallacy when none of your wonder list keeps the Saturday sabbath. Your argument is comical.

BobRyan said:
you said

But Christ said "The Sabbath was MADE For MANKIND not mankind made for the Sabbath" Mark 2:27

No according to Christ in Mark 2:27
Not according to Gen 2:2-3
Not according to Isaiah 56
Not according to the gentiles themselves in Acts 13 asking for "more gospel preaching" to be scheduled specifically FOR THEM on the "Next Sabbath" Acts 13.

Already answered above. Just repeating it is not going to make it true. Your interpretation lacks context.

BobRyan said:
Matt 7 "JUDGE NOT that you be not judged" was an OT command, before the cross and it continues to this very day

And what does this has to do with the discussion at hand? You are the one judging Christians that rest on Sunday.

pasifika · Friday at 7:46 PM

BobRyan said:
Existed and in full force before written in Stone at Sinai?
Sure! as Christianity affirms in its "Confessions of Faith" on BOTH sides of the Sabbath debate. they affirm ALL TEN given to MANKIND in Eden

true. It started in in heaven with the fall of Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels

This is what Romans 5: 12- is about

boughtwithaprice · Friday at 8:29 PM

Mercy Shown said:
Does not have sacrifices because Christ's one sacrifice has perfected us forever, while we are still being made holy.

When Jesus says in John 6 that we must “eat His flesh and drink His blood,” He is not instituting a perpetual sacrifice. In fact, the same chapter explains what He means: “He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). Coming and believing are the parallel phrases that interpret eating and drinking. The crowd thought physically; Jesus corrected them spiritually (John 6:63 — “the flesh profits nothing… the words I speak are spirit and life”).

Second, the New Testament is emphatic that Christ’s sacrifice was once for all, not ongoing. Hebrews says repeatedly that He offered Himself “once for all” (Heb. 7:27; 9:12; 10:10–14). A perpetual sacrifice would contradict the finished work of the cross. When Jesus said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), He meant the atoning work was complete.

When the Lord instituted the Supper, He said, “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24–26). It is a memorial proclamation of a completed sacrifice, not a re-presentation that keeps atonement active. Paul says we “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes,” not perpetuate it.

So the issue is not imagining forgiveness, nor maintaining sacrifice. The issue is union with Christ by faith. We partake of Him continually — not by re-sacrificing Him — but by trusting in His once-for-all offering and abiding in Him. The Lord’s Supper nourishes faith; it does not replace it.

Christ’s flesh and blood are indeed “real” — meaning His incarnation and death were real, historical, and effective. But the life He speaks of in John 6 is received through faith in His finished work, not through maintaining an ongoing sacrifice.

The words do this in remembrance of me, carry with it a perpetual remembering. We are told blessed are the poor in spirit, and blessed are those that hunger and thirst for righteousness

We are not told to take a presumptuous attitude toward our redemption but strive to make our calling and election sure.
If you believe what you are saying, that Jesus paid it all on the cross and we have no further obligation, why teach to keep the Sabbath? Are you adding to the cross? Sure sounds like it

Saturday afternoon potluck has nothing to do with the Sabbath, and it is not the Lord’s supper
For a Sabbath to be valid, there must be a sacrifice
We are still prone to sin, and we need to keep being reminded of Our Lord’s sacrifice, else we slip into presumption which is another form of arrogance
Christ’s sacrifice on the cross should bring us to sorrow, because every sin we commit is another stripe of scourging and the shame and mockery of the cross he endured
The Apostles taught that the Lord’s supper is the body and blood of Christ. It is only modern men that deny this and replace it with a Saturday afternoon potluck. Hebrews 10 tells us that

28 A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace?

Remove the sacrifice from the Sabbath and there is no Sabbath. If there is no Lord’s supper, then there is no Sabbath. It becomes a mere social club. One that has a form of godliness, but denies its power

Mercy Shown · Friday at 8:56 PM

boughtwithaprice said:
The words do this in remembrance of me, carry with it a perpetual remembering. We are told blessed are the poor in spirit, and blessed are those that hunger and thirst for righteousness

We are not told to take a presumptuous attitude toward our redemption but strive to make our calling and election sure.
If you believe what you are saying, that Jesus paid it all on the cross and we have no further obligation, why teach to keep the Sabbath? Are you adding to the cross? Sure sounds like it

Adding to the cross? I am not adding anything to God's complete work. I am not adding works or doubt that Jesus only plaed part of it. I am not adding my own efforts to the finisher of my faith. In seems that may you are if I understand this post correctly. The cross is complete. Jesus said, "It is finished." Not "it is started." His one sacrifice perfected all of us who believe for ever while still being made holy.

boughtwithaprice said:
Saturday afternoon potluck has nothing to do with the Sabbath, and it is not the Lord’s supper
For a Sabbath to be valid, there must be a sacrifice
We are still prone to sin, and we need to keep being reminded of Our Lord’s sacrifice, else we slip into presumption which is another form of arrogance
Christ’s sacrifice on the cross should bring us to sorrow, because every sin we commit is another stripe of scourging and the shame and mockery of the cross he endured

God forbid. It brings us untold joy and assurance. My sins are removed from me as far as the east is from the west. There is no condemnation for me and because of Jesus I stand before God as if i had never sinned. Praise be to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

boughtwithaprice said:
The Apostles taught that the Lord’s supper is the body and blood of Christ. It is only modern men that deny this and replace it with a Saturday afternoon potluck. Hebrews 10 tells us that

You can check it out under a microscope. The wafer is wheat flour and water until it is digested into waste material.

boughtwithaprice said:
28 A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace?

Remove the sacrifice from the Sabbath and there is no Sabbath. If there is no Lord’s supper, then there is no Sabbath. It becomes a mere social club. One that has a form of godliness, but denies its power

I really am unsure of what you are talking about. There is only one sacrifice under the new covenant and that was Christ, amen.

Mercy Shown · Friday at 9:04 PM

BobRyan said:
In that Mark 7 chapter referenced above Jesus quotes from BOTH the Ten and from the "traditions of man" showing how they were in opposition

The Mark 7 text example above explicitly refutes your claim

So you say but that does not make it so. I am always amazed when people feel they can prove a point like the pope by issuing a bull.

BobRyan said:
In Mark 7 Christ demonstrates that the man made traditions of the Jews were in conflict with the "Word of God", the "Commandment of God"

7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

You miss the bigger picture when you restrict your answers to specific proof texts. In the Gospels Jesus rebuked certain “traditions of men” that, in His view, displaced or distorted God’s commandments. One example was the ceremonial handwashing before meals, a ritual purity practice based on oral tradition rather than the written Law. The Pharisees criticized His disciples for not observing it, but Jesus responded that they were elevating human rules above God’s Word. He also condemned the practice of declaring possessions “Corban,” a vow that allowed someone to dedicate resources to God and thereby avoid supporting their parents, effectively nullifying the command to honor father and mother.

Jesus likewise challenged the burdensome Sabbath regulations that had grown up around the commandment—such as condemning His disciples for plucking grain or Himself for healing on the Sabbath—clarifying that “the Sabbath was made for man.” In addition, He criticized the broader system of ritual washings and purity expansions that went beyond what Moses had written. At the heart of His rebuke was not tradition itself, but traditions that contradicted God’s commands, added man-made burdens, and shifted the focus from inward righteousness to outward ritual, thereby “making the word of God of no effect” through human teaching.

The principle of shifting focus from righteousness that comes apart from the law to righteousness obtained from the law is very much at play here.

Mercy Shown · Friday at 9:09 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
The example that was being used was washing hands before eating Mat 15:1-2 not the Sabbath. The Pharisees were not Sabbath keepers, they kept their sabbath, not the Sabbath of the LORD. Exo20:8-11 Isa 58:13 Jesus was persecuted and killed because He never kept their sabbath. Sadly history is going to repeat itself over the Sunday law, God's people will be persecuted for obeying God's commandments, instead of obeying the commandments and principles of this world. Rev 12:17

They placed their man-made traditions over obedience to the commandments of God something Jesus condemned. Its trusting our own words or words of men over God's. God's words have power in them, ours have none.

For some people sabbath keeping has become a man made tradition and an idol the draws people from focusing on the cross to focusing on behaviour. When people spend their time pointing to not just the Ten Commandments but a single commandment the implication is more than clear. It begins to eclipse the Cross, the only source of salvation and righteousness for everyone who will receive it. It can become the mint and cummin of modern day phariseeism.

BNR32FAN · Friday at 9:50 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
Than find one verse in all of Scripture that plainly says Moses wrote the Ten Commandments.

Well that would be like finding a passage in all of of scripture that plainly says that God commanded everyone since creation to observe the sabbath but you don’t seem to have any trouble making that claim. I think Exodus 24:4 saying that Moses wrote all that the Lord had spoken is pretty self explanatory.

BNR32FAN · Friday at 10:04 PM

truthuprootsevil said:
And when Paul as you say so eloquently put it, the Sabbath he was talking of was the annual Sabbaths or holidays Sabbath, not The Seventh-Day Sabbath Paul himself kept The Seventh-Day Sabbath. As was Paul's custom He went into the synagogues on the 7th Day Sabbath, Acts 17:2 _ 16:13 _ 19:8 _ 13:14-16 & 42-44 _ 15:21_ 18:4-11.

In every one of those passages except Acts 15 Paul was not gathering with believers on the sabbath he was preaching to Jews and Proselytes reasoning and persuading them to believe the gospel. In Acts 15 James specifically said “from ancient generations Moses has been preached in every synagogue.” Obviously Moses was still being preached on every sabbath in the synagogues since Paul was preaching to Jews and Proselytes in the synagogues. See, when a gentile is called a proselyte it means that they converted to Judaism but they’re NOT a Christian. If they believe the gospel they’re called a believer or a Christian, not a Proselyte.

BNR32FAN · Friday at 10:11 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
If you won't even acknowledge the difference between before sin and after sin, nothing that relates to it will matter.

Oh I already knew you wouldn’t, because you can’t. That’s what happens when you can’t defend your theology. You can ask me anything you want about my theology and I’ll give you a straight answer every time.

tall73 · Friday at 10:41 PM

Mercy Shown said:
We should be very careful before invoking Matthew 15 against fellow believers who are seeking to understand how the New Covenant relates to the Old. Jesus rebuked people for nullifying God’s commands with human loopholes — not for wrestling with how His own redemptive work reshapes covenant obligations. Those are not the same category.

If we’re going to warn about 2 Peter 3:16, we should apply it evenly: it cautions against distorting Paul, not against reading him. The question isn’t whether God’s Word is serious — we agree it is. The question is whether Christ’s fulfillment changes how certain commands function. That deserves argument from the whole counsel of Scripture, not the suggestion that disagreement equals rebellion.

Well stated.

I certainly want to keep every commandment God wants me to keep. And my views have changed on this subject over the years. But I try to keep looking at all of Scripture to figure it out, because it does matter.

But ultimately I have broken His law, and need grace. And the good news of the gospel is that there is grace. I have to rest on that, even if there are many texts that need to be understood further by me. I have been on both sides of this issue. By definition I was wrong either then or now. I have to trust that to my own Master I will stand, and He is able to make me stand.

Mercy Shown said:
I think the core issue here is not whether God’s commandments are holy — we both agree they are (Rom. 7:12).

Agreed.

Mercy Shown said:
Simply saying “Romans 14 doesn’t use the word Sabbath” does not settle the matter. Romans 14 discusses disputes over food and days in a mixed Jewish–Gentile church. In Paul’s world, the primary “day” controversy between Jews and Gentiles was Sabbath observance. If Paul believed the seventh-day Sabbath remained binding in the same covenantal way as at Sinai, it would be extraordinary for him to say, “Let each be fully convinced in his own mind,” without correction. That is not how apostles speak about binding moral absolutes like adultery or idolatry.

Agreed. He uses very broad language.

Mercy Shown said:
Regarding Colossians 2, the distinction between the “handwriting of ordinances” and the Ten Commandments is not as clean as is often claimed.

The term is known to mean handwritten certificate of debt, with its ordinances. It is not here a reference to the book of the law of Moses.

And we see various translations that recognize this meaning of certificate of debt. This is in line with the context. The context is not removing portions of the law. Jesus paid the debt, and took away the certificate of our debt, our record of sins that was against us.

The statement about the handwritten certificate of debt is actually a continuation of the clause before:

Colossians 2:13-14

13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. (NKJV)

The phrase "having wiped out the handwritten certificate of bond with its requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us," is an explanation of the forgiveness of all trespasses. It continues the thought.

And we know this because the appointed times were NOT against the Colossians at all. First of all, because as Gentiles they were not under that covenant to begin with. So they didn't even apply to them. Second because they were not against anyone, but they point to Jesus.

The pronouns Paul uses show this as well.

Paul uses the second person plural, "you."

3 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh

He does not include himself in this portion because it does not apply to him. He was not an uncircumcised in the flesh Gentile. He was circumcised on the eighth day, of the tribe of Benjamin.

And what does he say about them?

He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses

They are made alive together with Christ and these uncircumcised Gentile believers have been forgiven all their trespasses. Then Paul continues the thought, with a participle, explaining that forgiveness by saying God wiped out the handwritten certificate of debt.

And here he DOES include himself, changing to the first person plural:

14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us.

The handwriting was against both Paul, a circumcised Jew, and the uncircumcised Gentiles. It was not the appointed times which pointed to Jesus, and were a perpetual statute with Israel. That didn't apply to the Colossians at all.

It was the record of their sin, and Paul's sin, that they could never repay. Jesus paid it. He blotted out the record of their debt, He forgave and blotted out the record of their transgressions.

When we step back and look at the whole argument, we again see this affirmed:

Colossians 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. (NKJV)

Their confidence is not in circumcision, or observation of appointed times. They are complete in Him, buried with Him in Baptism, made alive with Him, previously dead in transgressions, but now having all their trespasses forgiven, and even the record removed.

Their confidence is in Christ, the reality to which the shadows point.

Mercy Shown said:
Paul explicitly includes “festival, new moon, or Sabbath days” (Col. 2:16). That triad is a standard Old Testament way of referring to the entire Jewish calendar system (cf. 1 Chr. 23:31; 2 Chr. 2:4; Ezek. 45:17).

Yes, and those are themselves an expansion on Numbers 28 and 29 in the law, which list all the appointed times, including the Sabbath, and the sacrifices for each (food and drink).

And Ezekiel 45:17 is followed up with a description of the sacrifices as well, and it includes the weekly Sabbath sacrifice being spelled out in 46, while elaborating upon Ezekiel 45:17. This listing in Ezekiel 45 is a short listing, quite parallel to Col. 2.

The OT context undoubtedly included the Sabbath in the appointed times of Israel. And Paul is referring to the same.

Mercy Shown said:
Paul calls them “a shadow of things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” He does not carve out the weekly Sabbath as exempt from that category. Nor does he say, “Continue observing the seventh day, but not the annual Sabbaths.” Instead, he warns against being judged over them.

Agreed. And the appointed times were not blotted out, which we can see from other Scripture. In the text they are still there, pointing to Christ.

And this makes sense because they were said to be a statute forever with Israel. For instance, regarding Pentecost:

Leviticus 23:20-21

20 The priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits as a wave offering before the LORD, with the two lambs. They shall be holy to the LORD for the priest. 21 And you shall proclaim on the same day that it is a holy convocation to you. You shall do no customary work on it. It shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations. (NKJV)

Which Paul was still eager to keep, going to appear before the Lord as commanded:

Acts 20:16

16 For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the Day of Pentecost. (NKJV)

He is to appear in Jerusalem before the Lord:

Exodus 23:14-17

14 “Three times you shall keep a feast to Me in the year: 15 You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread (you shall eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded you, at the time appointed in the month of Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt; none shall appear before Me empty); 16 and the Feast of Harvest, the firstfruits of your labors which you have sown in the field; and the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you have gathered in the fruit of your labors from the field.

17 “Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord GOD. (NKJV)

The Jewish believers in Jerusalem kept right on keeping the law--which pointed to Christ. They were zealous for it, but knew it pointed to Christ.

Acts 21:20

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law (NKJV)

And they knew that Paul was not actually turning away Jewish believers in the diaspora from Moses or the temple, as was claimed. But they also noted their agreement with the council decision that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised and keep the whole law.

The Pharisee contingent among the Jewish Christians advocated for this, to command them to be circumcised and obey the whole law:

Acts 15:5

5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” (NKJV)

The council did not accept this:

Acts 15:24-27

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. (NKJV)

The background is that normally a foreigner who wished to join Himself to the Lord would be circumcised and keep the law and become as a native of the land:

Exodus 12:48-50

If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. 49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.” 50 All the people of Israel did just as the LORD commanded Moses and Aaron.

The gentiles in Christ were not required to do this, or to observe the Passover, or the law of Moses.

Mercy Shown said:
Appealing to Matthew 5:17–19 must also be done carefully. Jesus fulfilled the Law — and fulfillment does not mean simple continuation in unchanged form. The same chapter intensifies commandments beyond their letter (“You have heard… but I say to you”), demonstrating that fulfillment transforms how the Law functions.

Yes, and while He quotes from the ten, He also quotes from other portions of the law not in the ten. They were all in view. They didn't go away.

And it was not just the law, but the law and the prophets that were fulfilled, because they pointed to Him:

Matthew 5:17

17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. (NKJV)

They were not removed, or "blotted out". They were fulfilled.

tall73 · Friday at 11:04 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
You are making a different argument than I have ever made. God gave Moses all of the other laws that Moses wrote down in a book, these all came after sin- sin is breaking the law of God that GOD wrote

It is not just the ten commandments that define sin:

The two great commandments are not in the ten, but in the "law of Moses", as you put it, which you acknowledge was given by God as well.

Matthew 22:35-40

35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”

37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (NKJV)

Upon these two great principles all the law AND the prophets hang. They are the basis for the rest, not the reverse. Moreover, in the law of Moses we have

warning against favoritism, referenced by James
commands against incest, still in effect in I Corinthians 5
laws against homosexuality, still in effect in I Corinthians 6
laws against kidnapping, and lying referenced in 1 Timothy 1 (as distinct from bearing false witness in a trial. Lying is treated on its own in the law).

Etc.

There are commands regarding morality in all the law:

1 Timothy 1:5-11

5 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, 6 from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm.

8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust. (NKJV)

tall73 · Friday at 11:29 PM

BNR32FAN said:
Then Paul goes on to explain that appointed times were removed but if the Saturday sabbath still remains then how are the rulers and authorities disarmed?

The handwritten certificate of debt was the record of their sins. The powers disarmed are sin and death, the devil, etc. which other Scriptures speak of. He did this through the cross. He paid the debt they owed, canceled their record of sin. They were no longer condemned.

1 Corinthians 15:25-26

25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. (NKJV)

Hebrews 2:14-15

14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. (NKJV)

Romans 7:11-12

1 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. (NKJV)

Romans 8:3-4

3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (NKJV)

tall73 · Friday at 11:42 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
I never said I do not believe that Moses could have copied and wrote down the Ten Commandments- but its not stated anywhere in Scripture.

This is the Sabbath commandment in the list of ten commandments in Deuteronomy 5. It points to Israel's Redemption by God from their bondage in Egypt as a reason for keeping the Sabbath. Who do you think wrote it down?

Deuteronomy 5:12-15

12 Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. 15 And remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. (NKJV)

tall73 · 2026-02-14T00:12:05-0600

BNR32FAN said:
Lol what a cop out. You keep mentioning it and I’ve never asked you why you think it’s so significant. I’m betting it’s because I already posed a problem with your answer before you had a chance to give it when I mentioned green plants being commanded as food before sin so now you realize that this superficial idea that if God makes something before sin then it’s supposed to be for all time but that wasn’t actually the case tho with the green plants so now you don’t know what to say about it. Am I close, or are you just going to keep it a secret?

You are not exactly close to how I think she means it.

[NOTE: per Sabbathblessings' request I have edited to note that this is my understanding of her beliefs. .]

I don't think she is saying that since the Sabbath command was given before sin, for that reason it is unchangeable.

Your example noted that diet changed at God's instigation after the fall, and that is true. Something isn't unchangeable in this age because of how it was at creation. There is precedent for God having us do things differently in a sinful world, than before the fall.

They would note that creation was very good, per Scripture, and without sin, and so the ideal in that sense, even in the food example. So the changing of diet was an accommodation necessitated by the fall.

As another example, slightly less controversial than the food laws, or Sabbath for Adventists, we wear clothes now, and because Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed, that doesn't mean we should imitate that at all times currently, even if it was the ideal. Clothing was given after the fall, we are in a sinful world, and God gave them a covering for a reason.

She of course does think the Sabbath didn't change, and that it is still a sin to break it.

But that is not exactly what she is driving at.

What she means is that if the Sabbath was given in the garden, then it predates the fall, and the need for redemption, and therefore is not pointing to redemption through the cross.

This is also why Bob notes that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. As he sees them both being made together in creation week, prior to sin, and so not pointing to redemption.

They see the Sabbath as before the sin problem, so not pointing to the resolution of the sin problem. Hence, it cannot be a shadow pointing to Christ, in the way animal sacrifice was, because those were particularly instituted to deal with sin.

pasifika · 2026-02-14T00:34:28-0600

tall73 said:
You are not exactly close to how she means it. She is not saying that since the Sabbath command was given before sin, for that reason it is unchangeable.

Your example noted that diet changed at God's instigation after the fall, and that is true. Something isn't unchangeable in this age because of how it was at creation. There is precedent for God having us do things differently in a sinful world, than before the fall.

They would note that creation was very good, per Scripture, and without sin, and so the ideal in that sense, even in the food example. So the changing of diet was an accommodation necessitated by the fall.

As another example, slightly less controversial than the food laws, or Sabbath for Adventists, we wear clothes now, and I haven't seen Adventists argue we should be naked and unashamed, because that was how they were before the fall, at creation. They recognize the ideal was different in Eden, that clothing is a result of the fall, but we are in a sinful world, and God gave them a covering for a reason.

She of course does think the Sabbath didn't change, and that it is still a sin to break it.

But that is not exactly what she is driving at.

What she means is that if the Sabbath was given in the garden, then it predates the fall, and the need for redemption, and therefore is not pointing to redemption through the cross.

This is also why Bob notes that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. As he sees them both being made together in creation week, prior to sin, and so not pointing to redemption. We can look at all the various views, which agree or disagree with all the above. But that is what they are getting at.

They see the Sabbath as before the sin problem, so not pointing to the resolution of the sin problem. Hence, it cannot be a shadow pointing to Christ, in the way animal sacrifice was, because those were particularly instituted to deal with sin.

Hi, thank you for explaining that more clearly.
So here is the question, why then the Sabbath command includes in the law given in Sinai which point to Christ? Luke 24:44

Also, who rested on the 7th day in creation? Isn't Christ? Heb 1:10 etc

Thanks

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Sabbath Keeping and The Gospel

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

He’s a Way of life

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Well-Known Member

Similar threads