Seventh day observance compulsory?

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
While it is true that we are under a New Covenant, we are nevertheless still under the same God who has the same standard of holiness, righteousness, and goodness. In Titus 2:14, it does not say that he gave himself to redeem us from the Law, but to redeem us from all Lawlessness, and it does not say that that he gave himself to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for rejecting God's instructions for how to do good works, but who are zealous for doing them. Jesus said that faith was one of the weightier matters of the Law (Matthew 23:23), so it is completely false that the Old Covenant was ever about not sinning by our own strength based the letter of the laws. God has always disdained it when His people outwardly obeyed His laws while their hearts were far from Him. Jesus began his ministry with the Message to repent from our sins for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and the Law was given to reveal what sin is, so repenting from our disobedience to what God's Law reveals to be sin is a central part of the Gospel message and the New Covenant. Jesus has always been Lord of the Sabbath and the Sabbath has never been about trusting God once a week.

I agree. It is lawlessness that Jesus died in order to infuse us with His Spirit, so we would not sin. But that is by changing our very nature. We no longer need tablets of stone, the letter of the law, we need the mind of Christ. This was accomplished by His blood and why the sign of the New Covenant is the Cup of the New Covenant, not a day of the week to physically rest, our rest is in Jesus.

Just as some of the Hebrew Christians were still sacrificing animals, which trampled on the blood of Jesus, so we, if we keep the Sabbath are not trusting in Jesus and holding Him again in contempt. Don't you realize what you are doing? Think again, as veneration of the shadow, is mocking the substance, Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
If you only trade with money, it's money.

Those who study the subject know the tithing law cannot apply to the church, as the Levites are nowhere to be found. However if one can give that much to their church more power to them; it's money well spent.

Jews Do Not Tithe Today

"Thankfully, Jewish theologians know better than their Christian counterparts. They are well aware that only Levites have the right to receive tithe of the people. After all, the Jewish leaders have the Old Testament as their Scripture and that’s what it commands. And since there is no Temple in existence (and consequently no ordained Levites or Priests serving in a Temple), then a major factor in fulfilling the laws of tithing does not exist in our modern world."

The authority of the Jews to determine this is supported by Paul as well in Romans 3:1-2

1 "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?


2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God."

I agree that the tithe was mainly agricultural and meant for the Leviticus who were not given land as an inheritance, but it was also meant for the poor, and there are certainly spiritual principles to apply to us today, namely that we should support the poor and those who dedicate their time in service to God. Furthermore, there are many costs involved in running a building, such as plumbing, electrical, gas, heating, air conditioning, janitorial, lawn maintenance, parking lot maintenance, insurance, mortgage, outreach, and coffee, so if someone benefits from having a functioning building, then it is appropriate to help make sure that these expenses are covered, though it is not really a tithe. Jesus spent a lot of time talking about the importance of giving, so while we shouldn't tithe, that does not mean that we should neglect giving.
 
Upvote 0

Soyeong

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2015
12,416
4,600
Hudson
✟281,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Single
I agree. It is lawlessness that Jesus died in order to infuse us with His Spirit, so we would not sin. But that is by changing our very nature. We no longer need tablets of stone, the letter of the law, we need the mind of Christ. This was accomplished by His blood and why the sign of the New Covenant is the Cup of the New Covenant, not a day of the week to physically rest, our rest is in Jesus.

If the Law says to keep the Sabbath holy, so to profane the Sabbath is to act Lawlessly, and the Bible speaks very strongly against those who continue to practice Lawlessness. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is defined as Lawlessness (1 John 3:4), so our salvation is from Lawlessness and necessarily involves being made to be free from Lawlessness like Christ. Christ straightforwardly had the mind of Christ, yet he still kept the letter of the law and therefore taught to do so by example, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22). In Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus was wanting people to become his disciples, which would involve learning from Him how to obey the Mosaic Law, and he said that they would find rest for their souls, which is a reference to Jeremiah 6:16-19, where God's Law is equated with the good way where we will find rest for our souls. If we understanding the deeper spiritual principles of the Law, the Law is written on our hearts, and we have faith in God to lead us in to rightly live, then that should lead us to do things that are examples of those principles in accordance with the Law.

Just as some of the Hebrew Christians were still sacrificing animals, which trampled on the blood of Jesus, so we, if we keep the Sabbath are not trusting in Jesus and holding Him again in contempt. Don't you realize what you are doing? Think again, as veneration of the shadow, is mocking the substance, Jesus.

Throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and and turn back to obedience, which was the message of every single prophet up to including Jesus and now you're trying to convince me that repenting of our sins and turning back to obedience to God's commands by grace through faith is somehow mocking God? That is completely and utterly absurd. The Sabbath is taking a day off from our busy week to do what God said is for our own good, so it is about having faith in God to guide us in how we should live and having faith in God to provide, and about having faith in Jesus by following his example. The OT Bible is full of important shadows that teach us about Messiah, how to have a relationship with him based on faith, about God's plan of redemption, and about what we will be doing Messiah's reign, and the way to trample of the blood of Jesus would be to return to the Lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem you from.

In Acts 18:18, Paul took a Nazarite vow, which involve making offerings (Numbers 6), and in Acts 21:20-24, he was on his way to pay expenses of others who had taken a similar vow in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. So the offerings did not stop because of the death and resurrection of Jesus, but only stopped because of the destruction of the temple. However, the Bible prophecies a time when a third and fourth temple will be built and when offerings will resume (Ezekiel 40-46).
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
If the Law says to keep the Sabbath holy, so to profane the Sabbath is to act Lawlessly, and the Bible speaks very strongly against those who continue to practice Lawlessness. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is defined as Lawlessness (1 John 3:4), so our salvation is from Lawlessness and necessarily involves being made to be free from Lawlessness like Christ. Christ straightforwardly had the mind of Christ, yet he still kept the letter of the law and therefore taught to do so by example, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22). In Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus was wanting people to become his disciples, which would involve learning from Him how to obey the Mosaic Law, and he said that they would find rest for their souls, which is a reference to Jeremiah 6:16-19, where God's Law is equated with the good way where we will find rest for our souls. If we understanding the deeper spiritual principles of the Law, the Law is written on our hearts, and we have faith in God to lead us in to rightly live, then that should lead us to do things that are examples of those principles in accordance with the Law.



Throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and and turn back to obedience, which was the message of every single prophet up to including Jesus and now you're trying to convince me that repenting of our sins and turning back to obedience to God's commands by grace through faith is somehow mocking God? That is completely and utterly absurd. The Sabbath is taking a day off from our busy week to do what God said is for our own good, so it is about having faith in God to guide us in how we should live and having faith in God to provide, and about having faith in Jesus by following his example. The OT Bible is full of important shadows that teach us about Messiah, how to have a relationship with him based on faith, about God's plan of redemption, and about what we will be doing Messiah's reign, and the way to trample of the blood of Jesus would be to return to the Lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem you from.

In Acts 18:18, Paul took a Nazarite vow, which involve making offerings (Numbers 6), and in Acts 21:20-24, he was on his way to pay expenses of others who had taken a similar vow in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. So the offerings did not stop because of the death and resurrection of Jesus, but only stopped because of the destruction of the temple. However, the Bible prophecies a time when a third and fourth temple will be built and when offerings will resume (Ezekiel 40-46).

The law also said to sacrifice animals. You are following the Old Law of the letter, NOT the new law of love and all that Jesus accomplished. By not recognizing what Jesus fulfilled, you slap Him in the face.
 
  • Like
Reactions: listed
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There are 1,050 commands in the NT, so if you think that those four commands are an exhaustive list of everything that would ever be required of Gentiles, then that would exclude over 99% of the commands in the NT, including those taught by Jesus.
1050 commandments? Sounds like a lot. Care to give references for them? Better yet how about a reference for a commandment saying gentile Christians need to keep the seventh day?
 
Upvote 0

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,064
✟560,360.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Well, that would be because they were Jewish and not believers so they were suspicious of Paul's stories and wanted to check them to see if they were accurate or not. Their example is not what a Christian would (or should) follow regarding Paul's preaching. Christians accept Paul's letters as holy scripture and would accept Paul's preaching as accurate. Christians do not need to check the old testament to see if Paul was telling the truth or not because Christians believe that he was telling the truth. Does that clarify the matter?

I ended my post by observing that Acts 15 does not lay seventh day keeping on gentile Christians as a requirement for continued fellowship with converts to Christ from Judaism.
That's a better explanation GingerBeer. I agree that the NT including Paul as wholly accurate. But to take it to mean that because the NT tells the truth about those at Berea, with the view that they were more noble and examined the scriptures with eagerness, Christians should not do that because they were Jews with an open mind to consider the gospel as the truth. Such an idea goes beyond what that scripture is telling the reader.

I would like to believe that Christians do not need to check the old testament to see if Paul was telling the truth or not but if they did they should expect to see that Paul actually was telling the complete truth about the OT and his teachings confirmed as accurate.

It also strikes me that when a person reads Paul's letters and can't likewise see how his use of OT scriptures provides a solid basis for the gospel of the Kingdom of God, then that could also lead teachers within the Church today as Paul described them in his day, "They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not understand what they are saying or the things they insist on so confidently." 1 Timothy 1:7 NET. The OT affirms the NT and such a thing can't be done by ignoring the connections. The OT does confirm that Jesus was the LORD (Exodus 23:21) that led His people out of Egypt as one ancient manuscript agrees, "Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe." Jude 1:5 ESV.

Neither does Acts 15 specifically restrict seventh day keeping from the Gentile nations. What it does is give a ruling here on Earth and in Heaven that uncircumcised gentile males can be saved.
 
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's a better explanation GingerBeer. I agree that the NT including Paul as wholly accurate. But to take it to mean that because the NT tells the truth about those at Berea, with the view that they were more noble and examined the scriptures with eagerness, Christians should not do that because they were Jews with an open mind to consider the gospel as the truth. Such an idea goes beyond what that scripture is telling the reader.
No, that is not what I said at all. The Beroean Jews were more noble than the Thessalonian Jews because they listened and checked the facts whereas the Thessalonians dismissed Paul as wicked and did what they could to stop his message getting out. The story is specific to Paul. It is not general as your explanation appears to make it. It is not about checking what a local preacher (not Paul) says because you want to confirm his sources and his accuracy. That is an entirely different matter. The Beroean Jews really play no role whatever for a Christian who checks what his local preachers say. Christians do that for all sorts of reasons, some are good reasons and some are not. The Beroean Jews checked because they heard Paul (an apostle of the gospel) and they wanted to make sure that he was not telling them lies or misquoting the old testament scriptures. Christians ought not approach Paul that way. Nor ought they to approach Paul's sermons (recorded in scripture) that way. Unbelieving Jews may do that, they do not believe so they will not automatically trust what Paul says. Christians on the other hand have every reason to believe Paul whenever he preaches (in the scriptures, obviously he isn't preaching today apart from scripture).

If you want an example to follow then follow Jesus and the apostles. Hear their teaching and believe it. Familiarise yourself with what they say and the sources that they use and the methods of interpretation that they practised.

But the above is not really a matter directly connected to seventh day keeping. It is a side issue related to it indirectly. The main issue in this thread is to discover if the new testament contains any commandment for gentile Christians to keep the seventh day.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I agree that the tithe was mainly agricultural and meant for the Leviticus who were not given land as an inheritance, but it was also meant for the poor, and there are certainly spiritual principles to apply to us today, namely that we should support the poor and those who dedicate their time in service to God. Furthermore, there are many costs involved in running a building, such as plumbing, electrical, gas, heating, air conditioning, janitorial, lawn maintenance, parking lot maintenance, insurance, mortgage, outreach, and coffee, so if someone benefits from having a functioning building, then it is appropriate to help make sure that these expenses are covered, though it is not really a tithe. Jesus spent a lot of time talking about the importance of giving, so while we shouldn't tithe, that does not mean that we should neglect giving.

True. We look to the principle in each of the rules. That's what the new covenant is all about.
 
Upvote 0

Bob S

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 5, 2015
4,584
2,203
88
Union County, TN
✟657,084.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree that the tithe was mainly agricultural and meant for the Leviticus who were not given land as an inheritance, but it was also meant for the poor, and there are certainly spiritual principles to apply to us today, namely that we should support the poor and those who dedicate their time in service to God. Furthermore, there are many costs involved in running a building, such as plumbing, electrical, gas, heating, air conditioning, janitorial, lawn maintenance, parking lot maintenance, insurance, mortgage, outreach, and coffee, so if someone benefits from having a functioning building, then it is appropriate to help make sure that these expenses are covered, though it is not really a tithe. Jesus spent a lot of time talking about the importance of giving, so while we shouldn't tithe, that does not mean that we should neglect giving.
I believe the Levites were required to also pay a tithe. That tithe went to the poor. Since the tithe consisted of only animals and crops and never paid in shekels the poor must have only gotten food and I suppose if they did raise a few animals they would also get some grain
 
Upvote 0

listed

are you?
May 14, 2011
9,126
1,817
✟53,797.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I agree that the tithe was mainly agricultural and meant for the Leviticus who were not given land as an inheritance, but it was also meant for the poor, and there are certainly spiritual principles to apply to us today, namely that we should support the poor and those who dedicate their time in service to God. Furthermore, there are many costs involved in running a building, such as plumbing, electrical, gas, heating, air conditioning, janitorial, lawn maintenance, parking lot maintenance, insurance, mortgage, outreach, and coffee, so if someone benefits from having a functioning building, then it is appropriate to help make sure that these expenses are covered, though it is not really a tithe. Jesus spent a lot of time talking about the importance of giving, so while we shouldn't tithe, that does not mean that we should neglect giving.
What does it cost to meet these needs?
If the group is at least 20 employed people who make minimum wage and all tithe $2,400 is collected. if it were 100 people $24,000 would be placed in the plate. neither figure includes additional free will offerings above the tithe.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

listed

are you?
May 14, 2011
9,126
1,817
✟53,797.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
If the Law says to keep the Sabbath holy, so to profane the Sabbath is to act Lawlessly, and the Bible speaks very strongly against those who continue to practice Lawlessness. Our salvation is from sin (Matthew 1:21) and sin is defined as Lawlessness (1 John 3:4), so our salvation is from Lawlessness and necessarily involves being made to be free from Lawlessness like Christ. Christ straightforwardly had the mind of Christ, yet he still kept the letter of the law and therefore taught to do so by example, and we are told to follow his example (1 Peter 2:21-22). In Matthew 11:28-30, Jesus was wanting people to become his disciples, which would involve learning from Him how to obey the Mosaic Law, and he said that they would find rest for their souls, which is a reference to Jeremiah 6:16-19, where God's Law is equated with the good way where we will find rest for our souls. If we understanding the deeper spiritual principles of the Law, the Law is written on our hearts, and we have faith in God to lead us in to rightly live, then that should lead us to do things that are examples of those principles in accordance with the Law.
Your scenario is good only for those required to keep the law. The Christian isn't required to do so. The law was given only to Israel.
Throughout the Bible, God wanted His people to repent and and turn back to obedience, which was the message of every single prophet up to including Jesus and now you're trying to convince me that repenting of our sins and turning back to obedience to God's commands by grace through faith is somehow mocking God? That is completely and utterly absurd. The Sabbath is taking a day off from our busy week to do what God said is for our own good, so it is about having faith in God to guide us in how we should live and having faith in God to provide, and about having faith in Jesus by following his example. The OT Bible is full of important shadows that teach us about Messiah, how to have a relationship with him based on faith, about God's plan of redemption, and about what we will be doing Messiah's reign, and the way to trample of the blood of Jesus would be to return to the Lawlessness that he gave himself to redeem you from.
Turning to God isn't the same as turning to the law given to Israel.
In Acts 18:18, Paul took a Nazarite vow, which involve making offerings (Numbers 6), and in Acts 21:20-24, he was on his way to pay expenses of others who had taken a similar vow in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. So the offerings did not stop because of the death and resurrection of Jesus, but only stopped because of the destruction of the temple. However, the Bible prophecies a time when a third and fourth temple will be built and when offerings will resume (Ezekiel 40-46).
The destruction of the Temple is directly related to Jesus and the new covenant. There is no need of a temple building for the Christian.
 
Upvote 0

listed

are you?
May 14, 2011
9,126
1,817
✟53,797.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
That's a better explanation GingerBeer. I agree that the NT including Paul as wholly accurate. But to take it to mean that because the NT tells the truth about those at Berea, with the view that they were more noble and examined the scriptures with eagerness, Christians should not do that because they were Jews with an open mind to consider the gospel as the truth. Such an idea goes beyond what that scripture is telling the reader.
So it is confirmed Paul was telling the truth. Why is there still a need to confirm this? I just don't get it.
I would like to believe that Christians do not need to check the old testament to see if Paul was telling the truth or not but if they did they should expect to see that Paul actually was telling the complete truth about the OT and his teachings confirmed as accurate.

It also strikes me that when a person reads Paul's letters and can't likewise see how his use of OT scriptures provides a solid basis for the gospel of the Kingdom of God, then that could also lead teachers within the Church today as Paul described them in his day, "They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not understand what they are saying or the things they insist on so confidently." 1 Timothy 1:7 NET. The OT affirms the NT and such a thing can't be done by ignoring the connections. The OT does confirm that Jesus was the LORD (Exodus 23:21) that led His people out of Egypt as one ancient manuscript agrees, "Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe." Jude 1:5 ESV.
I can't comprehend why anyone would want to teach the OT in light of the NT. All the proofs are found in the NT. The NT is about faith instead of rules. A major difference for me is the OT is stated in a negative form and the NT is stated in a positive form (do not - do). Everything the Christian needs to know is found in the NT. That includes warnings to stay away from the law.
Neither does Acts 15 specifically restrict seventh day keeping from the Gentile nations. What it does is give a ruling here on Earth and in Heaven that uncircumcised gentile males can be saved.
The 7th day of the week has no meaning for the Christian. If anyone want to argue for that, Jesus offered what 7th keepers didn't have in Mat 11:28-30.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob S
Upvote 0

SAAN

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
2,034
489
Atlanta, GA
✟80,985.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So it is confirmed Paul was telling the truth. Why is there still a need to confirm this? I just don't get it.I can't comprehend why anyone would want to teach the OT in light of the NT. All the proofs are found in the NT. The NT is about faith instead of rules. A major difference for me is the OT is stated in a negative form and the NT is stated in a positive form (do not - do). Everything the Christian needs to know is found in the NT. That includes warnings to stay away from the law.The 7th day of the week has no meaning for the Christian. If anyone want to argue for that, Jesus offered what 7th keepers didn't have in Mat 11:28-30.
You do realize that when you read the NT, all of those writings are when there was no such thing as a New Testament and ALL of Jesus, the disciples and Paul's teaching are being quoted and taught from the Old Testament.


Even this verse here is quoted when there was no such thing as a NT

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

SO you cant just ignore 66% of the bible.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
The law also said to sacrifice animals. You are following the Old Law of the letter, NOT the new law of love and all that Jesus accomplished. By not recognizing what Jesus fulfilled, you slap Him in the face.

Two different Temples (earthly and heavenly) with different priesthoods. One Temple is physical and the sacrifices there were to enable mortals to enter the PHYSICAL presence of God on earth which at times in past history resided there (in the tabernacle and in Solomon's temple.) The heavenly temple has a priest of a different order. That temple has a sacrifice (Jesus) and a priesthood (Jesus) that permit mortals to enter the presence of God spiritually.

These things are not mutually exclusive and fulfill different objectives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob S
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Two different Temples (earthly and heavenly) with different priesthoods. One Temple is physical and the sacrifices there were to enable mortals to enter the PHYSICAL presence of God on earth which at times in past history resided there (in the tabernacle and in Solomon's temple.) The heavenly temple has a priest of a different order. That temple has a sacrifice (Jesus) and a priesthood (Jesus) that permit mortals to enter the presence of God spiritually.

These things are not mutually exclusive and fulfill different objectives.

Not sure why you are responding to my post with this????
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Because the sacrifices are only a slap in Jesus' face if the actually provided salvation. They did not. That was not their purpose.

That is what Hebrews 10 is all about. Paul called their practice of still offering sacrifices "trampling on the blood of Jesus" and willful sin. Isn't that a slap in the face to what Jesus did on the cross? What I'm saying is, if the sacrifice that Jesus represented was considered trampling on His blood, then what about still observing the Sabbath, the shadow, when the substance of the Sabbath has died for you so you could trust in Him. THAT is what I'm calling a slap in the face. Both are venerating the shadow, instead of the substance.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
That is what Hebrews 10 is all about. Paul called their practice of still offering sacrifices "trampling on the blood of Jesus" and willful sin. Isn't that a slap in the face to what Jesus did on the cross? What I'm saying is, if the sacrifice that Jesus represented was considered trampling on His blood, then what about still observing the Sabbath, the shadow, when the substance of the Sabbath has died for you so you could trust in Him. THAT is what I'm calling a slap in the face. Both are venerating the shadow, instead of the substance.

No, he called deliberately sinning as 'trampling on the blood of Jesus."

Hebrews 10:26 Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins. 27 There is only the terrible expectation of God’s judgment and the raging fire that will consume his enemies. 28 For anyone who refused to obey the law of Moses was put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Just think how much worse the punishment will be for those who have trampled on the Son of God, and have treated the blood of the covenant, which made us holy, as if it were common and unholy, and have insulted and disdained the Holy Spirit who brings God’s mercy to us.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
No, he called deliberately sinning as 'trampling on the blood of Jesus."

Hebrews 10:26 Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins. 27 There is only the terrible expectation of God’s judgment and the raging fire that will consume his enemies. 28 For anyone who refused to obey the law of Moses was put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Just think how much worse the punishment will be for those who have trampled on the Son of God, and have treated the blood of the covenant, which made us holy, as if it were common and unholy, and have insulted and disdained the Holy Spirit who brings God’s mercy to us.


I always thought so too, but even if you willfully sin, you can still repent. So, that's not it. The context was they were saying they believed in Christ, but were still sacrificing animals for their sins.

Read five chapters for the context.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bugkiller

Well-Known Member
May 16, 2015
17,773
2,634
✟80,400.00
Faith
Non-Denom
You do realize that when you read the NT, all of those writings are when there was no such thing as a New Testament and ALL of Jesus, the disciples and Paul's teaching are being quoted and taught from the Old Testament.


Even this verse here is quoted when there was no such thing as a NT

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

SO you cant just ignore 66% of the bible.
You must be trying to say Jesus, His disciples and the Apostles were teaching the law. How? JN 1:17, LK 16:16

bugkiller
 
Upvote 0