Of course the question is which commandments. Just because the word is used doesn't automatically mean it is the ten including the one commandment said to be given exclusively to the Israelite nation. A ceremonial law at that. Jesus gave us plenty of commands in the Gosples.
My thing is why is the question "which commandments"? Do you really think that Jesus came with a set of rules that would "trump", so to speak, the rules given at Sinai? Jesus gave the people a "commandments for dummies" rendition, so to speak. This was never intended to replace the ten, but to make them clearer.
And all the commandments were given exclusively to Israel. God said that the sabbath was a sign between Him and Israel, yes. He also said that if they kept His law (all of it) they would be a Nation of priests unto Him, and He would be their God. And again, God stated that the new covenant was exclusively between Him and Israel. So why is it that the exclusivity argument is only brought up in regards to the sabbath, but not the new covenant.
So maybe the issue isn't so black and white. It is debatable as thousands of posts here and in the theology section of just this website show.
I'm not saying the issue is black and white and we should reject the Sabbath as binding, either!
Anything is debatable. All you need is someone to have an opposing view. The geometry of the earth was "debatable" for how long? Just because someone argues against a position, doesn't make it right, or their argument sound, nor does it make the issue any less black and white.
The Bible never says Paul rested on the Sabbath like the commandment says, does it? He preached on the Sabbath (and other days), which isn't even mentioned in the commandment. BTW, even at the start. Judahism and Christianity were not the same thing!
The bible never shows Jesus taking a nap on the sabbath. Rather it shows Him preaching/teaching, and healing. Herein lies the problem. You misunderstand what the "rest" is that you're suppose to do on the sabbath. This was the problem with the Jews at the time of Christ. They made the sabbath a burden, and completely distorted its purpose. Christ displayed how the sabbath was truly to be kept.
There was no prohibition to anyone who wanted to keep the day if he wanted to, anyway.
5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord.
You have to look at that verse in lieu of the commandment. There were other sabbath's besides the 4th. These were associated with the feasts and what not, which were no longer necessary due to Christ fulfilling all of them. At this point, these sabbath days could be kept, but didn't need to be kept, which is why Paul said what he said. The sabbath day of the 4th commandment however, is automatically excluded.
If you lived in the ancient Nation of Israel you would surely have to keep their Sabbath law under the threat of death.
All the laws carried the penalty of death along with them. I don't see how this one example of a man being stoned is such a big deal, while every other example of people being put to death for idol worship, lying, and fornication is consider acceptable.
The debatable question is what laws given to Israel are we required to keep. Obviously even most SDA's don't think they are all binding.
Agreed. All of the laws are not binding, simply because all of the laws are no longer in force.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease...
If the sacrifices are no more, than it would be logical to say that the laws associated with them are no more. There were sacrifices done on the sabbath yes, but those were laws unto themselves. The sabbath commandment does not speak of sacrifice, but of rest and remembrance.
Locusts with crowns, and dragons with ten horns, and impure spirits that look like frogs are fun to guess the meaning of. Naturally there were (are) some people who think this imagery is all about themselves.
Essential doctrine should be established by the plain teaching of the Bible.
Blessed
is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time
is at hand.
Obviously Revelation uses heavy symbolism. This however is not something to shy away from, but something to investigate. We should not dismiss, but study the words of this book and seek to understand what it teaches. I think we could at least agree that since God gave this Revelation of Himself to John, and had him put it to parchment, that it's for our good.
How can you know what is and isn't essential if you don't know what's being taught in the book?
Edit to add: I'm not saying you shouldn't keep the Sabbath or your beliefs are wrong. I'm just saying this is obviously a debatable issue, not one to use as the dividing line between the saved and lost. You are convinced in your own mind, and others are just as convinced going the other way, both from the Bible. Maybe faith in Jesus saves us and He is the deciding factor.
I appreciate this, but let me ask you a question: how can you say "I'm not saying...your beliefs are wrong"
Are you than saying my beliefs are right? This is what I was talking about earlier. No one wants to say that anyone is right, and no one wants to say that anyone is wrong. It can't be that everyone is right.
