Which day of the Week is the Bible Sabbath?

[Frogster]

They will now attempt to disprove that . Get your popcorn ready .

munching already...

 

[BobRyan]

There is no record at all in the NT of the NT saints attending Synagogue services where they are preaching the Gospel and then inviting all the Jews and Gentiles in the Synagogue to a "week day 1" meeting as a followup.

But there IS the example of the opposite in both Acts 13 and Acts 17 where after Preaching the Gospel to both Jews and gentiles on the Sabbath they invite everyone back "NEXT SABBATH" for more Gospel preaching - and "NEXT DAY" for more Gospel preaching.

For the story about them preaching the Gospel on Sabbath and then having everyone attend a "come back tomorrow for more" service - you have to make it up - because it is not there in the NT.

You shouldn't be able to find such a thing in the NT...
...The "command" was for the Christians THEMSELVES to assemble.
...And that precludes Jews who still thought Judaism was the only way.

Turns out - Paul and all the NT apostles "were Jews".

Turns out - that many of those in the Synagogues in Acts 13 and Acts 17 are said in scripture to be gentiles.

In fact in Acts 13 it is the gentiles that are accepting the Gospel message while the Jews are in large part rejecting yet. Yet the next Sabbath "almost the entire town shows up".

Your "Jews only" context for those services is not supported in the text of scripture.

And so once again - we are amazed to find that there is NO example of the much imagined "preach the gospel on Sabbath then invite those who are accepting it to tomorrow's week-day-1 service".

In Acts 16 they meet with gentile believers in Philippi where they suppose that a prayer meeting may be had on Sabbath.

What day did St. Paul "COMMAND" the Christians to have their offering reading for the collection of saints?

Paul said that on "week-day-1" of each week they should set in store by themselves -- (save ahead of time, and in their own homes) money to be reserved later when their is a gathering.

At the first of each week set aside by yourself funds to be used later as an offering.

Oh no wait! It what if 1 Cor 16:2 actually said "on the week-day 1 which is the Lord's Day - when you are all gathered for worship and the Lord's Supper let each one give an offering as God may lead". Indeed what a great text that would have been - had it existed, had they ever assigned a title of honor to week-day-1 or had they ever said to meet for worship or for taking up an offering each week-day-1.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

True--to the extent that the early Christians, for awhile,

attended synagogue on one day AND THEN their own services on the Lord's Day.

--======================

There is no record at all in the NT of the NT saints attending Synagogue services where they are

preaching the Gospel and then inviting all the Jews and Gentiles in the Synagogue to a "week day 1" meeting as a followup.

But there IS the example of the opposite in both Acts 13 and Acts 17 where after Preaching the Gospel to both Jews and gentiles on the Sabbath they invite everyone back "NEXT SABBATH" for more Gospel preaching - and "NEXT DAY" for more Gospel preaching.

For the story about them preaching the Gospel on Sabbath and then having everyone attend a "come back tomorrow for more" service - you have to make it up - because it is not there in the NT.

Exactly correct. Please read the highlighted.Yes it says Gentiles (not Christians) did this inviting back in 13. But you say two different things. You say saints (which the Scripture does not) and it was not the Jews who did the inviting. There is no such reference in 17.You make it up that the Gentiles were already Christitians without ever hearing about Jesus Christ or at least the Gospel.

you miss the point entirely.

They are sharing the gospel on Sabbath with BOTH bible believing Jews AND Gentiles - and instead of inviting those who accept the message to "join us tomorrow in our week-day-1 Gospel preaching service" they say "come back next Sabbath" when in fact "almost the entire town shows up" Acts 13.

IF There had been a nameless-day week-day-1 service the next day with Gospel preaching - that would have been a great time to "mention the invitation".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Lysimachus]

the 10 were in the old cov..

deut 4;13 And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone.


and 2 cor 3;11 says they were not permanent, and hebrews clarifies the everlasting one, and it wasn't the old, as the writer was showing them to leave the old, the old that is abolished, 8;13, 10:9, to show the true everlasting cov, so u r wrong.


heb 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant,

Not sure what your point is. These verses do not contradict the fact that an agreement (covenant) and the rules associated with that agreement, are not the same, yet intimately connected. 2 Cor 3:11 does not say they were not permanent. It was the glory of Moses' ministration that was done away with, now to be replaced by Christ's High Priestly ministration--the Glory of Christ. So now the "glory" shining in the law is Christ, no longer Moses. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant, Christ is the Mediator of the New Covenant.

2 Cor 3 is actually a chapter that is an "Adventist Chapter". It supports our positions even more, yet the evangelicals continue to interpret 2 Cor 3 in a very awkward manner, which is not in harmony with what the text actually says. It does not say the Laws written on the Tables were "done away with"---only the "glory" of Moses was done away with. When Moses was ministering, there was a "veil" blinding the Israelites from beholding the true meaning of the law--from beholding the importance of that law being transferred to their hearts. When Christ comes, that veil is removed, and now the glory of Christ shines on the law even more.

The law is actually more strict in the New Covenant, as it has to do with heart-work. Doing it from the heart, not out of compliance.

A broken agreement was abolished. Not the law.

 

[Frogster]

Not sure what your point is. These verses do not contradict the fact that an agreement (covenant) and the rules associated with that agreement, are not the same, yet intimately connected. 2 Cor 3:11 does not say they were not permanent. It was the glory of Moses' ministration that was done away with, now to be replaced by Christ's High Priestly ministration--the Glory of Christ. So now the "glory" shining in the law is Christ, no longer Moses. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant, Christ is the Mediator of the New Covenant.

2 Cor 3 is actually a chapter that is an "Adventist Chapter". It supports our positions even more, yet the evangelicals continue to interpret 2 Cor 3 in a very awkward manner, which is not in harmony with what the text actually says. It does not say the Laws written on the Tables were "done away with"---only the "glory" of Moses was done away with. When Moses was ministering, there was a "veil" blinding the Israelites from beholding the true meaning of the law--from beholding the importance of that law being transferred to their hearts. When Christ comes, that veil is removed, and now the glory of Christ shines on the law even more.

The law is actually more strict in the New Covenant, as it has to do with heart-work. Doing it from the heart, not out of compliance.

A broken agreement was abolished. Not the law.

you would ahve a hard time separating the ministry of death, on stone, the ministry of condemantion, with the mosaic ministry.

hehehe..do you see the ministry word connection, to the stone connection now?



how do you separate the ministry word, from the text, and the connection to the stones, and from Moses..Gimmie one clear answer bro...go for it...



7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end,

 

[Frogster]

--======================







you miss the point entirely.

They are sharing the gospel on Sabbath with BOTH bible believing Jews AND Gentiles - and instead of inviting those who accept the message to "join us tomorrow in our week-day-1 Gospel preaching service" they say "come back next Sabbath" when in fact "almost the entire town shows up" Acts 13.

IF There had been a nameless-day week-day-1 service the next day with Gospel preaching - that would have been a great time to "mention the invitation".

in Christ,

Bob

please, Paul went on sabby for evangelistic reasons. Do u want a crowd? yes, then go to a gathering, besides, those were unsaved gentiles, that was not the church there in acts 13, u prove nothing.

 

[Frogster]

Not sure what your point is. These verses do not contradict the fact that an agreement (covenant) and the rules associated with that agreement, are not the same, yet intimately connected. 2 Cor 3:11 does not say they were not permanent. It was the glory of Moses' ministration that was done away with, now to be replaced by Christ's High Priestly ministration--the Glory of Christ. So now the "glory" shining in the law is Christ, no longer Moses. Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant, Christ is the Mediator of the New Covenant.

2 Cor 3 is actually a chapter that is an "Adventist Chapter". It supports our positions even more, yet the evangelicals continue to interpret 2 Cor 3 in a very awkward manner, which is not in harmony with what the text actually says. It does not say the Laws written on the Tables were "done away with"---only the "glory" of Moses was done away with. When Moses was ministering, there was a "veil" blinding the Israelites from beholding the true meaning of the law--from beholding the importance of that law being transferred to their hearts. When Christ comes, that veil is removed, and now the glory of Christ shines on the law even more.

The law is actually more strict in the New Covenant, as it has to do with heart-work. Doing it from the heart, not out of compliance.

A broken agreement was abolished. Not the law.

hebrews says the old cov was abolished...

Heb 10:9then he added, ‘See, I have come to do your will.’ He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.


So, then if it is not abolished, am i legally bound to keep all the jewish old cov festivals, as a Christian? Do U?

 

[Lysimachus]

No what you are arguing here is morality and not the law.

Sorry, you replaced God's Ten Commandments with your own made up laws. And who knows what those laws are....they are whatever you wish. The Law and Morality has everything to do with each other. The law defines what proper moral conduct is.

Not according to has nothing to do with place.I replaced nothing, God did as He said He would.

You will have a lot of hard-pressing to do to prove that God replaced His own laws, despite the fact that Revelation 11:19 and 15:5 unequivocally declare the Ark of the Testament to be in heaven---which Hebrews says the earthly was a copy of. To say that God's law has been replaced is not a true figure, imitation, or copy.

No the tables of the covenant have the law written on them.

What did I say differently? Or are you saying that all 613 laws are written on the Tables of the Covenant? Last time I checked, only 10 were. Explain to me how the other 611 didn't make it there.

All contracts have contents. A contract (agreement) with no contents is not a contract.[/SIZE]

What official document from scripture can you produce to show that the contents have changed?

Last time I checked, the contents were the same, yet Jesus came to "magnify" THE law, and show the law's true meaning...that it can be only kept in the Spirit. See Isaiah 42:21, and for two examples of what this "magnification" looks like, see Matthew 5:21,22 and 27, 28. Jesus builds up the law, He does not replace it.

This make absolutely no sense and is nonsense.

The wise will understand spiritual things. Otherwise, it will appear as "foolishness" (aka, "nonsense" to them. I know hundreds of people who can see it, and the joy of their faces reflects the Spirit of God dwelling in their soul. You sure are missing out on a spiritual blessing in refusing to understand these things. Nonsense is a harsh word. But it is not nonsense. It is true rays of light, penetrating from heaven, and shining down to you. But you are rejecting it.

So how can one agree to a contract with no terms? All contracts contain terms of performance.

It has terms. But that law is not a "covenant" until the terms are settled. It is an agreement, "CONCERNING" those words:

"And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words." (Exodus 24:8)

Paul, in Romans 7:7; 13:8-10; Ephesians 6:1,2 establishes that these SAME laws, coming FROM the Ten Commandments, are still SURE--JUST as Psalms 111:7-10 declared.

No getting around it. No skipping, hopping, or dancing between the raindrops. Plain and simple truth.

So you are requiring everything to be said in the same breath. You act as though it was days before the sealing with blood. It really does not matter exactly when the sealing occurred. All that matters is that it was done.

The Sabbath was made known to the forgetful generation in Exodus 16. The Tables of the Covenant were made in Exodus 20, and the Ceremonial Law, or laws of Moses, was given in Exodus 24. Deuteronomy 4:13,14; 2 Kings 21:8; and Daniel 9:11, make it unequivocally, and unapologetically clear that there was a DISTINCTION between the Law of God (Ten Commandments) and the Law of Moses (Remedial ceremonial services). No getting around it.

Without question, the law, was split into two segments.

1. The Moral Law of Ten Commandments (Tables of Stone - Old Covenant) transferred to the Tables of your Heart (New Covenant)

2. The Mosaic Ceremonial Remedial Laws revolving the Earthly Sanctuary (Old Covenant), being abolished at the cross, and finding their substance and reality in Christ's High Priestly Ministration in the Heavenly Sanctuary in the New Covenant.

Ballywho too!!

Not that I even care, but I have no idea what Ballywho means.

Are you campaigning for office? IOW....

I was not the one who wrote Psalms 111:7-10.

 

[Frogster]

Sorry, you replaced God's Ten Commandments with your own made up laws. And who knows what those laws are....they are whatever you wish. The Law and Morality has everything to do with each other. The law defines what proper moral conduct is.



You will have a lot of hard-pressing to do to prove that God replaced His own laws, despite the fact that Revelation 11:19 and 15:5 unequivocally declare the Ark of the Testament to be in heaven---which Hebrews says the earthly was a copy of. To say that God's law has been replaced is not a true figure, imitation, or copy.



What did I say differently? Or are you saying that all 613 laws are written on the Tables of the Covenant? Last time I checked, only 10 were. Explain to me how the other 611 didn't make it there.



What official document from scripture can you produce to show that the contents have changed?

Last time I checked, the contents were the same, yet Jesus came to "magnify" THE law, and show the law's true meaning...that it can be only kept in the Spirit. See Isaiah 42:21, and for two examples of what this "magnification" looks like, see Matthew 5:21,22 and 27, 28. Jesus builds up the law, He does not replace it.



The wise will understand spiritual things. Otherwise, it will appear as "foolishness" (aka, "nonsense" to them. I know hundreds of people who can see it, and the joy of their faces reflects the Spirit of God dwelling in their soul. You sure are missing out on a spiritual blessing in refusing to understand these things. Nonsense is a harsh word. But it is not nonsense. It is true rays of light, penetrating from heaven, and shining down to you. But you are rejecting it.




It has terms. But that law is not a "covenant" until the terms are settled. It is an agreement, "CONCERNING" those words:

"And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words." (Exodus 24:8)

Paul, in Romans 7:7; 13:8-10; Ephesians 6:1,2 establishes that these SAME laws, coming FROM the Ten Commandments, are still SURE--JUST as Psalms 111:7-10 declared.

No getting around it. No skipping, hopping, or dancing between the raindrops. Plain and simple truth.



The Sabbath was made known to the forgetful generation in Exodus 16. The Tables of the Covenant were made in Exodus 20, and the Ceremonial Law, or laws of Moses, was given in Exodus 24. Deuteronomy 4:13,14; 2 Kings 21:8; and Daniel 9:11, make it unequivocally, and unapologetically clear that there was a DISTINCTION between the Law of God (Ten Commandments) and the Law of Moses (Remedial ceremonial services). No getting around it.

Without question, the law, was split into two segments.

1. The Moral Law of Ten Commandments (Tables of Stone - Old Covenant) transferred to the Tables of your Heart (New Covenant)
2. The Mosaic Ceremonial Remedial Laws revolving the Earthly Sanctuary (Old Covenant), being abolished at the cross, and finding their substance and reality in Christ's High Priestly Ministration in the Heavenly Sanctuary in the New Covenant.



Not that I even care, but I have no idea what Ballywho means.



I was not the one who wrote Psalms 111:7-10.

where in the old cov, does it says they can pick and choose what laws they wanted?

how do u transfer just some of the old cov , to the new? (ED ABOVE)

if it is transfered, show where it says just some?

why is the sabbath a moral law?

 

[Lysimachus]

where in the old cov, does it says they can pick and choose what laws they wanted?

how do u transfer just some of the old cov , to the new? (ED ABOVE)

if it is transfered, show where it says just some?

why is the sabbath a moral law?

The question is, where in the New Covenant does it say the laws have changed? Why are the laws that Jesus and Paul mentioned, not any different, but only expansive in description?

Dat is de rreal quesschgion mi friennd.

And no, "some" did not transfer. ALL transferred. The Mosaic Laws transferred to Christ's High Priestly ministry in heaven, being abolished from this earth. The Ten Commandments transferred to the tables of our heart, and all the other laws that are intimately tied to the Ten.

The Sabbath is a "perpetual [everlasting] sign" between God and the children of Israel forever.

We are now Spiritual Israel, so thus this same sign is for us.

 

[Lysimachus]

hebrews says the old cov was abolished...

Heb 10:9then he added, ‘See, I have come to do your will.’ He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.


So, then if it is not abolished, am i legally bound to keep all the jewish old cov festivals, as a Christian? Do U?

Why would something that is "perfect" be abolished? Read the context of Hebrews 8 and 10--it's saying that the reason it is abolished was because it was "imperfect". But Psalms 19:7 and James 1:25 unequivocally declare the law to be "perfect", and Paul says it is "holy", "just", and "good" (Romans 7:12). Therefore, a "perfect law" cannot be abolished with an "imperfect covenant!".



And yes, we do keep all the festivals, and circumcision. Spiritually speaking that is.

The Ten are kept both spiritually and physically. For example, you cannot keep the law of "honoring your father and mother" only spiritually, and not show it physically. The same with the Sabbath. The same with physically refraining from breaking the other laws.

But, the ceremonial laws of circumcision (such as circumcizing the heart) have to do with a rending of the heart, and not the garment. All the festivals point to a heart-experience in the soul--a true transformation, as we partake of the LIVING bread from heaven--Jesus Christ.

ALL of it transfers! ALL of it still stands.

 

[Frogster]

The question is, where in the New Covenant does it say the laws have changed? Why are the laws that Jesus and Paul mentioned, not any different, but only expansive in description?

Dat is de rreal quesschgion mi friennd.

And no, "some" did not transfer. ALL transferred. The Mosaic Laws transferred to Christ's High Priestly ministry in heaven, being abolished from this earth. The Ten Commandments transferred to the tables of our heart, and all the other laws that are intimately tied to the Ten.

The Sabbath is a "perpetual [everlasting] sign" between God and the children of Israel forever.

We are now Spiritual Israel, so thus this same sign is for us.

then you have to keep the laws they same way, and keep all the jewish festivals the same way, and if you don't then u admit there is a change.

 

[Frogster]

Why would something that is "perfect" be abolished? Read the context of Hebrews 8 and 10--it's saying that the reason it is abolished was because it was "imperfect". But Psalms 19:7 and James 1:25 unequivocally declare the law to be "perfect", and Paul says it is "holy", "just", and "good" (Romans 7:12). Therefore, a "perfect law" cannot be abolished with an "imperfect covenant!".



And yes, we do keep all the festivals, and circumcision. Spiritually speaking that is.

The Ten are kept both spiritually and physically. For example, you cannot keep the law of "honoring your father and mother" only spiritually, and not show it physically. The same with the Sabbath. The same with physically refraining from breaking the other laws.

But, the ceremonial laws of circumcision (such as circumcizing the heart) have to do with a rending of the heart, and not the garment. All the festivals point to a heart-experience in the soul--a true transformation, as we partake of the LIVING bread from heaven--Jesus Christ.

ALL of it transfers! ALL of it still stands.

thyen why does it say the old cov is abolished in heb 10:9?

u says no, the text says yes, abolished.

same as the other post, you can't decide how the cov is transfered, if it is the same cov written internally, then you would have to follow it all externally verbatim. No?

where does it say some laws written in 2 cor 3?

would an old cov jew, do as you say, and not follow ALL the laws as is?

 

[Frogster]

Why would something that is "perfect" be abolished? Read the context of Hebrews 8 and 10--it's saying that the reason it is abolished was because it was "imperfect". But Psalms 19:7 and James 1:25 unequivocally declare the law to be "perfect", and Paul says it is "holy", "just", and "good" (Romans 7:12). Therefore, a "perfect law" cannot be abolished with an "imperfect covenant!".



And yes, we do keep all the festivals, and circumcision. Spiritually speaking that is.

The Ten are kept both spiritually and physically. For example, you cannot keep the law of "honoring your father and mother" only spiritually, and not show it physically. The same with the Sabbath. The same with physically refraining from breaking the other laws.

But, the ceremonial laws of circumcision (such as circumcizing the heart) have to do with a rending of the heart, and not the garment. All the festivals point to a heart-experience in the soul--a true transformation, as we partake of the LIVING bread from heaven--Jesus Christ.

ALL of it transfers! ALL of it still stands.

why do u bind to sabbath observance externally, but somehow not bind to festivals externally?


swoooosssshhhhhhh

 

[bugkiller]

Why would something that is "perfect" be abolished? Read the context of Hebrews 8 and 10--it's saying that the reason it is abolished was because it was "imperfect". But Psalms 19:7 and James 1:25 unequivocally declare the law to be "perfect", and Paul says it is "holy", "just", and "good" (Romans 7:12). Therefore, a "perfect law" cannot be abolished with an "imperfect covenant!".



And yes, we do keep all the festivals, and circumcision. Spiritually speaking that is.

The Ten are kept both spiritually and physically. For example, you cannot keep the law of "honoring your father and mother" only spiritually, and not show it physically. The same with the Sabbath. The same with physically refraining from breaking the other laws.

But, the ceremonial laws of circumcision (such as circumcizing the heart) have to do with a rending of the heart, and not the garment. All the festivals point to a heart-experience in the soul--a true transformation, as we partake of the LIVING bread from heaven--Jesus Christ.

ALL of it transfers! ALL of it still stands.

Utterly amazing and contrary to Scripture. I would give you Scripture but you are not the slightest bit interested in it or the truth.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

then you have to keep the laws they same way, and keep all the jewish festivals the same way, and if you don't then u admit there is a change.

Yep!

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

thyen why does it say the old cov is abolished in heb 10:9?

u says no, the text says yes, abolished.

same as the other post, you can't decide how the cov is transfered, if it is the same cov written internally, then you would have to follow it all externally verbatim. No?

where does it say some laws written in 2 cor 3?

would an old cov jew, do as you say, and not follow ALL the laws as is?

Does he have a problem or what?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Turns out - Paul and all the NT apostles "were Jews".

Turns out - that many of those in the Synagogues in Acts 13 and Acts 17 are said in scripture to be gentiles.

In fact in Acts 13 it is the gentiles that are accepting the Gospel message while the Jews are in large part rejecting yet. Yet the next Sabbath "almost the entire town shows up".

Your "Jews only" context for those services is not supported in the text of scripture.

And neither is your implication those Gentiles were Christins either. The text does not support Christians doing the inviting.

And so once again - we are amazed to find that there is NO example of the much imagined "preach the gospel on Sabbath then invite those who are accepting it to tomorrow's week-day-1 service".

In Acts 16 they meet with gentile believers in Philippi where they suppose that a prayer meeting may be had on Sabbath.

These people were not Christians. Read the whole narrative.

Paul said that on "week-day-1" of each week they should set in store by themselves -- (save ahead of time, and in their own homes) money to be reserved later when their is a gathering.

No that is not what Paul said. There is absolutely no implication of anything in their homes. The Greek words imply commercial as in business. If it is in their homes there still needs to be a collection when Paul arrives which he forbids. Read the whole narrative. I do have a whole post detailing this very section of Scripture. It is a couple years old maybe.

At the first of each week set aside by yourself funds to be used later as an offering.

Oh no wait! It what if 1 Cor 16:2 actually said "on the week-day 1 which is the Lord's Day - when you are all gathered for worship and the Lord's Supper let each one give an offering as God may lead". Indeed what a great text that would have been - had it existed, had they ever assigned a title of honor to week-day-1 or had they ever said to meet for worship or for taking up an offering each week-day-1.

So do you take your offering to your church on the first day of the week? I doubt it. Or are you mocking the Scripture? Since you made the comment I highlighted I think you seem to know the verse is a pollution. Can you show this?

bugkiller

 

[Lysimachus]

thyen why does it say the old cov is abolished in heb 10:9?

u says no, the text says yes, abolished.

same as the other post, you can't decide how the cov is transfered, if it is the same cov written internally, then you would have to follow it all externally verbatim. No?

where does it say some laws written in 2 cor 3?

would an old cov jew, do as you say, and not follow ALL the laws as is?

I didn't say the Old Covenant wasn't abolished. I believe it was. The entire earthly ceremonial system was abolished.

But keep in mind that all the covenants made to man are subject to the Everlasting Covenant. The Everlasting Covenant ENCOMPASSES ALL the covenants. All the covenants given are simply gradual reintegrations of the Everlasting Covenant.

The "Old" covenant was never called the "Old" Covenant. It BECAME "Old" when Israel broke it.

The Old Covenant is the Everlasting Covenant broken by the poor promises of Israel. The New Covenant is the Everlasting Covenant restored, recaptured, and made better by the blood of Christ. This is why a New Covenant was absolutely necessary, because although the Everlasting Covenant was made between the Father and Son, long before this planet was created, a breach had been made in the Covenant by a stubborn and stiffnecked people.

Therefore, this Everlasting Covenant had to be restored. And this is why we see that the blood Christ shed was the blood of the Everlasting Covenant (Hebrews 13:20). But we also already know according to Scripture it was the blood of the New Covenant.

The most convincing proof that the abolishing of the covenant does not erase the law is the fact that Jesus, the Apostles, and Paul repeat or allude to all 10 of them.

Simple as pie.

 

[bugkiller]

--======================

you miss the point entirely.

They are sharing the gospel on Sabbath with BOTH bible believing Jews AND Gentiles - and instead of inviting those who accept the message to "join us tomorrow in our week-day-1 Gospel preaching service" they say "come back next Sabbath" when in fact "almost the entire town shows up" Acts 13.

No, no you are adding to the Scripture here. There is no indication they are Christians as you imply with your "Bible believing" statement. Pretty sly trick on those lacking in knowledge with your code word applications. It is your very Bible believer thumping Jews who seek to kill Paul.


Bugkiller