The promise of the fifth commandment?

[Cribstyl]

I suspect that you're trying to validate the sabbath as still binding using the no scripture approach.

The the sabbath commandment was ceromonial, and that's why it is not commanded anywhere in the New Testament.

Yes, 9 of the 10 are restated in some form in the New Testament, but not the ceromonial commandment.

Your commentary of Eph6:1-2 evades the lesson objective and commands given in Ephesians chapters 5&6 about "How to be followers of God"...... Eph 5:1¶Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;



Sabbath is not listed here "The 10 commandment are not being presented as the law going forward."
Yes....We do find commands relating to some of the ten, but much more.
Tell us which of the ten references the underlined?
Eph 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
Eph 5:4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

From Eph 5:22 Paul is begins talking about how Christian individuals and families should conduct themselves.
In this context Paul does reference Genesis 1 about the creation institution of marriage, but no mention of the sabbath.Eph 5:31.

----------------------------------------------------

The problem with your study is, you're trying to prove that sabbath still exists for Christians without 1 scripture giving such a command.

Your arguments is against the word of God in the NT, because we present texts not commentary.

You will argue against these scriptures to the Romans saying as follows; (time of worship is exclusively between a man and His God)

Rom 14:5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
Rom 14:6He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.

You will argue against these scriptures to the Corinthians saying as follows; (the law is done away with)
2Cr 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
2Cr 3:7¶But if the ministration of death, written [and] engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which [glory] was to be done away:
2Cr 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

You will argue against these scriptures to the Galatians; (we not under the law)
Gal 5:1¶Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.


Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

You will argue against texts written to the Colossians;

ESV - Col 2:16 -Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.



Now tell me, should I take your word and ignor what Jesus command the Gentile nations to believe?

No feedback?

 

[VictorC]

You still don't get it...
Oh well I guess that's just the way it is...

The "it" you offer doesn't have Jesus.

Psalm 34
8 Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good;
Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!
9 Oh, fear the LORD, you His saints!
There is no want to those who fear Him.
10 The young lions lack and suffer hunger;
But those who seek the LORD shall not lack any good thing.

 

[k4c]

The "it" you offer doesn't have Jesus.

Psalm 34
8 Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good;
Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!
9 Oh, fear the LORD, you His saints!
There is no want to those who fear Him.
10 The young lions lack and suffer hunger;
But those who seek the LORD shall not lack any good thing.

Once again you've come to the wrong conclusion.

 

[VictorC]

Once again you've come to the wrong conclusion.

You haven't offered any Scriptural basis for me to arrive at any other conclusion. I have to accept what you write as an explanation for your views, and it has been a consistent denial of God's redemption.

 

[addo]

Eph 5:1¶Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

You know what's interesting? The word "follower" would be equally translated as "imitator", because in Greek it comes from the verb "to imitate". Thus this verse could be translated as this just as well: "be ye therefore imitators of God as beloved children". It is written that God rested on the seventh day (Genesis 2:3), and Isaiah also said that God doesn't actually need rest for He doesn't get tired (Isaiah 40:28). Thus He didn't rest because He needed to rest. He rested to give us an example for us to imitate. And, according to Paul, we must "imitate God as beloved children". Do the math. Also, it should be noted that the Sabbath began before the fall, as being part of God's perfect plan, just like marriage.

 

[StormyOne]

You know what's interesting? The word "follower" would be equally translated as "imitator", because in Greek it comes from the verb "to imitate". Thus this verse could be translated as this just as well: "be ye therefore imitators of God as beloved children". It is written that God rested on the seventh day (Genesis 2:3), and Isaiah also said that God doesn't actually need rest for He doesn't get tired (Isaiah 40:28). Thus He didn't rest because He needed to rest. He rested to give us an example for us to imitate. And, according to Paul, we must "imitate God as beloved children". Do the math. Also, it should be noted that the Sabbath began before the fall, as being part of God's perfect plan, just like marriage.

no proof that the sabbath was initiated before the fall.... and your analogy breaks down as we are not Jesus, so we cannot and should not imitate everything he did... i.e. he was homeless, should we be homeless? he was single should we be single? he was crucified on a cross, should we be crucified on a cross?