Why the Sabbath isn’t on Saturday or Sunday

[bugkiller]

You have a problem; all I have suggested is the requirement for a writ to be holy.

What is my problem?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

The consecutive days of the week have never changed..still one to seven inclusive...the seventh day of the first week God rest, blessed it and sanctified, made it Holy...it is the only Holy day in the New Covenant of the Bible.

So they have not changed. Then we have no problem. There is not one single reference to Jesus doing anything on the Sabbath during His 40 days after the resurrection. In fact the only day specifically mentioned is the first day of the week. Do you have any idea what would have happened if Jesus had appeared in the Temple after the resurrection on the sabbath?

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Until now I hadn't read Malachi; but God does not change; if God changed He would lose His identity, His credibility and His name; nobody would know who He was; yet subjectively God changed when he became Jesus and again when born into the Kingdom of God; the covenant cannot change because God's covenant establishes God's identity, His credibility and His name.

Just what I thought you are only spouting something you have heard. Therefore you are representing someone's or some religious organization's view point and not that of the Scripture. You are here only to argue. Do you want to come clean and tell us where you got your idea from?

Now Mal 3:6 is about God's character. If it really means what you want it to mean Jeremiah is a straight up liar because he clearly says this new covenant will not be like the one before it. That means there is nothing about moving the old covenant.

I believe that the OT offered eternal life:

""It's a good question. The answer would depend upon whom you ask.
The Sadducees would say "no," the Pharisees would say, "Yes."
Yeshua says, "Yes." See Luke 10:25-28, Matthew 19:16-19.""

Matthew 19:16-19 (NKJV)
16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"
17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
18 He said to Him, "Which ones?" Jesus said, "'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,'
19 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "

You have not read the Scripture. I see no need to provide you with quote sources. Besides what you presented is straight up SDA stuff. You have not read what the question was nor have you considered the Scripture because you have not read it. You are here only to argue and cause trouble.

Luke 10:25-28 (NKJV)
25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"
27 So he answered and said, "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and 'your neighbor as yourself.' "
28 And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."

Same as above.

Jesus does not distinguish between OT AND NT old covenant and new covenant; the same requirements for eternal life are applicable to both.

Yes Jesus does in Jn 15:10. I understand how much you dislike that passage.

<<<6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: >>>

The writer of Hebrews goes on to quote Jeremiah; neither Jeremiah or Hebrews are at odds with the narrative that I use; Jesus is a better mediator ; His blood is better than that of a bull;

Hebrews 8:7 paraphrased: For if that first covenant had not been broken, then should no place have been sought for a second.


<<<13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Note the bolded blue.>>> I presume had this been God speaking you would have used red.

First off you left out v 6. Why? Is it because you want to prove the new covenant is established with law?

Next I want you to state exactly what you are insinuating by implying my information did not come from God.

It is not known who wrote Hebrews; but along with the epistles of Paul, Hebrews is not considered to be a universal, ( google catholic epistles); Hebrews is considered to be a private communication between it's author and it's addressee; and therefore none of our business.

Verse 1 of Hebrews clearly shows the letter is written to Hebrews (Jews). Nice dismissal of Scripture.

<<<Other details of the new covenant you do not like are found in Jn 15:10 where the law is abrogated by Jesus (God the Son). We know that Jesus kept the law as required by Him being a Jew. Jesus self confesses this in 15:10. Jesus said keep His commandments. Jesus did not issue the 10 C's engraved on stone according to John in 1:17. It clearly states the law did not come by Him.>>>

These scriptures do not abrogate anything; Jesus does not contradict Himself; consider who Jesus is talking to; Jesus may know that his audience is called and chosen; did you read verse 22; the new covenant is because we know the Law we have no cloak for sin; the false gospel of grace means because there is no Law there is on sin which is the opposite to what Jesus is teaching.

What commandments did Jesus keep? Jesus says His Father's. Therefore Jesus did not admit to keeping His (Jesus') commandments. We know that Jesus kept the law (10 Cs). Your proof Jesus kept something else is....? Careful now, do not admit Jesus kept something besides the law. If Jesus did, what exactly was it? John compares Jesus' commandments to Jesus' Father's commandments, therefore they can not be the same. Jesus did not promote sin by not keeping the law.

You are trying to stretch v 22 into something it does not mean. Have you read the verses following your proof text you are trying to spoof me with?

No where there is no law there is no violation. Rom 5:13 says sin was before the law and Gal 3:19 says that is the reason the law came. Hint - I have read and am armed with the Scripture, including Moses.

Regarding Jn 1:17, I really am stunned that you would use this scripture to show something didn't happen; I can discern differences between the word of God and Jesus but had you read the first 16 verses of John 1 you would know:

So you seem to claim John is lying. I am speechless. Your version of John's Gospel is a worthless testimony. And yes I read the first 16 verses many times. You are spouting the SDA mantra.

John 1:14 (NKJV)
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Maybe you think the word was not the God who gave the Law to Moses.

I have no idea why you think so.

<<<Now if you wish to stick us with the law (commandments) here is God the Father's commandment of the new covenant -

And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. I Jn 3:23.>>>

This is Malachi repeated you despise the Law and make excuses.

What? How?

I Jn 3:23, is John speaking as a pastor. For most part Jesus taught the Lost sheep of Israel who required salvation; not to those who were not lost, (and not Gentiles). Jesus gave instruction his church who were saved but not to the point of deleting anything established.

You ignore Jn 15:10.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

Obviously there is no point in my repeating myself; Jesus's presence or arrival on queue and the fulfilment of those things concerning Him in the Law and the Prophets,
authenticates the OT and the OT authenticates Jesus; and you want to divide Jesus from the OT; the NT on the other hand has no authenticity other than to be the fulfilment of the OT and anything in the NT that isn't the fulfilment of the OT is not authorised such as Paul and Mohammed.

Luke 22:20 (NKJV)
20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

This verse is not proof that something did not happen; confirming the covenant was the fulfilment of the prophesies confirming Jesus was the Messiah and the shedding of His blood as the Lamb of God since the foundation. What the above verse shows is the New Covenant is a blood covenant and you do not appear to appreciate the seriousness of a blood covenant.

This is not confirmation of anything. It states fulfillment only proving Who Jesus is.

Next you will probably quote in part I Jn 2:6. That is not a call to keep the law because the same author quoted Jesus in Jn 15:10.

And you even quoted Lk 22:20 which says new (kainos) covenant. You simply do not seem to believe the verses you post.

bugkiller

 

[sparow]

What is my problem?

bugkiller

Remember You asked the question.

""Besides what you presented is straight up SDA stuff."" You use the name of a church who advocates keeping the commandments of God as an expletive.

""This is not confirmation of anything. It states fulfillment only proving Who Jesus is."" You use semantical arguments as though pretending you do not know better.

""I have no qualms about 31:29. I personally think you are merely using it to accuse me of iniquity""; I don't see this as paranoia but as malfunctioning debating technique.

Now you will probably think I belong to this group but you will be wrong. I include the link for others who may be reading this thread.

https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond-today-bible-study/the-minor-prophets-malachi-messenger-of-god

 

[bugkiller]

Remember You asked the question.

""Besides what you presented is straight up SDA stuff."" You use the name of a church who advocates keeping the commandments of God as an expletive.

What expletive did I use?

I did not swear nor did I use the name of a church in a derogatory manner.

I did not use any unneeded word to balance a sentence.

I think you need a dictionary for your big words.

""This is not confirmation of anything. It states fulfillment only proving Who Jesus is."" You use semantical arguments as though pretending you do not know better.

Jesus made a statement indicating He fulfilled everything required of Him to qualify as the Messiah. You seem to say Jesus is making a semantical statement in LK 24:44. Those are not my words. I did not deliberately or otherwise make a statement to distort nor twist the meaning of anything. You need a dictionary.

""I have no qualms about 31:29. I personally think you are merely using it to accuse me of iniquity""; I don't see this as paranoia but as malfunctioning debating technique.

Vs 29 and 30 have nothing to do with the discussion. So what is the purpose of your inclusion?

Now you will probably think I belong to this group but you will be wrong. I include the link for others who may be reading this thread.

https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond-today-bible-study/the-minor-prophets-malachi-messenger-of-god

OK. We do not normally see people from this religious organization. They also appear in Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults. I am familiar with Herbert W. Armstrong. They had a very major split.

bugkiller