Sabbath?

[heymikey80]

Wow.

There's so much data in these postings, I don't think I could gather it all together and comment on it as a whole. I'm sure we could talk about a lot of subjects here.

I don't know where a lot of the ideas come from. Many are thought-provoking, but I'm not lined-up with them.

 

[Frogster]

In the verse you quoted in Romans you would notice that the contention is between which days men esteem higher than other. Apart from that you must look at Romans 14 in context. From verse 1, the question is, who is weak in the faith? Why do they abstain from all meat and eat only herbs. If we do not know those being referred to we cannot understand the chapter.

However, Paul sure did not fight for a certain sab day there did he? Must not have been important. In Galatians he did not want them messing with it either.

Lets also not forget, that 2 times he said all is clean, about foods, right in that very chapter.

 

[from scratch]

Rev talks about "worship Him who created heaven and earth.. which refers again to the original worshipping of God.

What are you talking about? This is such a general reference as to be maeningless. I think you do this just to eat peoples time.

 

[from scratch]

It is an experience.. you and God will have to have together to truly understand.

That does not answer the question. How would it feel different to worship on Saturday than another day? I have worshipped on every day of the week and personally find no difference.

 

[RibI]

I was a bit hasty.

It is widely recognised that the initial targets for the new community were the Jewish people, so they went to where they had speaking rights to proclaim the gospel. As the apostles began to see their mission to the gentiles that would change. Paul used whatever forum was available to him. They also may have been seeking Gentile proselytes who were not as bound to Jewish law. But that custom for evangelism was not as their time of Christian worship and teaching. That soon took place on Sundays, the eighth day, signifying resurrection.

John
NZ

Where's all that? In 1 Johnnz 3:16?

 

[RibI]

My replies are in bold type.
Col 2:13-14 He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. NIV

That's pretty clear. The law itself was nailed to the cross - dead cancelled, no longer operative or relevant.

John
NZ

That's absolutely false. Maybe a smaller font would serve you better.
The Law was not nailed to the cross. The chargers against you were.

Col. 2:14 is one verse people love to use to try to say that Paul did away with God’s Law. We need to understand what this verse is really talking about.
The Romans nailed two things to the cross 1) They nailed Jesus to the cross. 2) They nailed a sign stating that He was the king of the Jews to the cross. (i.e. the charge against Him) But Paul says, (figuratively) that “the handwriting of requirements that was against us” was also nailed to the cross.
This is the only place in the NT that these Greek words (handwriting of requirements) are used. This is a legal document, hand written by the criminal, stating the charges against him, (in our case the charge is that we have sinned; Ro. 3:23) and the debt that he owes. (our debt or penalty is death; Ro. 6:23.) This is what was nailed to the cross, not God’s Law. Read “Friberg Lexicon” and also “Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words” for a further explanation.

“The New Living Translation” makes it much clearer. Cor. 2:14“He canceled the record that contained the charges against us. He took it and destroyed it by nailing it to the cross.”

 

[Frogster]

That's absolutely false. Maybe small type would serve you better.
The Law was not nailed to the cross. The chargers against you are.

Col. 2:14 is one verse people love to use to try to say that Paul did away with God’s Law. We need to understand what this verse is really talking about.
The Romans nailed two things to the cross 1) They nailed Jesus to the cross. 2) They nailed a sign stating that He was the king of the Jews to the cross. (i.e. the charge against Him) But Paul says, (figuratively) that “the handwriting of requirements that was against us” was also nailed to the cross.
This is the only place in the NT that these Greek words (handwriting of requirements) are used. This is a legal document, hand written by the criminal, stating the charges against him, (in our case the charge is that we have sinned; Ro. 3:23) and the debt that he owes. (our debt or penalty is death; Ro. 6:23.) This is what was nailed to the cross, not God’s Law. Read “Friberg Lexicon” and also “Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words” for a further explanation.

“The New Living Translation” makes it much clearer. Cor. 2:14“He canceled the record that contained the charges against us. He took it and destroyed it by nailing it to the cross.”

Then what were the commands that were against us, that had to be done away with, so all of our sins could be forgiven, if it was not the law? trespasses dude, a written law!

13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

If it helps you out, read the small print here, from the twin epistle.


Eph 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace

 

[from scratch]

So it means you really do not know the Old testament context but thats ok. I didn't know it either and it's because of speaking about it here that made me dig deeper and study it more. What Jesus was offering in Matthew is not a replacement Sabbath. It is a emotional and spiritual rest from cares and burdens. If this is something new, Jesus is offering, that means no one in the Old Testament ever had this rest. Jesus isn't giving something never before given. David and many others would have experienced this rest, through his faith in God.

If Jesus was offering them something they already had, He was just talking to hear His head rattle. That is to say God was speaking words with no meaning. Yes, I believe that Jesus was not offering more of the same.

The context of the rest spoken of in Hebrews 4 is different from Matthew.

Heb 3:16 For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.
Heb 3:17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
Heb 3:18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
Heb 3:19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

The Israelites who came out from Egypt were prevented from entering into this rest because of their unbelief and had to spend 40 years in the wilderness as a result. Was this rest Jesus, or was it a rest in the promised land?

Deu 12:10 But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the LORD your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety;

Deu 25:19 Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.

Jos 1:13 Remember the word which Moses the servant of the LORD commanded you, saying, The LORD your God hath given you rest, and hath given you this land.

They were supposed to enter the promised land, but they didn't believe. Under Moses they could not enter. Under Joshua they did enter, that is why Hebrews 4:8 makes reference to Joshua. The Israelites did posses the land but because of their constant rebellion they never experienced the rest they were supposed to. A question to think about. Was this rest a replacement to the Sabbath? When they eventually get the rest temporarily did they not still keep the Sabbath?

Hebrews 4 actually endorses the Sabbath rest by giving example of God's Sabbath keeping and saying that those who enter into rest follow his example of doing it. Some say it means you have to rest from spiritual works of earning Salvation. However, that is not how God rested. God purposefully chose to create the world in 6 days and rest on the 7th to show an example, and here in Hebrews it is saying to enter into rest the same way God did from his.

For those who say the Sabbath is now "Today" meaning everyday, they base it on Hebrews 4:7 which is quoting from what David id in Psalms 95. That is why is says, ".. saying in David" and "..as it is said". This is where the quote is taken from

Psa 95:7 For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice,
Psa 95:8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
Psa 95:9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.
Psa 95:10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:
Psa 95:11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.

So here in the OT, David is speaking of today. Is this a replacement Sabbath? Of course not, it is simply a call to accept the voice of but it is linked directly to the OT context of Hebrews 4 which is the rest given to them to enter Canaan. They did not listen to the voice of God then, and David is saying today, if you hear his voice do not harden your heart. So the claim that today is the new Sabbath is false.

Well It is a speech on rest for sure. Where is the evidence that they had the rest God swore that they would not enter into? Did the new generation that entered Canaan have this rest? No!

Consider the 7th day that God rested. What do we know about it? It was different from all the others days, not in just being the 7th day. First notice the discription of the day. It is not described as having a begining or ending. Is this significant? I think so. There is no new first day following the seventh day. There is also no discription of any day following the 7th day. Did God start creating again on the day after the 7th day? No! I think the Tanach, Stone ed. says it much better: By the seventh day God completed His work that He had done and He abstained on the seventh day from al His work which He had done. Gen 2:2. Abstained is a much better word to convey what happened. The word used is shabat a verb which means cease, much like a cease and desist court order. Such an order means stop and not do again. It has nothing to do with a pause. The same word shabat is used in Hosea speaking about the sabath (shabbat) and is translated as cease in KJV. In the Tanach, Stone ed. It is translated as terminate. This complies with Jeremiah 31:31-34 which states the new (chadash pronounced khä·däsh' and not chadash pronounced khä·dash'[ meaning renew]) Covenant will not by like the one made with their fathers.

Jesus was subject to the law or he could not have fulfilled it. Very profound statement. Let's see why Jesus was subject to the law.

Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

The carnal mind is not subject to the law of God and can never be. Jesus was spiritually minded and therefore was subject to the law. He was able to fulfill the law because he loved God.

Nope! Jesus was subject to the law both to fulfill (meet all the obligations thereof) and be the perfect spotless unblemished lamb (Lamb) to redeem (purchase) us back from sin to have the same fellowship Adam had with God before transgression in Eden. When was Jesus (God) ever carnally minded?

Rom 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

What you need to understand about a covenant is that it is an agreement between two sides. If I have an agreement that i would pay you $15,000 to build my house and you breach the contract it does not mean I still do not want my house built. Hebrews 7 - 10 speaks at length about the old covenant. It is the only NT book which deals in detail with the Old Covenant and what had passed away. The section of the law which is mentioned mostly is the law concerning ordinances and ceremonies or the "handwriting of ordinances". However, in the new agreement Jesus still wants his Holy law to be at the center.

And what you don't understand about the covenant/contract to build your house is that when I have built your house the contract is fulfilled, finished, completed and has no further value except historical as its terms have been met.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

You did ask about Galatians. The fact is that the law was never for justification. The jews at that time, gave a purpose to the law for which it was never intended. The law was never for salvation, or for justification. The law was to give a knowledge of sin. If people looks to the law to justify them, then the grace of God has no effect on them.

If that was so then why do we have this: Christ is the end of the for righteousness? Romans 10:4. Is it not inspired scripture? Or is Paul just blowing hot air? The law was for the purpose of establishing righteousness. It is that no one could ever or will ever meet it demands except Jesus. So follow the law and you will not have eternal life. Mat 19, Gal 5:4

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

But as the previous scripture shows, if you have love for God you will fulfill his law as Jesus did because love is the fulfilling of the law.

Which ones the quoted or vs 2, 3? What about Gal 3:;1-3: O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

 

[Frogster]

Lightfoot: then and there canceling the bond which stood valid against us (for it bore our own signature), the bond which engaged us to fulfill all the law of ordinances, which was our stern pitiless tyrant. Yes, this very bond Christ has put out of sight forever, nailing it to his cross and rending it with his body and killing it in his death.

Connect with..



4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

Do you see the connection?

14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility

 

[Frogster]

If Jesus was offering them something they already had, He was just talking to hear His head rattle. That is to say God was speaking words with no meaning. Yes, I believe that Jesus was not offering more of the same.Well It is a speech on rest for sure. Where is the evidence that they had the rest God swore that they would not enter into? Did the new generation that entered Canaan have this rest? No!

Consider the 7th day that God rested. What do we know about it? It was different from all the others days, not in just being the 7th day. First notice the discription of the day. It is not described as having a begining or ending. Is this significant? I think so. There is no new first day following the seventh day. There is also no discription of any day following the 7th day. Did God start creating again on the day after the 7th day? No! I think the Tanach, Stone ed. says it much better: By the seventh day God completed His work that He had done and He abstained on the seventh day from al His work which He had done. Gen 2:2. Abstained is a much better word to convey what happened. The word used is shabat a verb which means cease, much like a cease and desist court order. Such an order means stop and not do again. It has nothing to do with a pause. The same word shabat is used in Hosea speaking about the sabath (shabbat) and is translated as cease in KJV. In the Tanach, Stone ed. It is translated as terminate. This complies with Jeremiah 31:31-34 which states the new (chadash pronounced khä·däsh' and not chadash pronounced khä·dash'[ meaning renew]) Covenant will not by like the one made with their fathers.Nope! Jesus was subject to the law both to fulfill (meet all the obligations thereof) and be the perfect spotless unblemished lamb (Lamb) to redeem (purchase) us back from sin to have the same fellowship Adam had with God before transgression in Eden. When was Jesus (God) ever carnally minded?And what you don't understand about the covenant/contract to build your house is that when I have built your house the contract is fulfilled, finished, completed and has no further value except historical as its terms have been met. If that was so then why do we have this: Christ is the end of the for righteousness? Romans 10:4. Is it not inspired scripture? Or is Paul just blowing hot air? The law was for the purpose of establishing righteousness. It is that no one could ever or will ever meet it demands except Jesus. So follow the law and you will not have eternal life. Mat 19, Gal 5:4 Which ones the quoted or vs 2, 3? What about Gal 3:;1-3: O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

 

[from scratch]

To John.

When i made the statement that the rest Jesus offered in Matthew must have been also available to those in the OT you said it is unbiblical. You later said that the rest was the salvation of Jesus. So was a rest of salvation unavailable to everyone in the old testament?

Yes redemption was not available then under the law. Are they saved/redeemed today? Yes!

I rather use the KJV.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

It was specifically referencing the law written by Moses. That is why it was the handwriting of ordinances. It was the laws dealing with ordinances and ceremonies. It was against us. It was different to the law of God which was written by the finger of God and not the hand of Moses.

Deu 31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
Deu 31:25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,
Deu 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

The law placed on the side of the ark was against them. God's 10 commandments were placed inside the ark and not on the side of the ark according the Deut 10:5. This text is therefore not making reference to God's Moral law which love fulfills.

You would not know of the ten commandments if it was not in the written law of Moses. Unless of course you can produce the stone tablets. I do not recall them ever being taken out of the Ark of the covenant for any purpose. I assume you have that scripture in mind. Please provide us with it.

 

[from scratch]

That's absolutely false. Maybe a smaller font would serve you better.
The Law was not nailed to the cross. The chargers against you were.

Col. 2:14 is one verse people love to use to try to say that Paul did away with God’s Law. We need to understand what this verse is really talking about.
The Romans nailed two things to the cross 1) They nailed Jesus to the cross. 2) They nailed a sign stating that He was the king of the Jews to the cross. (i.e. the charge against Him) But Paul says, (figuratively) that “the handwriting of requirements that was against us” was also nailed to the cross.
This is the only place in the NT that these Greek words (handwriting of requirements) are used. This is a legal document, hand written by the criminal, stating the charges against him, (in our case the charge is that we have sinned; Ro. 3:23) and the debt that he owes. (our debt or penalty is death; Ro. 6:23.) This is what was nailed to the cross, not God’s Law. Read “Friberg Lexicon” and also “Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words” for a further explanation.

“The New Living Translation” makes it much clearer. Cor. 2:14“He canceled the record that contained the charges against us. He took it and destroyed it by nailing it to the cross.”

What are the charges? How is a ceremony against us?

 

[Johnnz]

Accepted.

John
NZ

 

[PROPHECYKID]

If Jesus was offering them something they already had, He was just talking to hear His head rattle. That is to say God was speaking words with no meaning

.

I didn't mean those people had the rest. He wouldn't offer them something they had. What I meant is that the rest is not something which was never available before. If so it will mean that no one in the OT could have had this rest.

Yes, I believe that Jesus was not offering more of the same.Well It is a speech on rest for sure. Where is the evidence that they had the rest God swore that they would not enter into? Did the new generation that entered Canaan have this rest? No!

Yes and No. The bible says they did. But it was indeed short lived. God's intention was for them to have this rest forever.

Jos 21:44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.

Jos 22:4 And now the LORD your God hath given rest unto your brethren, as he promised them: therefore now return ye, and get you unto your tents, and unto the land of your possession, which Moses the servant of the LORD gave you on the other side Jordan.

Jos 23:1 And it came to pass a long time after that the LORD had given rest unto Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua waxed old and stricken in age.

Consider the 7th day that God rested. What do we know about it? It was different from all the others days, not in just being the 7th day. First notice the discription of the day. It is not described as having a begining or ending. Is this significant? I think so. There is no new first day following the seventh day. There is also no discription of any day following the 7th day. Did God start creating again on the day after the 7th day? No! I think the Tanach, Stone ed. says it much better: By the seventh day God completed His work that He had done and He abstained on the seventh day from al His work which He had done. Gen 2:2. Abstained is a much better word to convey what happened. The word used is shabat a verb which means cease, much like a cease and desist court order. Such an order means stop and not do again. It has nothing to do with a pause. The same word shabat is used in Hosea speaking about the sabath (shabbat) and is translated as cease in KJV. In the Tanach, Stone ed. It is translated as terminate. This complies with Jeremiah 31:31-34 which states the new (chadash pronounced khä·däsh' and not chadash pronounced khä·dash'[ meaning renew]) Covenant will not by like the one made with their fathers.

But in that same covenant God promises to put his law in their hearts.

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Nope! Jesus was subject to the law both to fulfill (meet all the obligations thereof) and be the perfect spotless unblemished lamb (Lamb) to redeem (purchase) us back from sin to have the same fellowship Adam had with God before transgression in Eden. When was Jesus (God) ever carnally minded?

That is the whole point. He kept the law because he was spiritually minded instead of carnal minded. The bible says that the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God. To be carnally minded is death because a carnal mind can never have victory over sin since sin is the trangression of God's law. Jesus didn't keep the law so that we don't have to. If so then why is is that Jesus says that if we love him we will keep his commandments. Why is it that the saints in Rev 12:14 at the end of time keep the commandments of God. Why is it that the remnant of the woman's seed at the end keep the commandments of God.

And what you don't understand about the covenant/contract to build your house is that when I have built your house the contract is fulfilled, finished, completed and has no further value except historical as its terms have been met.

The problem is that the God places the law in our hearts in the new covenant. So instead of getting rid of it, it is even closer to us. In other words, I can enter into a new contract and pay someone to build on the house from the first contract. It doesn't mean my house is useless or not important.

If that was so then why do we have this: Christ is the end of the for righteousness? Romans 10:4. Is it not inspired scripture? Or is Paul just blowing hot air? The law was for the purpose of establishing righteousness. It is that no one could ever or will ever meet it demands except Jesus. So follow the law and you will not have eternal life. Mat 19, Gal 5:4

You are using Matthew 19 which says the complete opposite. If you know the writings of Paul so well, you would know that he said the law was never meant to justify or make one righteous but to give us a knowledge of sin. John 3:4 states that sin is the trangression of the law. Abraham and Moses were not righteous because they kept the law but because God made them righteous.

Which ones the quoted or vs 2, 3? What about Gal 3:;1-3: O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Anything used besides its purpose is not good. If you use the law as your guide to righteousness then it is a problem. Paul had to deal allot with the legalistic Jews who did not believe in Jesus but placed all their confidence in the law to save them. That is really the problem. Paul himself said this:

1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

But Paul has the right mindset. He knows that love is the fulfilling of the law. He knows the law is not what is going to save him. But if one does think so then Paul has allot to say to them as he said to the Jews of old.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

Yes redemption was not available then under the law. Are they saved/redeemed today? Yes!You would not know of the ten commandments if it was not in the written law of Moses. Unless of course you can produce the stone tablets. I do not recall them ever being taken out of the Ark of the covenant for any purpose. I assume you have that scripture in mind. Please provide us with it.

You are correct in what you said. It must have been also duplicate in the book of the law Moses wrote. However, that people also used to have the 10 commandments written on their doors and other parts of the house or so. So the fact that it might be duplicated does not mean it is different. You cannot remove the law from the ark of the covenant so it must be duplicated somewhere for people to see. The people also knew it by heart. However, the fact that the tablets were placed in the divine presence and protection of God does show it is different to all other laws. If the book of the law is removed the law of God still had its place.

 

[from scratch]

You are correct in what you said. It must have been also duplicate in the book of the law Moses wrote. However, that people also used to have the 10 commandments written on their doors and other parts of the house or so. So the fact that it might be duplicated does not mean it is different. You cannot remove the law from the ark of the covenant so it must be duplicated somewhere for people to see. The people also knew it by heart. However, the fact that the tablets were placed in the divine presence and protection of God does show it is different to all other laws. If the book of the law is removed the law of God still had its place.

Well of course we disagree,but thanks for saying I am correct.

Speaking of which,why don;t you have them writen on your door posts as you said used to?

Since you mention the ten commandments being duplicated and them being the same, why is it that I get from the SDA community that they are different in Deut from Exodus? Especially when addressing the 4th.

 

[PROPHECYKID]

Well of course we disagree,but thanks for saying I am correct.

Speaking of which,why don;t you have them writen on your door posts as you said used to?

Since you mention the ten commandments being duplicated and them being the same, why is it that I get from the SDA community that they are different in Deut from Exodus? Especially when addressing the 4th.

I don't know who told you that but although its written with a slight difference, the substance is the same. It is the same 10 commandments. Why don't I have them written on my door post? In the NT he writes them on your heart, so you can keep them the way Jesus did.

 

[from scratch]

.

I didn't mean those people had the rest. He wouldn't offer them something they had. What I meant is that the rest is not something which was never available before. If so it will mean that no one in the OT could have had this rest.

Corect! right on the money.

Yes and No. The bible says they did. But it was indeed short lived. God's intention was for them to have this rest forever.

Jos 21:44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.

Jos 22:4 And now the LORD your God hath given rest unto your brethren, as he promised them: therefore now return ye, and get you unto your tents, and unto the land of your possession, which Moses the servant of the LORD gave you on the other side Jordan.

Jos 23:1 And it came to pass a long time after that the LORD had given rest unto Israel from all their enemies round about, that Joshua waxed old and stricken in age.

Was this the rest God swore that they would not ever enter into? I don't think that rest from their enemies is what God calls MY REST.

But in that same covenant God promises to put his law in their hearts.

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Is the My law the ten commandments of the covenant? NO! As I have shown it is a new covenant not like the one made with their fathers identified as the ten commandments in Deut 4:13; 5:2-5 that are written on stone. Can you show a different covenant? NO!

That is the whole point. He kept the law because he was spiritually minded instead of carnal minded. The bible says that the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God. To be carnally minded is death because a carnal mind can never have victory over sin since sin is the trangression of God's law. Jesus didn't keep the law so that we don't have to. If so then why is is that Jesus says that if we love him we will keep his commandments. Why is it that the saints in Rev 12:14 at the end of time keep the commandments of God. Why is it that the remnant of the woman's seed at the end keep the commandments of God.

So do you beleive that you can keep the commandments? If so why do you break them every week at a mimimun? I am talking about the holy sabbath you proclaim to keep. You just don't keep it according to the law or even the ten commandments.

Yes Jesus said we will keep His commandments. What are they? You claim that they are the ten commandments. How can this be? John 15:10 states:
If ye keep My commandments, ye shall abide in My love; even as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love. We know that Jesus kept the ten commandments and the rest of the law without flaw. So what are Jesus' commandments. They can't be the same as His (Jesus') commandments. What evidence do you have that Jesus preformed more than the law? None! I guess that you might try to say that everyone has their own set of commandments which of course I do not buy. You should notice as has been pointed out to you before that there is no command or commandment in the the NT to observe the sabbath. I know you might say I am looking for a loop hole to avoid the 4th. That would be incorrect. I would say that using your vehicle on the sabbath and denying that it is your beast of burden is a loop hole to disobey the 4th fo the 10. As I pointed out above it is the new covenant not like the one issued at Sinai written on stone. Movement does not make something new.

The problem is that the God places the law in our hearts in the new covenant. So instead of getting rid of it, it is even closer to us. In other words, I can enter into a new contract and pay someone to build on the house from the first contract. It doesn't mean my house is useless or not important.

You use law here to mean the Torah especially the ten commandments. That is not what Jeremiah says at all. Jeremiah says NEW NOT LIKE THE ONE MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS. You are insisting it is the same law. I did not give you Paul for a reason. Paul says very plainly we are to throw out the law Gal 4:30. He also says that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. Romans 10:4 He also says we are delivered from the law; we are not under the law. He also says you can not have both Gal 5:2-4.

You are using Matthew 19 which says the complete opposite. If you know the writings of Paul so well, you would know that he said the law was never meant to justify or make one righteous but to give us a knowledge of sin. John 3:4 states that sin is the trangression of the law. Abraham and Moses were not righteous because they kept the law but because God made them righteous.

How do you get that keeping the commandments can get you into heaven? The young man's testimony was that he did so and yet left knowing that he did not have eternal life.

Did Abraham keep the ten commandments? No! They came 430 years after he died. Gal 3:17. So it was impossible for him to keep the law. Besides Moses said very plainly that no one before was given the law. Deut 5:3.

Anything used besides its purpose is not good. If you use the law as your guide to righteousness then it is a problem. Paul had to deal allot with the legalistic Jews who did not believe in Jesus but placed all their confidence in the law to save them. That is really the problem. Paul himself said this:

1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

You sure trip all over your self. See the highlighted statement above. This is not inline with what you usaually state or always support. What then is the law or the ten commandments if it is not a guide to or about righteousness?

But Paul has the right mindset. He knows that love is the fulfilling of the law. He knows the law is not what is going to save him. But if one does think so then Paul has allot to say to them as he said to the Jews of old.

Then why doesn't Paul tell the Galatians to observe the law instead of throw it out?

 

[from scratch]

I don't know who told you that but although its written with a slight difference, the substance is the same. It is the same 10 commandments. Why don't I have them written on my door post? In the NT he writes them on your heart, so you can keep them the way Jesus did.

That my friend is no excuse for not keeping the law?

 

[7steps]

Hello
I would like to hear peoples thoughts and views on sabbath observance. Currently I am attending a seventh day adventist church, but am unsure of the necessity to keep the sabbath. I have kept it for a few years now, but am starting to question why other denominations do not? I am in a situation that has made me question it, my college study makes it unavoidable to not do on the weekend, or the option is at home and possibly suffer association consequences later. So this is the dilemma that set me to search for the real answer and not just keep the sabbath because I have been told to and it was one of the commandments, didnt jesus come to free us of these?
confused i am
Any help or your own thoughts, opinions, experience etc would be appreciated

There are no loopholes. But more important than just doing something because it is a commandment is to understand the meaning of why. The Sabbath is one of the most important days by virtue of the fact that YHWH wanted us to practice it every week. It is refreshing that you did not take the road that it is passe as if God just created these things to toy with people and see if they can follow directions. Instead of should we do it or not do it like most of the comments here maybe people should be asking why? Some of the questions that you should ask maybe are. What did it stand for? Why could you not do your customary work or the work of the heavenly messengers? Why was it the 7th day? Why could you not kindle a fire? What does it mean that God rested? Why did he rest? What is the 7th day?