Sabbath?

[from scratch]

#278 where you then answered me that you were the one saying that the gentiles where included when they where always included if they chose to. The difference now is that Israel as a nation committed adultery and rejected Yhashua so the majority of Yahudim are non israelites. The law was a metaphor and the Israelites where the witnesses. We are still grafted in by the branch. We are not a different tree. Look closely and you will see that the the metaphors in the rituals of the Torah included YHWH's whole plan those that chose him and those that he chose. There is not 613 that was made up by the Rambam. A good source for you would be a book by Ken Power's called The Owners Manual (The Owner's Manual - 1 - Instructions and Signs)

Where is this? did I miss it the first time? Gentiles were not included in the covenant made at Sinai. See Ex 12:48 Ah you probably won't look it up so here it is - And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

 

[7steps]

There are 7 major covenants 7Steps. Here they are:

1. Noahic - Gen 9:8-17 Royal Grant
2. Abrahamic A - Gen 15:9-21 Royal Grant
3. Abrahamic B - Gen 17 Suzerian-vassal
4. Sinaitic - Ex 19-24 Suzerian-vassal
5. Phinehas - Num 25:10-13 Royal Grant
6. Davidic - II Sam 7:5-16 Royal Grant
7. New - Jer 331:31-34 Royal Grant

We are graft into Jesus and not Israel. Christian never become a part of Israel, physical or spiritual. There is no Jew nor Gentile in Christ Jesus per Gal 3:28.

So where is God obligate to be fair. I sure don't want Him to be fair. I want that free gift I do not deserve. The law says I deserve death also known as hell reserved for the devil and his minions.

Yep Romans 11:32 is very unfair, while it also reaches out to them with the same offer which makes it very fair.

This is why we will never agree. There is 1 plan repeated over and over in different ways, with different metaphors and different facets. Presenting it and quoting scripture as Paul does does not make it right.

I did not say god was obligated to be fair (a straw man). But I did imply that God can't be evil. Although I don't agree with Galatians nothing in that verse proves me wrong as you want me to be. All those that accept God's plan and want to have a relationship with him have always been Yahudim (those that are related to Yah) he has never turned them away. So in that sense there has never been Jew or gentile and sense Yahshua was always (not an after thought or a fix) of Yahweh's plan of redemption as presented in the Torah we all become Yahudim through him. This is becoming repetitive

 

[7steps]

Where is this? did I miss it the forst time? Gentiles were not included in the covenant made at Sinai. See Ex 12:48 Ah you probably won't look it up so here it is - And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

This does not say that gentiles are not included. What is says is if you want to be part of Gods people you do it God's way and become one of God's people not your way and become one of God's people. And I will take the hi road this time and not answer the sarcastic remark back for once.

 

[7steps]

Ok, so educate me. Jeremiah uses the word chadash which can be pronounded two different ways like read, read and red. Spelled alike or sound alike, how do you determine the difference?

I offered as back for my idea the next verse which says not like. How can it be renewed if it is not like the previous one? You offered nothing but a literary word analysis and some off topic verses. So far in this thread all I have gotten is discriptions of movement. How does that change the law? ie the sabbath - the focus of the thread. I am accused of being anomos with no law and no restraint. Which I usually counter with Gal 5:16-24. I get no response on this reference. Why? I have also mentioned I Tim 1:9, 10 to show who the law is written for. How can you dispute this? What need is there to tell someone who does not murder that it is wrong, if they have the Spirit of Christ in them? Same goes for the other behaviors. The sabbath is different. Why has not God impressed me to keep the sabbath? I conformed by my will as Goid placed in my heart to accept His gift of life (redemption). Why has God not given me a desire to keep the Sabbath? You have to come to the conclusion that I am not redeemed/saved or else God would do this work in me.

I have talked to many folks and find a very interesting fact. They don't believe the way of their new profession when changing churches. I have a friend who was a Baptist, then an AoG who is currently SDA. The interesting thing is that they never observed the sabbath before coming in contact with the SDA. They say that God is the One responsible for the change of faith. I say what!! They must have never read their Bible before. The SDA are the ones who presented the idea to them. Now it is a fact that the ten commandments are taught in both of their previous churches. So one can not say they weren't exposed to the Sabbath. I ask again who convinced them to change their behavior - God or the SDA organization.

If Paul was head of the class - that is one of his peers exceeded his standing Phil 3:4-6 - Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:5Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;6Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. Gal 1:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers. Why did he tell us to throw out the law? Gal 4:30. Why did he say let no one judge you for which holy days you keep if you keep them Col 2:16-18. Why did he say this? But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?10Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 11I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

Now let us talk about new covenant some more. Not only do we have Jesus testimony about the new (kainos) covenant in Mat 26:28, Mk 14:24 and LK 22:20 all use the same word which is defined as:
1) new
a) as respects form
1) recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn
b) as respects substance
1) of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of
Paul uses the same word in his discription of the new testament/covenant in II Cor 3:6 and proceeds to describe the old covenantin the very next verse. It can not be a renewed covenant. The law only condemns. It does not give life or provide redemption. Sacrifice only put off punishment for a year. Yet Jesus' sacrifice not only forgave sin permanently it also changed the heart which the law could not do. Romans 8:3 - For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

How open is your mind?

I already answered the first sentence way back.
As far as the Sabbath. That argument won't fly. How did you learn about Jesus? Did you have an experience like Paul. I believe if it was written on your heart you would know the significance of the Sabbath without having to look it up. Until I have it written on my heart I have to study scripture including the Torah, Prophets and the Psalms and look for the set apart spirit to help me understand.

As for Matt, Mark and Luke Check out the Nestle-Aland Greek NT/United Bible Societies Greek NT, and to check the Critical Apparatus to both on that passage. It gives a list of all the manuscripts containing the verse, and what words are there and what aren’t. Checking the oldest manuscript of Matt 28 26 , Papyrus 37 (dated to around 200-250 CE), there is no καινος/kainos there. You can also look it up on Logos. But although I am willing to admit that it can be arguable because it is in popular translations I suspect you won't, because it does not prove your point. It is not a definitive. But the word Kainos has already been placed in the arguable section so it is a mute point.

The law was part of a drama, a metaphor that needed to be played out until Yahshua came. It was not meant as a permanent situation it was meant to teach. Wich again proves that it is not a new but continuation, renewal of the previous. It still has the same representation just now we have a permanent one. It does not make the law obsolete it just makes it better it is step one, two and three as delineated in the passover unleavened bread and first fruit which Yahshua completed to the letter. This just connects Yahshua with the Torah. With out the Torah Yahshua would have just been another guy dying on the cross. BTW and never came with the attitude of educating you you are the one that continues to try to educate me. Ps I am tired of the insults, insinuations and assumptions that you are constantly making so I will stop here because I probably will have a bunch of messages from admin either warning me or banning me because of how I answer back.

 

[from scratch]

This is why we will never agree. There is 1 plan repeated over and over in different ways, with different metaphors and different facets. Presenting it and quoting scripture as Paul does does not make it right.

I did not say god was obligated to be fair (a straw man). But I did imply that God can't be evil. Although I don't agree with Galatians nothing in that verse proves me wrong as you want me to be. All those that accept God's plan and want to have a relationship with him have always been Yahudim (those that are related to Yah) he has never turned them away. So in that sense there has never been Jew or gentile and sense Yahshua was always (not an after thought or a fix) of Yahweh's plan of redemption as presented in the Torah we all become Yahudim through him. This is becoming repetitive

Well I guess I can say utterly amazing. You are not open minded at all. I think you said you were open minded.

So I am curious what is your purpose here? You seem to be saying I am wrong and you are right. Are you seeking fellowship? Are you just bored. Are you seeking validation? What is the deal?

You don't offer much.

 

[from scratch]

This does not say that gentiles are not included. What is says is if you want to be part of Gods people you do it God's way and become one of God's people not your way and become one of God's people. And I will take the hi road this time and not answer the sarcastic remark back for once.

If you comply with Ex 12:48 you are no longer a Gentile but one that is born in the land IOW an Israelite.

 

[Johnnz]

Sabbath keeping by command was only in the Mosaic law. That Christ fulfilled the law and gave us something way beyond the Mosaic covenant is clear from the following Scriptures.

Rom 3:21 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
Rom 4:13 It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.
Rom 5:13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world.
Rom 6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
Rom 7:1 Do you not know, brothers — for I am speaking to men who know the law — that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?
Rom 7:2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.
Rom 7:4 4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.
Rom 7:6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Rom 8:2-4 ..because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
Rom 10:4 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
1 Cor 9:20-21 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
1 Cor 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
Gal 2:19-21 For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
Gal 3:10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."
Gal 3:24-25 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
Eph 2:15-16 by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility
Heb 7:12 For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
Heb 10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming — not the realities themselves.
James 2:10-11 or whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
2 Cor 3:4-6 4 Such confidence as this is ours through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant- — not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Heb 9:15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance —
Heb 12:24 ...to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant

Any argument to retain the law as a basis for our relationship with our Father and as a condition of our holiness must reconcile fully with all the above verses. And those verses do not fully take into account the thematic narratives of the NT writers who expand the position stated therein.

John
NZ

 

[RibI]

Sorry, the sabbath was a law that gentiles were never under before, or after, unless u got scriprure to show otherwise?

Even you know that there is one law, the same for the Israelite and the foreigner.
Again even you know that if someone joined theselves to Israel they were subject to the same laws Israel was.

Please, please, please stop the foolishness.
In order to be one of God's people you have to be subject to Him and His laws.
You know that Jesus was the God of the OT and He is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow and that God changes not.
Stop the insanity.

 

[RibI]

Where is this? did I miss it the forst time? Gentiles were not included in the covenant made at Sinai.

Of course they were. Didn't you know that a large mixed multitude went out of Egypt with Israel?

 

[from scratch]

I already answered the first sentence way back.
As far as the Sabbath. That argument won't fly. How did you learn about Jesus? Did you have an experience like Paul. I believe if it was written on your heart you would know the significance of the Sabbath without having to look it up. Until I have it written on my heart I have to study scripture including the Torah, Prophets and the Psalms and look for the set apart spirit to help me understand.

As for Matt, Mark and Luke Check out the Nestle-Aland Greek NT/United Bible Societies Greek NT, and to check the Critical Apparatus to both on that passage. It gives a list of all the manuscripts containing the verse, and what words are there and what aren’t. Checking the oldest manuscript of Matt 28 26 , Papyrus 37 (dated to around 200-250 CE), there is no καινος/kainos there. You can also look it up on Logos. But although I am willing to admit that it can be arguable because it is in popular translations I suspect you won't, because it does not prove your point. It is not a definitive. But the word Kainos has already been placed in the arguable section so it is a mute point.

The law was part of a drama, a metaphor that needed to be played out until Yahshua came. It was not meant as a permanent situation it was meant to teach. Wich again proves that it is not a new but continuation, renewal of the previous. It still has the same representation just now we have a permanent one. It does not make the law obsolete it just makes it better it is step one, two and three as delineated in the passover unleavened bread and first fruit which Yahshua completed to the letter. This just connects Yahshua with the Torah. With out the Torah Yahshua would have just been another guy dying on the cross. BTW and never came with the attitude of educating you you are the one that continues to try to educate me. Ps I am tired of the insults, insinuations and assumptions that you are constantly making so I will stop here because I probably will have a bunch of messages from admin either warning me or banning me because of how I answer back.

I learned about Jesus through religious activity as a youth. Did I learn about him through religion? Some and alot through the Bible alone. I don't much care for commentaries and other books. I do use language aides, especially in chatting on the net with folks. I consider the words I find in the Bible with the definitions found in language aids as I have shown you with new and Jeremiah. The Bible backs up itself with clarifications in places like Jer 31.

The Nestle-Ashland is another of the poluted manuscripts that seem to abound these days.

You offer lots of opinion with no scripture. You seem to throw out a lot of the NT. It is difficult to deal with someone who wants to keep folks guessing. You have feeling like I am trying to walk on warm jello.

Why didn't you say anything about Mark or Luke? I suppose that kainos is included in their works.

What I get from you is denial, and more denial. You sport a christian faith icon and deny everything christian and support everything Jewish. Uncle. I said something about Westcott and Hort and you respond with Nestle-Ashland and say nothing in defense of Westcott and Hort. Uncle. Is this a switcharoo deal to fill up boredom? You sure keepme guessing.

 

[from scratch]

Even you know that there is one law, the same for the Israelite and the foreigner.
Again even you know that if someone joined theselves to Israel they were subject to the same laws Israel was.

Please, please, please stop the foolishness.
In order to be one of God's people you have to be subject to Him and His laws.
You know that Jesus was the God of the OT and He is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow and that God changes not.
Stop the insanity.

Mal 3:6 refers to God's character, not His administration. I refer you to and provide Isa 28:10 - For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

It is repeated in verse 13 BTW

 

[from scratch]

Of course they were. Didn't you know that a large mixed multitude went of Egypt with Israel?

Who did God tell Moses to call together? The mixed multitude or the Children of Isreal? Exodus 19:3- And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;

I did not see anything about a mixed multitude, did you?

 

[Source Scripture]

This does not say that gentiles are not included. What is says is if you want to be part of Gods people you do it God's way and become one of God's people not your way and become one of God's people. And I will take the hi road this time and not answer the sarcastic remark back for once.

Greetings, Mr 7 Steps.
I have been, as they say, "lurking", and I feel as though now would be a proper time to join the conversation. Your post now stands corrected. I am looking foward to more stimulating conversations. Thank you, SS.

Ephesians 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

 

[Preecher]

Even you know that there is one law, the same for the Israelite and the foreigner.
Again even you know that if someone joined theselves to Israel they were subject to the same laws Israel was.

Please, please, please stop the foolishness.
In order to be one of God's people you have to be subject to Him and His laws.
You know that Jesus was the God of the OT and He is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow and that God changes not.
Stop the insanity.

Ah, but we have a New Covenant, not according to the old.

Luke 22:20 (KJV)
20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Why do we have a New Covenant if we are bound to the old? The New is much better.

 

[Source Scripture]

This is why we will never agree. There is 1 plan repeated over and over in different ways, with different metaphors and different facets. Presenting it and quoting scripture as Paul does does not make it right.

I did not say god was obligated to be fair (a straw man). But I did imply that God can't be evil. Although I don't agree with Galatians nothing in that verse proves me wrong as you want me to be. All those that accept God's plan and want to have a relationship with him have always been Yahudim (those that are related to Yah) he has never turned them away. So in that sense there has never been Jew or gentile and sense Yahshua was always (not an after thought or a fix) of Yahweh's plan of redemption as presented in the Torah we all become Yahudim through him. This is becoming repetitive

However, there was Jew and Gentile division. During the temporary span of the Old Covenant, one had to conform to the Mosaic covenant, in which the division of Jew and Gentile was then ended, however let it not be forgotten, that the very act of circumcsion, has shown that it was indeed a divisive covenant, for the Jews only, unless conversion happened, even unto marriage. SS.

Deuteronomy 7:2-3 and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. 3 Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son.

 

[Source Scripture]

Even you know that there is one law, the same for the Israelite and the foreigner.
Again even you know that if someone joined theselves to Israel they were subject to the same laws Israel was.

Please, please, please stop the foolishness.
In order to be one of God's people you have to be subject to Him and His laws.
You know that Jesus was the God of the OT and He is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow and that God changes not.
Stop the insanity.

Greetings ribi.
However, the point I believe out little amphibian friend was proving is correct. If they were not under the Mosaic Covenant, then the one law, would not apply to the heathen. Whereby proving they were never under the Sabbath laws in the first place. Now that the Old Covenant has been brought to an end, the jurisdiction has ended, meaning the new way into the Covenant now, has nothing to do with adhearence to the out of date Mosaic era. SS.

 

[Source Scripture]

Show mercy, answer again then, does scripture clearly show, that the Abrahmic cov, that came later, was for gentiles also, and it shows a clear distinction, of the Mosaic cov, that Gentiles were in no way a part of?

Greetings frogster. I must applaud your being tenacious on the Abrahamic covenant issue, so far the other memnbers have not given a serious rebuttal. I will now also wait to see if the other members reply with a scriptural response. You are using sound hermeneutics, and do indeed, show how Pauline theology, does show that the Abrahmic covenant is quite different from the Mosaic covenant. SS.

 

[Source Scripture]

Who did God tell Moses to call together? The mixed multitude or the Children of Isreal? Exodus 19:3- And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;

I did not see anything about a mixed multitude, did you?

Scratch, I do support your debate style, you are quick, and you certainly are rather knowledgeable, to say the least. SS.

 

[nathanlandon1]

Well I guess I can say utterly amazing. You are not open minded at all. I think you said you were open minded.

So I am curious what is your purpose here? You seem to be saying I am wrong and you are right. Are you seeking fellowship? Are you just bored. Are you seeking validation? What is the deal?

You don't offer much.

I think a general frustration I personally have with not only you, but several other Christians, is the basis of the arguments we have. You are Christian, and I am Christian. As such, I expect us to discuss and reason the word of God, not argue about it. And, especially when there is no ambiguity in the Word of God concerning the argument, it becomes ridiculously trite and antagonizing. On this thread, we are arguing with a brother (or sister) in Christ about HIS WORD that is CLEARLY WRITTEN. Moreover, the embodiment of the word of God said with His OWN MOUTH:

"(16)Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

(17)Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

(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.

(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.

(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."

Matthew 5:16-20

Likewise, GOD HIMSELF DIVINELY GAVE the Law to Moses on Sinai: The first FOUR (a spiritual number) are:

And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.



Exodus 20:1-11

The other SIX (a number of [hu]man) commandments are moral commandments for MAN. When Yahoshuah is asked about what commandment OF THE LAW to follow,

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Yahoshuah is not throwing away laws, He made the statement because it is PITHY. The first FOUR laws are spiritual LAWS describe what it means to love God with all of your heart. The next SIX describe what it means to love man/neighbor with all of your heart.


Part of that law is the FOURTH COMMANDMENT, a BOOKEND of the spiritual LAWS: The FOURTH COMMANDMENT is the SABBATH.


The sabbath is not a law that you can say "oh it was too hard to follow," or "I didn't have the resources/capacity to do so" like one may be able to argue with justice laws and other laws. The Sabbath is one of the most important laws, and one of the easiest to follow.


Follow the Sabbath: its the LAW.

 

[Preecher]

Follow the Sabbath: its the LAW.

Romans 10:4 (KJV)
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.