Okay, Ive reviewed your previous posts as I said I would do in post 50 on page 5.
Heres how I view the thoughts youve posted so far
Your first post (page 2, post 18) in this thread contains what I believe is an assumption to rest in Christ one day of the week. But, maybe Im mistaken. Please provide the scriptural basis for this statement, and identify the day we are to rest.
I also believe there are assumptions being made about Genesis 2:1-3. For instance, the passage says God blessed and sanctified the seventh day. I dont see where that automatically implies or infers that mankind was commanded to keep that particular day. In fact, it isnt mentioned again until Exodus 16:23. In that context, and in the giving of the law (of Moses) that continued, the command to observe the Sabbath was given exclusively to the Israelites.
I spent some time reading Sabbath Truth In the Worlds Languages about Dr. William Meade Jones. In short, Dr. Jones assumes God commanded the observance of the Sabbath in Genesis 2:1-3, and then uses that assumption to infer that Noah kept the Sabbath i.e. Gen. 6:9; 7:5. While it is agreed that Noah was a just man that obeyed what God commanded him, it is still not proof that he was commanded to keep the Sabbath. Frankly, Im not exactly sure what Dr. Jones thoughts about all the languages was supposed to prove. I believe the Scriptures completely furnish us with all we need to know to serve and please God (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:3). So, I believe sound biblical reasoning is based on what the Scriptures say. Would you agree? If not, please explain how the Scriptures are lacking without additional input e.g. by men such as Dr Jones.
Now, to a select few specifics
Post 32 on page 4. Ezekiel 20:12. Please help me fill in this blank. From verse 3, Son of man, speak to the elders of _______, and say to them
(NKJV). Now, lets go to Exodus16. Please explain to us from the context who was being instructed in verse 23 to keep the Sabbath. My point? I dont disagree that the Israelites were commanded to keep the Sabbath and to view it as a sign between them and God. However, the part of the story that Im missing is how we get from what God commanded the Israelites under the law of Moses to what He expects of us (both Jews and Gentiles) today under the gospel of Christ.
BTW, I also have one more question about this particular post. Why do you acknowledge that we must observe the Sabbath, but NOT acknowledge the punishment pronounced on those who break it i.e. Exodus 31:14? Not sure, but your answer seems to be related to this quote from post 40 on page 4, Some of Gods laws only applied to the theocracy.
Please explain.
Post 28 on page 3. The conference is Jerusalem is used to answer the question about whether or not any part of the Mosaical Law was commanded to Gentiles. Note Acts 15:1,5,20,24,& 29. Is the Sabbath mentioned in those verses? Obviously, the Jewish Christians were trying to bind the old law upon the Gentile Christians, but the matter was settled. Only a few basic items that predated the law were commanded to the Gentiles and observing the Sabbath did NOT make the list.
BTW, that particular post also refers to the former God and the latter God. Please explain.
Post 33 on page 4. Agreed, the law is holy, just, and good i.e. Romans 7:12. Lets explore the context. Chapter 6 discusses the blessings enjoyed in baptism and how we are no longer in bondage to sin. Chapter 7 begins by discussing something else the Christians is no longer in bondage to the law. Paul admonishes those once under the law to view it as a marriage, in which the two were bound together until death. However, the person that has been baptized into Christ has died (in a sense)
see 6:3-8. Thus, they are free from their marriage (to the old law), and are free to marry another (Christ) having been delivered from the law (7:6). So, what about the old law? Was it bad? No, it was holy, just, and good (7:12). However, it was limited in what it could accomplish. It couldnt take away sin. It identified it and condemned those under it, but could not take those sins away. Therefore, it was replaced by a better covenant built upon better promises i.e. Hebrews 8:6-13.
So, could the Jewish Christians still practice things under the law? Take the matter of circumcision that came up for discussion in Acts 15. It wasnt necessary to continue to observe this practice. However, later Paul had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3, but refused to have Titus circumcised in Galatians 2:3-5. As for circumcision under the gospel of Christ, God was indifferent about it (Gal. 5:1-16). However, for those who made circumcision a matter of faith, they found themselves indebted to keep the whole law which resulted in their separation from Christ. Concisely stated, those who wanted to practice circumcision for whatever reason were welcome to, but could not make it binding upon others. This is the same principle I see being discussed in Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14.
Post 40 on page 4. You said to New Wineskin, If you call yourself a Christian and chose to deliberately sin [NOT keeping the Sabbath] against God then we need to ask why you are doing that? To me, that reveals you are treating the Sabbath just like some Jews were circumcision in Gal. 5:1-4, which leaves you indebted to keep the whole law which means you are turning away from the gospel. Frankly, I encourage you to take to heart what the apostle wrote there. Not because you are a "heretic" (your wording -- NOT MINE), but because you are violating the principle being taught in that text.