Why we are not supposed to keep the Sabbath

[CLEEB]

Abraham was married long before he was called by God to leave the religions of his father. This is no proof that God's Law didn't exist. Hopefully God doesn't hold the sins of Abraham against him, before God showed him "the way of the Lord". Otherwise we are all doomed.



Sarah gave her handmade to be Abram's wife. How is Abram guilty of transgressing God's Laws, by marrying her?

Ex. 21: 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.



This is true, in my understanding as well.




Moses never said any such thing. The Bible doesn't support the popular religious philosophy that the Laws, Judgments, Statutes and Commandments God gave Abraham to obey, are different than the Laws, Judgments, Statutes and Commandments God gave Abraham's Children to obey.



This is true, in my view as well..

If you are a law keeper then can you commit adultery ? The law says plainly that people who commit adultery are to be killed. Leviticus 20:10 GOD S law is equal and fair to all people. There is only one law for anyone, Exodus 12:49 Numbers 15:15-16 Just as there is only one hope of salvation there is only one law that GOD gave through Moses that applies to all. As GOD said, every man shall die for his own sin, sin is the transgression of the law and the wages of sin is death. All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of GOD. No one gets out of the law unless they are in Christ.

 

[Hentenza]

They do not have Jesus saying we do not need to keep the Sabbath commandment and you know it otherwise you would simply produce the verse. God knows it too, who we can't hide anything from Ecc12:13-14

Sure it does. You just refuse to understand that the 10 commandments are part of the Mosaic law and was never repeated into Jesus two love commandments. Second, I don’t have to prove a negative, you do. There is no mention of the 4th commandment being part of the new covenant so you have to show where it is part of the new covenant. Third, the law was NEVER given to the gentiles collectively so it wouldn’t apply anyway. This is the reason that Jesus repeated the moral commandments into His two love commandments. You have to show that the gentiles were given the law also. This is you burden of proof not mine.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

This is you burden of proof not mine.

No, you said Jesus changed the Sabbath, but did not provided one verse of Him saying He did.

I see there is no reasoning, if you refuse to support your own claim, speaking your words as if they are God's. This is one of the reasons why I believe God in His own words relates breaking the Sabbath to idol worship Eze20:16 replacing the authority of God who wrote the Ten Commandments according to God Deut4:13 Exo31:18 and claimed them as as a unit of Ten Deut 4:13 Exo34:28 and His commandments Exo20:6 (not Moses) in His own written and spoken Testimony Exo31:18 and sad man tries to lower them to be equal or lower to what man says. This is not a new problem, it was addressed many times in Scripture.

I guess this debate will get sorted out at His soon return. Jesus already promised what the future brings to those who serve Him Isa56:6 Rev22:14 Isa66:22-23

 

[DamianWarS]

This is a different argument than what I asked.

I asked very simply in Jesus own words where did He say we don't have to keep the Sabbath commandment? You claimed He changed the Sabbath. The summary of the Law, the two greatest commandments is not Jesus saying we can break the Sabbath commandment, they include the Sabbath according to God what Jesus who is God quoted Deut6:5.

So where is the verse where Jesus after His death told anyone, we do not need to keep the Sabbath commandment. He certainly did not tell His faithful followers who kept the Sabbath according to the comamndment after His death Luke23:56 so where is the verse where He told them or anyone to not keep the Sabbath commandment. Jesus wrote and spoke- Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Exo20:8-11, the Sabbath is My holy day Isa58:13 Where did He say just as clearly, we do not have to keep the Sabbath commandment. If you can't find it, because its not there, I would be careful adding words that our Lord and Savior did not say, but that's me I would never want to put myself in the place of Him and speak for Him on something He said the opposite. Eze20:12 Eze20:20 Mat24:20 Isa66:22-23.

I did not say Christ changes Sabbath law (and certainly not Sabbath) nor any law for that matter, please don't misrepresent me. Do you think Christ changed the laws for the sarafice? Or circumcision? Or for separating grains or threads for that matter? Christ does not appolish any law (he says so himself). He fulfills them (he also said this). Which law? The context is in Mat 5:17, you can read it yourself. You already accept this but are unwilling to apply it to all law. You're the one segregating law for the sake of your tradition not Christ. I can't defend this practice nor find scriptural support for it.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I did not say Christ changes Sabbath law (and certainly not Sabbath) nor any law for that matter, please don't misrepresent me.

The post you are replying to was not addressed to you.

 

[DamianWarS]

I know you are just furthering what this world's religions have taught you, and you genuinely believe what you just posted. And it is doubtful, as Jesus declares, that you will be persuaded of anything different.

Nevertheless, because of Love for the brethren, I would like to share with you and those reading along, the error in this popular religious philosophy of this world.

#1. To believe you, I would have to believe that the "Them of Old Time" He is speaking to in Matt. 5, is God, and the Prophet HE Sent, and that Jesus came to destroy their teaching, so that men would be discouraged to no longer "Live By" the Word's Jesus said to Live By. But when you actually read what Jesus is saying, He isn't correcting His Father and the Prophets, HE is exposing the teaching of the Pharisees. Jesus just said:

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Remember, these preachers, as did their fathers, "omitted the weightier matters of the Law". They transgressed God's Commandments by their own religious traditions. Please look at the first "LAW" you are claiming God didn't teach, but Jesus did.

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

So what does the Law of God say?

Lev. 19: 17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

So Jesus is just repeating what the Law and Prophets, and HE Himself has taught about the "Jews Religion" from the beginning.

Like it was pointed out to you earlier, the devils mission is to turn men away from obedience to God. And to do that, it "Professes to know God", like the serpent in the garden, and it quotes "Some" of God's Word, like the serpent in the garden. And Jesus Himself called these Pharisees and scribes, "children of the devil". Malachi said of their fathers: "Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been "partial in the law".

In every verse where Jesus is exposing the "Them of old time", He shows what the Words of God the corrupt priests quoted, and followed up with the Words of God they omitted. I'll give you a couple more examples, in the in sincere hope you might consider.

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Duet. 24: 1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found "some uncleanness in her": then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Jer. 3: 8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Matt. 19: 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, "except it be for fornication", and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Again, the "them of old time" promoted divorce for any reason. But the LAW only gave ONE reason for divorce. This is clear as a bell, for those who are interested in what is actually written. Lets examine another.

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34 But I say unto you, "Swear not at all"; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

What does the LAW say?

Deut. 5: 21 When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. 22 But if thou shalt "forbear to vow", it shall be no sin in thee.

In every case Jesus is pointing out the "LAW" that the "them of Old Time" omitted.

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Lev. 19: 18 Thou shalt "not avenge", nor "bear any grudge" against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

The teaching that Jesus, who had just said "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.", but then went on to diminish His Father and the Prophets His Father sent, is really wicked and not true. You mean well, I don't think you are promoting such a falsehood on purpose. And we have all been deceived in our lives.

But I hope you will consider that the "Them of Old Time", in Matt. 5, right after Jesus said HE didn't come to destroy the Law and Prophets, is NOT His Father and the Prophets, but the Fathers of the Pharisees, who were, as it is written and told us by Jesus Himself, "omitted the weightier matters of the Law".

Remember, The Christ Jesus "IS" the LAW of God who came in the Flesh.

I know you are just furthering what this world's religions have taught you, and you genuinely believe what you just posted. And it is doubtful, as Jesus declares, that you will be persuaded of anything different.

Nevertheless, because of Love for the brethren, I would like to share with you and those reading along, the error in this popular religious philosophy of this world.

Sound familiar? Does it feel a little patronising? Perhaps you want to try again in a manner that sees your brethren holding scripture and Christ to the highest regard over blaming people to be against Christ and his teachings (that is what philosophies of the world means doesn't it). Sure we can disagree but don't do this... It's derogatory and undermining and has no place in these forms nor does it speak well to your character or strength of position when you need to open this way.

I won't engage these comments further if not corrected.

 

[Hentenza]

No, you said Jesus changed the Sabbath, but did not provided one verse of Him saying He did.

Yes I did. Jesus became the lord of everything even of the sabbath. I don’t have to prove a negative. You have to prove that the 4th commandment is included in the new covenant. You have to prove that the law was given to the gentiles including the 4th commandment.

I see there is no reasoning, because you refuse to support your own claim, speaking your words as if they are God's.

My claims are supported.

Sad, many people do this and its why I believe God in His own words relates breaking the Sabbath to idol worship Eze20:16 replacing the authority of God who wrote the Ten Commandments according to God Deut4:13 Exo31:18 and claimed them as His commandments Exo20:6 (not Moses) in His own written and spoken Testimony Exo31:18 and lowering it to be equal or lower to what man says. This is not a new problem, it was addressed many times in Scripture.

What is sad is that you continue to use verses that refer to the Mosaic law to prove that they apply to the gentile church when the law was never given to the gentiles. Your tired argument here does not work and your legalistic view is not scriptural.

 

[DamianWarS]

After quoting only from the Ten He said FUTHERMORE, which means in addition and than even related those to the Ten Commandments.

He also says AGAIN in v33. This does not separate the 10 from the law, no scripture teaches that. Certainly "furthermore" is not the key to unlock such a doctrine, this is grasping. The text does not support such a claim.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Yes I did. Jesus became the lord of everything even of the sabbath. I don’t have to prove a negative. You have to prove that the 4th commandment is included in the new covenant. You have to prove that the law was given to the gentiles including the 4th commandment.

My claims are supported.

What is sad is that you continue to use verses that refer to the Mosaic law to prove that they apply to the gentile church when the law was never given to the gentiles. Your tired argument here does not work and your legalistic view is not scriptural.

He didn't become Lord of the Sabbath i.e. the creation, He is the Lord of the Sabbath Creator of it starting back from the beginning. Gen 2:1-3 Exo20:11 Col 1:16 and the Lord of the Sabbath spoke directly from His own mouth all throughout the Scriptures about the Sabbath always telling us to keep it, never once telling us not to, but warning against this very thing.

Why no verse that Jesus changed the Sabbath, I do not recommend adding our words to His.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

He also says AGAIN in v33. This does not separate the 10 from the law, no scripture teaches that. Certainly "furthermore" is not the key to unlock such a doctrine, this is grasping. The text does not support such a claim.

He separated the two commandments from the Ten Commandments with this..

31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except [l]sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

And than relates divorce with adultery from the Ten Commandments again an example of Him magnifying His law, making bigger, not lessor.

 

[Studyman]

If you are a law keeper then can you commit adultery ?
The law says plainly that people who commit adultery are to be killed. Leviticus 20:10 GOD S law is equal and fair to all people. There is only one law for anyone, Exodus 12:49 Numbers 15:15-16 Just as there is only one hope of salvation there is only one law that GOD gave through Moses that applies to all. As GOD said, every man shall die for his own sin, sin is the transgression of the law and the wages of sin is death. All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of GOD. No one gets out of the law unless they are in Christ.

You can mock God where His Friend Abraham is concerned if the spirit in you leads to such behavior.

I would remind you that Abraham is dead, and will remain that way, because HE sinned, just as the Righteous God of Abraham says. And Abraham, like all obedient, Faithful Servants of God died in Hope that the Lord's Christ, whose day Abraham saw and was glad, will return one day, and raise Him from the dead.

That you would exalt yourself over Abraham, judging him as an adulterer, a judgment that neither God, nor Moses, nor any of the Prophets, nor Jesus nor any of the Apostles of Christ made, suggested or even implied, is proof positive that the Spirit that guided them in their discourse concerning Abraham, is not be the same spirit as the one directing your preaching concerning him.

You are free to continue in your judgments against Abraham, which are contrary to God's Judgments of Abraham, if your human heart directs you to. But I don't have to partake in them.

So long.

 

[DamianWarS]

He separated the two commandments from the Ten Commandments with this..

31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except [l]sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

And than relates divorce right to adultery from the Ten Commandments.

I got the logic, you seem to think this means the 10 commandments are separate from the rest of law despite the context pointing to many reasons why it doesn't but vs 31 says "furthermore" so that must mean the 10 are treated differently? Furthermore is used to belabour the point not to tell us we need to pull the 10 out of law. If it were the later we need a lot more than this to build a doctrine.

Furthermore (I'm belabouring the point), the quotes Christ uses do not all superimpose over the 10 and Christ highlights other values. This passage simply cannot responsibly show us we should separate the 10 from the law. We can't just insert commentary and say that's what Jesus really meant. What he really meant is what he said. Jots and tittles for example references a source from ink not a source from stone (that has no jots and tittles). Christ would have used stone imagery over ink if he intended to highlight only the tablets.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I got the logic, you seem to think this means the 10 commandments are separate from the rest of law despite the context pointing to many reasons why it doesn't but vs 31 says "furthermore" so that must mean the 10 are treated differently? Furthermore is used to belabour the point not to tell us we need to pull the 10 out of law. If it were the later we need a lot more than this to build a doctrine.

Furthermore (I'm belabouring the point), the quotes Christ uses do not all superimpose over the 10 and Christ highlights other values. This passage simply cannot responsibly show us we should separate the 10 from the law. We can't just insert commentary and say that's what Jesus really meant. What he really meant is what he said. Jots and tittles for example references a source from ink not a source from stone (that has no jots and tittles). Christ would have used stone imagery over ink if he intended to highlight only the tablets.

I think God did that when after He spoke the Ten Commandments He added NO MORE Deut 5:22 He wrote Ten Commandments Deut4:13 no more, its the whole law of God 2 Chro33:8 James2:10-12, God is capable of making a whole law without man having to add to it,. He clearly spoke and wrote what He meant Deut4:13 Exo 34:28

The Ten Commandments is what man will be judged by James2:11-12 why its the only Law under God's mercy seat Exo25:21 Rev 15:5 Rev 11:19 and no more was added, and they mean much more than people realize as Jesus taught plainly from this same unit. Mat5:17-30 If everyone was keeping them the way Jesus explained there would be no more sin.

A jot or tittle has nothing to do with ink, He already said He wrote His Laws in stone Exo31:18 Deut9:10 not handwritten with ink on scrolls so lets not change what God said plainly. A Jot or Tittle means not something as small as a dot of an i or cross of a t can pass from His Laws, yet alone editing or removing an entire commandment or two.

ἰῶτα iōta, ee-o'-tah; of Hebrew origin (the tenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet); "iota", the name of the [ninth]1 letter of the Greek alphabet, put (figuratively) for a very small part of anything:—jot.

כ (A. V. tittle); the meaning is, 'not even the minutest part of the law shall perish.' ((Aeschylus, Thucydides, others.))

 

[Studyman]

I know you are just furthering what this world's religions have taught you, and you genuinely believe what you just posted. And it is doubtful, as Jesus declares, that you will be persuaded of anything different.

Nevertheless, because of Love for the brethren, I would like to share with you and those reading along, the error in this popular religious philosophy of this world.

Sound familiar? Does it feel a little patronising? Perhaps you want to try again in a manner that sees your brethren holding scripture and Christ to the highest regard over blaming people to be against Christ and his teachings (that is what philosophies of the world means doesn't it). Sure we can disagree but don't do this... It's derogatory and undermining and has no place in these forms nor does it speak well to your character or strength of position when you need to open this way.

I won't engage these comments further if not corrected.

My comments were from the heart of a man who was once deceived into believing, the same as you, that Jesus, in Matt. 5, was discouraging men from trusting the Holy Scriptures "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" by claiming that The Words of God Jesus said to "live by" were not sufficient in revealing God's Righteousness. Implying that everyone that existed before Matt. 5, could not know God's righteousness.

I wasn't making stuff up about your stated philosophy, you made your philosophy perfectly clear, and I have heard of it for decades, and I was responding to what you actually taught.

Christ does quote from 10 but in a diminutive way, "You have heard that it was said to those of old" then goes on telling us a better way. So he tells us an older way, then shows us a better way, that better way is uniquely from Christ saying "But I say..." this creates a contrast between the ways of the old (the law) with the ways of Christ, showing Christ's way is better. Better than what? Better than the law.

I didn't want to accuse you of purposely promoting falsehoods about Jesus, I didn't believe you would do such a thing, any more than I did, when I believed it. I didn't mean to offend you and my comments were not meant to be patronizing. However, I can see where a teacher might be offended by them, and I should have chosen my words more carefully.

I truly apologize for my manner, And should have been more careful in my selection of words, and will take extra caution in any further engagement, to pick my words more carefully.

I too, like you, was taught this by the religions of this world God placed me in and believed it, and promoted it, for many years, that Jesus came to destroy God's Laws and bring HIS own Laws, "A better way"..

I was taught this very thing, and believed it, because I was taught not to believe Moses and the Prophets.

But when I started reading the Bible for myself, this popular religious philosophy started to fall apart.

Jesus said to "Live by" every Word of God. HE said, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

But according to "Many" who come in Christ's Name, Jesus is teaching men not to hear God and the Prophets He sent, because Jesus has another way, a better way. As if HE wasn't the "Word of God who became flesh" in the first place.

But this world's religions were teaching to opposite, and were pitting Jesus against His Father who sent Him, in large part, by quoting parts of Matt. 5.. So I studied Matt. 5, apart from the influence of this world's religions, and found that the "Them of Old Time" wasn't God and the Prophets HE sent at all. They were the fathers of the Pharisees who had corrupted the Priesthood Covenant with Levi, and, as God inspired Malachi to write, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been "partial in the law".

And because I love the brethren and want to warn them about this popular philosophy, I posted for you the truth of Matt. 5, concerning who the "Them of Old Time" truly was. Not based on my opinion, but based on what is actually written.

That the "Them of Old Time" was NOT God and the Prophets HE sent, but the corrupt Priests of Old Time, who Isaiah, Jeremiah, Malachi, Ezekiel, etc., warned about over and over and over, whose philosophies the Pharisees and scribes were promoting, that were partial in the Law. Do the study yourself, and you too, if you are seeking truth and not justification, will find the same thing.

If my manner offended you, I truly apologize. But if it prompts you or anyone else to "Do the Study" for themselves, as Everything Jesus said in Matt. 5, HE also said as the Word of God.

Prov. 6: 24 To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. 25 Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.