An Adventist view of the Sabbath Commandment - and why it is applicable to all mankind

Danthemailman said:

The moral precepts of 9 of the 10 commandments are repeated under the new covenant, yet the command to keep the sabbath day is not binding on Christians under the new covenant.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me. - Acts 14:15

2. You shall make no idols. - 1 John 5:21

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. - 1 Timothy 6:1; James 2:7; James 5:12

4. Keep the Sabbath day holy. - Not binding on the Church - Colossians 2:16-17

5. Honor your father and your mother. - Ephesians 6:1-2

6. You shall not murder. - Romans 13:9-10; 1 John 3:15

7. You shall not commit adultery. - Romans 13:9-10; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

8. You shall not steal. - Romans 13:9-10; Ephesians 4:28

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. - Romans 13:9-10; Colossians 3:9-10

10. You shall not covet. - Romans 13:9-10; Ephesians 5:3

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

I am not arguing against Peter as a high ranking Apostle among the Apostles of the first century - just that the Matt 16 chapter has Christ saying to him "get thee behind me Satan" - in direct rebuke which is a far cry from any claim that Peter was not making mistakes or that the foundation the church is Peter. Matt 16 does not say

In the Bible we have Christ as the Rock "Petros" foundation stone as in Matt 7 - and we also have "no other foundation" allowed according to 1 Cor 3:11 - other than Christ.

Someone has argued that the "apostles and prophets" as a single group
"foundation of the apostles and prophets" Eph 2:20 a associated with "foundation"- which also does not single out Peter.

Matt 16
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church

"This Rock" is the affirmation Peter just made : “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

An affirmation that both Catholics and Protestants all affirm in agreement.

Peter , by contrast, came up flawed in that very same chapter and is called "Satan" at some level. Which is not high praise. So given that "no other foundation" can anyone lay except for Christ and given that even in the broadest sense for foundation in Eph 2:20 it is "apostles and prophets" rather than "just Peter" - it is hard to make the "just Peter" case from scripture.

I realize a Catholic POV may be that they prefer to work "just Peter" into that foundation idea - and of course others would differ with it - but I think the texts provide a lot of support for another option other than the one the Catholic Church is selecting.

BTW - you will never find a single quote from me saying "The Catholic Church is the Adventist church's opponent". I view everyone as Christians - we all have free will. I see historic actions of the Catholic church in the torture and killing of many millions of Christians in the dark ages - as being wrong. But I don't think that Catholic Christians today are trying to get that sort of thing started up and a lot of them view that history as a product of bad theology, superstition, politics of the day, people with sinful natures etc. Catholic historians also point to non-Catholic groups who held power for a much shorter period of time -- that also engaged in such crimes and I believe they too would now admit that was wrong to do.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

There is a book "From Sabbath to Sunday" by Samuel Bacchiocchi that was published by the Vatican Press (Pontifical Gregorian University Press, Rome, 1977 - and the book does have the Imprimatur) as a doctoral thesis while attending the Vatican University as a Seventh-day Adventist student, that goes through those historic references to Sabbath keepers in the first 3 centuries.

He makes a good case for the fact that the Christian church in Jerusalem was known for being Sabbath keeping and Christians from Jerusalem could be identified as Sabbath keeping in the 2nd century.

Sabbath keeping by Eastern Orthodox until at least the mid 4th Century (see pg 188)

And we have this statement from Leo Tres in "The Faith Explained" (which also has the Imprimatur)


( "The Faith Explained" - page 242-243.)
"we know that in the Old Testament it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord’s Day. That was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day..the early Christian church determined as the Lord’s Day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...the reason for changing the Lord’s Day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord’s Day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord’s Day on the say-so of the catholic church.

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

It is still very much the case.



There is a history that is printed there showing that the Popes began calling each other "Antichrist" (rival popes each with their own papal army and each with their own successors) during the period of multi-popes prior to Luther doing it.



“A Concise History of the Catholic Church” – Chpt “Papacy Survives Schism” p165-169 by Thomas Bokenkotter (A Historian who is himself - Roman Catholic)

Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter writes that in 1378 an assembly of 13 Cardinals (later joined by 3 Italian Cardinals) who had previously elected Pope Urban VI (April 7, 1378), subsequently elected Pope Clement VII (Sept 20, 1378) and declared Pope Urban VI's election invalid "and denounced him as antichrist, demon, apostate, and tyrant"

<ref> Thomas Bokenkotter, "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" ISBN-0-385-41147-2 Chapter 17 p167</ref>.

((This is significant because it shows the contemporary context for Martin Luther prior to his statements about the Papacy)).


Antipope - is apparently the name/title given to a Pope by his rival and if that rival is victor in the contest then the name sticks.

https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/4_Antipopes.pdf
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Antipope

Notice how many "antipopes" exist at the same time in 1410?


================= inquisition question
A lot of Christians today think there is absolutely no justification for torture and murder of fellow Christians or even of non-Christians just for the "crime" of not sharing the same doctrinal conviction on a specific subject. I think that is a good thing.

In reference to the various statements in the book Great Controversy you said:


Which is to be expected. Christians differ on a number of points but we can still discuss.



I agree that not having the same view on the Sabbath the one I find in the Bible - does not mean someone is not a Christian.

But I do not agree that the Rom 14 text deals with the 10 commandments or the Sabbath commandment specifically as if there are only "nine" now and one of them is optional.

Rather Rom 14 is dealing with Bible-approved annual holy days of Lev 23, where 3 were mandatory in the OT and the others were optional. The Gen 2:1-3 Sabbath was never optional. Dies Domini says that it is not even "Jewish" but is basic to all mankind.

Gal 4:8-12 says that the observance of even one pagan day (as a pagan holiday) is to be condemned. Rom 14 says "one man observes one day above another while another man observes every day.. he who observes the day observes it to the LORD" - and it rejects any condemnation of that observance.

The only way both are true - is that Rom 14 only deals with Bible approved annual feast days.

Click to expand...

LoveGodsWord said:

Questions for you Daniel.

1. What do you think my post you are quoting from is saying and are you agreeing with my post you are quoting from or what is it in my post that you are quoting from that you disagree with and why? (scripture please).

2. Did you even read what you linked from those websites and documents?

Hi Love God's Word, yes I read the links. I try to be objective by presenting best arguments from all side. Personally, I am a Romans 14 believer. As long as one is doing it unto the Lord, all is good.

I think there is a thin line between legalism and perfectionism.
Legalism is trying to keep the law under one's own power.
Perfectionism II Peter 1, Gal 5 is choosing to be obedient as one understands God's work via the power, straight of the Holy Spirit. Romans 8 tells us something like if one is walking in the Spirit, there is no need for the law to show us what we do wrong.

When reading posts I look for Bias and Honesty. The First and Eight day for example is clearly Sunday. The Seventh Day is clearly Sabbath. The Lord's day is clearly Sunday.

So, in short do it unto the Lord, you will be fine.

I do the same thing when talking about Catholic issues too. Which is why I am often accused of being Catholic.

So, who do you say is the best SDA apologetics?


........

The Relationship of Grace to Law and Works

QUESTION 14
It is generally understood that Adventists teach that salvation is by the grace of God—but plus the works of the law. What is the actual Adventist concept of the relation of grace to law and to human works? Is not the emphasis of Mrs. White on the necessity of works and obedience, rather than on the abounding saving grace of God?

135

There has been regrettable misunderstanding as to our teaching on grace, law, and works, and their inter-relationships. According to Seventh-day Adventist belief, there is, and can be, no salvation through the law, or by human works of the law, but only through the saving grace of God. This principle, to us, is basic. This transcendent provision of the grace of God is emphasized both in the Old and the New Testament, although the truth of God's wondrous grace reaches its fullest unfolding, and most complete manifestation, in the New Testament times and record.

I. Grace Pre-eminent in the New Testament

The word "grace" (Greek, charis), occurs some 150 times in the New Testament. Paul made more use of this significant term than did any other New Testament

136

writer, there being some 100 occurrences in his epistles. His close associate, Luke, used the word about 25 times in Luke and Acts, these two men thereby accounting for about five sixths of all the New Testament occurrences. "Grace" was by no means a new word invented by the apostles; the term was widely used in a variety of associated meanings in the LXX and in classical and later Greek literature. However, the New Testament often seems to attach a special significance to "grace" that is not found fully expressed elsewhere.

In the New Testament, grace is set forth as a distinctively divine quality. New Testament writers speak of "the grace of our God" (Jude 4); "the grace of Christ" (Gal. 1:6); and "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal. 6:18). Expressions like these constitute the opening and closing salutations in the letters of the apostles. They are found at the beginning of Peter's two letters, as well as in the fourteen epistles of the apostle Paul. They also appear at the close of these letters of spiritual counsel and encouragement.

This divine grace is further described by a remarkably wide range of adjectives and adverbs. It is called the "true grace of God" (1 Peter 5:12); abounding, or "abundant," grace (2 Cor. 4:15); the "manifold grace of God" (1 Peter 4:19); the "sufficient" grace of God (2 Cor. 12:9); the "exceeding grace of God" (2 Cor. 9:14). There is also the expression "grace for grace" (John 1:16); and reference to Christ Jesus our Lord as being "full of grace and truth" (John 1:14; compare verse 17). It is also the "free gift" of God (Rom. 5:15, 18).

137

II. Bible Definition or Description of Grace

The distinctive meaning attached to the term "grace" in the New Testament, and especially in the writings of Paul, is that of the abundant, saving love of God toward sinners as revealed in Jesus Christ. Obviously, since all men have sinned and are destitute of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), such favor and loving-kindness on God's part are wholly undeserved and unmerited by sinful man. Men have lived in hatred and rebellion against God (Rom. 1:21, 31, 32), have perverted His truth (verses 18, 25), have preferred to worship beasts and reptiles (verse 23), have defiled His image in their own bodies (verses 24-27), have blasphemed His name (Rom. 2:24), and have even despised God for His patience and forbearance (verse 4). Finally, they murdered His Son, sent to save them (Acts 7:52). Yet God has continued to regard man with love and kindness, that the revelation of His goodness may lead men to repentance (Rom. 2:4).

This is the grace of God in its peculiar New Testament sense. It is God's unlimited, all-inclusive, transforming love toward sinful men and women; and the good news of this grace, as revealed in Jesus Christ, is "the power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1:16). It is not merely God's mercy and willingness to forgive, but it is an active, energizing, transforming power to save. Thus it may fill a person (John 1:14), it may be given (Rom. 12:3, 6), it is all-sufficient (2 Cor. 12:9; compare Rom. 5:20), it reigns (Rom. 5:21), it teaches (Titus 2:11, 12), it establishes the heart (Heb. 13:9). In some instances "grace" seems almost to be equivalent

138

to "gospel" (Col. 1:6) and to the working of God generally (Acts 11:23; 1 Peter 5:12). Ellen G. White wrote:

Divine grace is the great element of saving power.—Gospel Workers, p. 70.

Christ gave His life to make it possible for man to be restored to the image of God. It is the power of His grace that draws men together in obedience to the truth.—Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students, p. 249.

The "grace of God" has been fittingly called the "love of God"; that is, love, not so much in a general sense as in a specific sense; not so much love merely as love, but love directionally. Grace is the love of God flowing—flowing not upward or outward, but downward. It is that wonderful divine mercy and undeserved favor that flows from the great loving heart of God. And specifically, it is His love that flows downward from heaven to undeserving sinners here on earth. While deserving nothing but the wrath of God, we become, through this marvelous grace, the recipients of this love, this grace, which we do not in the least merit.

III. Ellen G. White on the Sovereignty of Grace

As to the apparently misunderstood teachings of Ellen G. White on the relationship of grace, law, and works, please note the following expression, written in 1905. Her writings are in pronounced harmony with Scripture, as well as sound historical theology.

Grace is an attribute of God exercised toward undeserving human beings. We did not seek for it, but it was sent in search of us. God rejoices to bestow His grace upon us, not because we are worthy, but because we are so utterly unworthy. Our only claim to His mercy is our great need.—The Ministry of Healing, p 161.

139

More than that, the same writer adds that everything we enjoy, in the matchless blessings of salvation comes to us through the grace of God. Thus:

We owe everything to grace, free grace, sovereign grace. Grace in the covenant ordained our adoption. Grace in the Saviour effected our redemption, our regeneration, and our adoption to heirship with Christ.—Testimonies for the Church (1882), vol. 6, 268.

Recognized theological classics have stated these same truths in this way. Charles Hodge, formerly professor of systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, declares:

The word [charis, "grace"] . . . means a favourable disposition, or kind feeling; and especially love as exercised toward the inferior, dependent, or unworthy. This is represented as the crowning attribute of the divine nature. Its manifestation is declared to be the grand end of the whole scheme of redemption. . . . He [God] raises men from spiritual death, "and makes them sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace." (Eph. 2:6, 7.) Therefore it is often asserted that salvation is of grace. The gospel is a system of grace. All its blessings are gratuitously bestowed; all is so ordered that in every step of the progress of redemption and in its consummation, the grace, or undeserved love of God, is conspicuously displayed. Nothing is given or promised on the ground of merit. Everything is an undeserved favour. That salvation was provided at all, is a matter of grace and not of debt.—-Systematic Theology (1871), vol. 2, p. 654.

With this, Adventists are in complete agreement.

Click to expand...

boughtwithaprice said:

I wanted to let you know Bob that it has been a pleasure speaking with you in this thread. Your replies have been honest thorough and without malice. I get the sense that you really want to follow all the commandments of God.
I am intrigued by the SDA, although I disagree with some of its conclusions. I wonder if you would be willing to continue our conversation here. The thread is about the Sabbath itself, but I don’t think it’s completely off topic to discuss the differences with the Catholic Church, which from reading The Great Controversy, would be SDAs opponent.

first to discuss the argument of Peter as the rock on which Christ founded the church. The Petra/Petros argument has been largely debunked. The differences in the words have to do with the gender of the object and not the contrast of Boulder vs pebble. Latin, Greek and Italian are languages that place gender on nouns. Petra is a feminine noun, Peter is a man, so the Petra had to be masculinized with the -os instead of the -a. If the Bible meant to call Peter the little rock, it would have used lithos which is the word for small stone. Also Christ gave him some very powerful responsibilities. He said I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven. This authority was not given to the other disciples or all believers but directly to Peter. The reason would be clear, heaven is a kingdom, not a democracy.

I understand you disagree. What was the church in the first three centuries before Constantine? Are we able to identify the Sabbath keeping believers?

Click to expand...

HIM said:

No according to Jesus we are to let our light shine before men that they see our good works that our Father be glorified. In respect to this He said that, "Until Heaven and earth pass away not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law until all is fulfilled." Therefore he said in respect to the law, he mentioned, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven". And then in respect to that he says, "For I say unto you". That means as in verse 18 that what follows is directly related to what is about to be said. The use of the word "for" dictates this as does the word "that". So in respect to being called least in the Kingdom of Heaven for breaking one of these least commandments, and teaching men so, except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
So what does it mean to be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven?

It means We shall in no case enter therein if we shall break one of these least (smallest) commandment and teach men so.

By the way, If there are commandments that are considered least, small in the mind and heart of God that means there are greater ones also.

Deut 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

For all the law and the prophets hang, depend on these two. Matthew 22:37-40

Incidentally how can we be under that which now has become part of us through Christ?

For God has said His Law is in our hearts and in our minds, His Word in our hearts and mouths that is the word of faith in which we preach.


Matt 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Matt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Matt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matt 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matt 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

I am not arguing against Peter as a high ranking Apostle among the Apostles of the first century - just that the Matt 16 chapter has Christ saying to him "get thee behind me Satan" - in direct rebuke which is a far cry from any claim that Peter was not making mistakes or that the foundation the church is Peter. Matt 16 does not say

In the Bible we have Christ as the Rock "Petros" foundation stone as in Matt 7 - and we also have "no other foundation" allowed according to 1 Cor 3:11 - other than Christ.

Someone has argued that the "apostles and prophets" as a single group
"foundation of the apostles and prophets" Eph 2:20 a associated with "foundation"- which also does not single out Peter.

Matt 16
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church

"This Rock" is the affirmation Peter just made : “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

An affirmation that both Catholics and Protestants all affirm in agreement.

Peter , by contrast, came up flawed in that very same chapter and is called "Satan" at some level. Which is not high praise. So given that "no other foundation" can anyone lay except for Christ and given that even in the broadest sense for foundation in Eph 2:20 it is "apostles and prophets" rather than "just Peter" - it is hard to make the "just Peter" case from scripture.

I realize a Catholic POV may be that they prefer to work "just Peter" into that foundation idea - and of course others would differ with it - but I think the texts provide a lot of support for another option other than the one the Catholic Church is selecting.

BTW - you will never find a single quote from me saying "The Catholic Church is the Adventist church's opponent". I view everyone as Christians - we all have free will. I see historic actions of the Catholic church in the torture and killing of many millions of Christians in the dark ages - as being wrong. But I don't think that Catholic Christians today are trying to get that sort of thing started up and a lot of them view that history as a product of bad theology, superstition, politics of the day, people with sinful natures etc. Catholic historians also point to non-Catholic groups who held power for a much shorter period of time -- that also engaged in such crimes and I believe they too would now admit that was wrong to do.

Click to expand...

Daniel Marsh said:

613 laws
https://havurahshirhadash.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/mitzvot1.pdf

Click to expand...

Daniel Marsh said:

613 laws
https://havurahshirhadash.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/mitzvot1.pdf

Click to expand...

LoveGodsWord said:

Do we need to keep these laws today? If not why not? (Before you answer please consider Hebrews 7:1-25; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22)

..................

That the kohanim shall put on priestly vestments for the service (Exodus 28:2)• Not to tear the High Kohein's robe (Exodus 28:32)
• That the kohein shall not enter the Sanctuary at all times (i.e., at times when he is not performing service)(Leviticus 16:2)
• That the ordinary kohein shall not defile himself by contact with any dead, other than immediate relatives(Leviticus 21:1-3)
• That the kohanim defile themselves for their deceased relatives (by attending their burial), and mourn for themlike other Israelites, who are commanded to mourn for their relatives (Leviticus 21:3)
• That a kohein who had an immersion during the day (to cleanse him from his uncleanness) shall not serve in theSanctuary until after sunset (Leviticus 21:6)
• That a kohein shall not marry a divorced woman (Leviticus 21:7)• That a kohein shall not marry a harlot (Leviticus 21:7)
• That a kohein shall not marry a profaned woman (Leviticus 21:7)
• To show honor to a kohein, and to give him precedence in all things that are holy (Leviticus 21:8)
• That a High Kohein shall not defile himself with any dead, even if they are relatives (Leviticus 21:11
• That a High Kohein shall not go (under the same roof) with a dead body (Leviticus 21:11)• That the High Kohein shall marry a virgin (Leviticus 21:13)
• That the High Kohein shall not marry a widow (Leviticus 21:14)
• That the High Kohein shall not cohabit with a widow, even without marriage, because he profanes her (Leviticus21:15)
• That a person with a physical blemish shall not serve (in the Sanctuary) (Leviticus 21:17
• That a kohein with a temporary blemish shall not serve there (Leviticus 21:21)
• That a person with a physical blemish shall not enter the Sanctuary further than the altar (Leviticus 21:23)• That a kohein who is unclean shall not serve (in the Sanctuary) (Leviticus 22:2-3)
• To send the unclean out of the Camp of the Shechinah, that is, out of the Sanctuary (Numbers 5:2)
• That a kohein who is unclean shall not enter the courtyard (Numbers 5:2-3)
• That the kohanim shall bless Israel (Numbers 6:23)
• To set apart a portion of the dough for the kohein (Numbers 15:20)
• That the Levites shall not occupy themselves with the service that belongs to the kohanim, nor the kohanim withthat belonging to the Levites (Numbers 18:3)9
• That one not a descendant of Aaron in the male line shall not serve (in the Sanctuary) (Numbers 18:4-7)
• That the Levite shall serve in the Sanctuary (Numbers 18:23)
• To give the Levites cities to dwell in, these to serve also as cities of refuge (Numbers 35:2)
• That none of the tribe of Levi shall take any portion of territory in the land (of Israel) (Deuteronomy 18:1)
• That none of the tribe of Levi shall take any share of the spoil (at the conquest of the Promised Land)(Deuteronomy 18:1)
• That the kohanim shall serve in the Sanctuary in divisions, but on festivals, they all serve together (Deuteronomy18:6-8)

• That an uncircumcised person shall not eat of the t'rumah (heave offering), and the same applies to other holythings. This rule is inferred from the law of the Paschal offering, by similarity of phrase
(Exodus 12:44-45 andLeviticus 22:10)
• That a sojourner with a kohein or his hired servant shall not eat of the t'rumah (Leviticus 22:10)• Not to eat tevel (something from which the t'rumah and tithe have not yet been separated) (Leviticus 22:15)

• Not to build an altar of hewn stone (Exodus 20:22)• Not to mount the altar by steps (Exodus 20:23)
• To build the Sanctuary (Exodus 25:8)
• Not to remove the staves from the Ark (Exodus 25:15)
• To set the showbread and the frankincense before Hashem every Shabbat (Exodus 25:30)
• To kindle lights in the Sanctuary (Exodus 27:21)
• That the breastplate shall not be loosened from the ephod (Exodus 28:28)
• To offer up incense twice daily (Exodus 30:7)
• Not to offer strange incense nor any sacrifice upon the golden altar (Exodus 30:9)• That the kohein shall wash his hands and feet at the time of service (Exodus 30:19)10
• To prepare the oil of anointment and anoint high kohanim and kings with it (Exodus 30:31)
• Not to compound oil for lay use after the formula of the anointing oil (Exodus 30:32-33)• Not to anoint a stranger with the anointing oil (Exodus 30:3
• Not to compound anything after the formula of the incense (Exodus 30:37)
• That he who, in error, makes unlawful use of sacred things, shall make restitution of the value of his trespass andadd a fifth (Leviticus 5:16)
• To remove the ashes from the altar (Leviticus 6:3
• To keep fire always burning on the altar of the burnt-offering (Leviticus 6:6)
• Not to extinguish the fire on the altar (Leviticus 6:6)
• That a kohein shall not enter the Sanctuary with disheveled hair (Leviticus 10:6)• That a kohein shall • Not enter the Sanctuary with torn garments (Leviticus 10:6)
• That the kohein shall not leave the Courtyard of the Sanctuary, during service (Leviticus 10:7)
• That an intoxicated person shall not enter the Sanctuary nor give decisions in matters of the Law (Leviticus10:9-11)
• To revere the Sanctuary (Leviticus 19:30)• That when the Ark is carried, it should be carried on the shoulder (Numbers 7:9)
• To observe the second Passover (Numbers 9:11)
• To eat the flesh of the Paschal lamb on it, with unleavened bread and bitter herbs (Numbers 9:11)
• Not to leave any flesh of the Paschal lamb brought on the second Passover until the morning (Numbers 9:12)
• Not to break a bone of the Paschal lamb brought on the second Passover (Numbers 9:12)
• To sound the trumpets at the offering of sacrifices and in times of trouble (Numbers 10:9-10)
• To watch over the edifice continually (Numbers 18:2)
• Not to allow the Sanctuary to remain unwatched (Numbers 18:5)
• That an offering shall be brought by one who has in error committed a trespass against sacred things, or robbed,or lain carnally with a bond-maid betrothed to a man, or denied what was deposited with him and swore falsely tosupport his denial. This is called a guilt-offering for a known trespass (Leviticus 5:15)
• Not to destroy anything of the Sanctuary (Deuteronomy 12:2-4)
• To sanctify the firstling of clean cattle and offer it up (Exodus 13:2; Deuteronomy 15:19)
• To slay the Paschal lamb (Exodus 12:6)
• To eat the flesh of the Paschal sacrifice on the night of the fifteenth of Nissan (Exodus 12:8)
• Not to eat the flesh of the Paschal lamb raw or sodden (Exodus 12:9)
• Not to leave any portion of the flesh of the Paschal sacrifice until the morning unconsumed (Exodus 12:10)
• Not to give the flesh of the Paschal lamb to an Israelite who had become an apostate (Exodus 12:43)
• Not to give flesh of the Paschal lamb to a stranger who lives among you to eat (Exodus 12:45)
• Not to take any of the flesh of the Paschal lamb from the company's place of assembly (Exodus 12:46)
• Not to break a bone of the Paschal lamb (Exodus 12:46)
• That the uncircumcised shall not eat of the flesh of the Paschal lamb (Exodus 12:48)
• Not to slaughter the Paschal lamb while there is chametz in the home (Exodus 23:18; Exodus 24:25)
• Not to leave the part of the Paschal lamb that should be burnt on the altar until the morning, when it will no longerbe fit to be burnt (Exodus 23:18; Exodus 24:25)
• Not to go up to the Sanctuary for the festival without bringing an offering (Exodus 23:15)
• To bring the first fruits to the Sanctuary (Exodus 23:19)
• That the flesh of a sin-offering and guilt-offering shall be eaten (Exodus 29:33)
• That one not of the seed of Aaron, shall not eat the flesh of the holy sacrifices (Exodus 29:33)
• To observe the procedure of the burnt-offering (Leviticus 1:3)
• To observe the procedure of the meal-offering (Leviticus 2:1)
• Not to offer up leaven or honey (Leviticus 2:11)
• That every sacrifice be salted (Leviticus 2:13)
• Not to offer up any offering unsalted (Leviticus 2:13)
• That the Court of Judgment shall offer up a sacrifice if they have erred in a judicial pronouncement (Leviticus4:13)
• That an individual shall bring a sin-offering if he has sinned in error by committing a transgression, the consciousviolation of which is punished with excision (Leviticus 4:27-28)
• To offer a sacrifice of varying value in accordance with one's means (Leviticus 5:7)
• Not to sever completely the head of a fowl brought as a sin-offering (Leviticus 5:8)11
• Not to put olive oil in a sin-offering made of flour (Leviticus 5:11)

.........................

Look I was going to post many pages of these old covenant laws but I am going to stop here as I think the point is made. Most of these laws are not a requirement in the new covenant as they are shadow laws for remission of sins fulfilled in the body of Christ which is about 60% of this document and we have not even talked about the laws specific to gender. So what is your point? You have not made one unless your trying to argue that we are still in the old covenant needing to seek out a Levite Priest to offer up animal sacrifices to seek Gods forgiveness in an earthly Sanctuary? I do not think that is your point is it?

Hope this is helpful.

Click to expand...