Why worry about the Ten Commandments, if you are disregarding the Sabbath?

[TruthMiner]

God is proud of you all for following traditions!!

Colossians 2:18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Galatians 1:14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

In Romans 14:5-6: "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it."

The Message: Matthew 12:7 Jesus said: 'If you had any idea what this Scripture meant--"I prefer a flexible heart to an inflexible ritual'--you wouldn't be nitpicking like this. 8The Son of Man is no lackey to the Sabbath; he's in charge." '

NIV: Matthew 12:7 If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.

NKJV: But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.

I keep looking of a place in my Bible where God wanted all the governments of the world to adopt the 10 Commandments and operate like OT Israel but I can't find any yet. Must be here somewhere.

I always thought the holy nation of God now was the church, not USA.

 

[jochanaan]

...I assume that you when you quote the parenthetical note from your translation, "(Thus he declared all foods clean.)", at the end of verse 19, that you are suggesting that the Messiah was saying that unclean animals had been made clean. Even if the parenthetical entry is authentic - some translations such as the "King James" and the "Interlinear Greek-English New Testament" don’t have it - I am not aware of any scripture that ever refers to unclean animals as "food"....

What the King James has is a rather obscure phrase at the end of the verse: "Because it...goeth out into the draught, purging all meats[.]" (color emphasis mine) The parenthetical section I included in my previous quote is apparently the way the NIV renders that phrase. And of course, there's the episode in Acts 10: "Rise, Peter; kill, and eat." Was that only about accepting Gentiles into the Way, as Christianity was called then? But the subject here is Sabbathkeeping, not keeping the whole Law.

 

[BrightCandle]

People just don't drop it and continue to ask "WHY"??

They believe one method and we believe another method. I don't judge those who keep the Sabbath on Saturdays. If their conscience tells them to have Sabbath on Saturdays, AMEN and Glory to God.

Here is the problem with your reasoning; you have "conscience" trumping the very words of God. Sunday keeping is a based on tradition, with no command from Jesus, while Sabbath keeping is based on the command from Jesus. That is the difference.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Here is the problem with your reasoning; you have "conscience" trumping the very words of God. Sunday keeping is a based on tradition, with no command from Jesus, while Sabbath keeping is based on the command from Jesus. That is the difference.

Reasonings: Christianity today is so entangled with "reasonings". Only that which is born by the Holy Spirit is spirit, no matter how much Christians are relying on "outward" activities. When a Christian joins up with the traditional view of "LAW", we are placing ourselves outside Grace. Philippians 3:3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh. Philippians 3:4-6 "If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless."

It appears that (reading this thread and other threads) that everything is based on "visible" because people are looking at situation based on external elements of doctrines rather than internal and spiritual. The word "visible" is closely related to "legalism". Each of us can always trust the Holy Spirit in our lives and experiences, but we have to be careful no to trust our human reasoning and our fleshly conclusions based on visible activities. There is a great concern about people who talks too much about our relationship with faith and not enough about our relationship with Jesus. There are Christians whose experience does not follow a true inner longing to be more like Jesus.

Another big differences is that we show verses that Sabbath can be followed: I will repeat the verses... you can ask bible publishers to remove these verses. "Let no man judge you...regarding...sabbaths" (Colossians 2:16).

In Romans 14:5-6: "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it."

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however,is found in Christ"(Colossians 2:15-17)

In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.

The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. Source: John MacArthur

Holiness is "I can do everything through him who gives me strength." (Philippians 4:13) regardless what happens in our personal situations. Holiness is giving ourselves to Christ (see Romans 12:1-2). God has given the Holy Spirit to enable us to have a holy relationship with our Father.

 

[Cliff2]

Reasonings: Christianity today is so entangled with "reasonings". Only that which is born by the Holy Spirit is spirit, no matter how much Christians are relying on "outward" activities. When a Christian joins up with the traditional view of "LAW", we are placing ourselves outside Grace. Philippians 3:3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh. Philippians 3:4-6 "If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless."

It appears that (reading this thread and other threads) that everything is based on "visible" because people are looking at situation based on external elements of doctrines rather than internal and spiritual. The word "visible" is closely related to "legalism". Each of us can always trust the Holy Spirit in our lives and experiences, but we have to be careful no to trust our human reasoning and our fleshly conclusions based on visible activities. There is a great concern about people who talks too much about our relationship with faith and not enough about our relationship with Jesus. There are Christians whose experience does not follow a true inner longing to be more like Jesus.

Another big differences is that we show verses that Sabbath can be followed: I will repeat the verses... you can ask bible publishers to remove these verses. "Let no man judge you...regarding...sabbaths" (Colossians 2:16).

In Romans 14:5-6: "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it."

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however,is found in Christ"(Colossians 2:15-17)

Holiness is "I can do everything through him who gives me strength." (Philippians 4:13) regardless what happens in our personal situations. Holiness is giving ourselves to Christ (see Romans 12:1-2). God has given the Holy Spirit to enable us to have a holy relationship with our Father.

In the Bible there are about 150 plus verses that is about the Sabbath.

We have one verse that indicates to some that they do not have to keep the Sabbath day holt anymore.

When you look at the weight of evidence the scales tip very heavy for the 7th day Sabbath.

I would much rather go with 150 plus than one verse that does not even say Sunday is holy.

 

[Windmill]

Reasonings: Christianity today is so entangled with "reasonings". Only that which is born by the Holy Spirit is spirit, no matter how much Christians are relying on "outward" activities. When a Christian joins up with the traditional view of "LAW", we are placing ourselves outside Grace. Philippians 3:3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh. Philippians 3:4-6 "If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless."

It appears that (reading this thread and other threads) that everything is based on "visible" because people are looking at situation based on external elements of doctrines rather than internal and spiritual. The word "visible" is closely related to "legalism". Each of us can always trust the Holy Spirit in our lives and experiences, but we have to be careful no to trust our human reasoning and our fleshly conclusions based on visible activities. There is a great concern about people who talks too much about our relationship with faith and not enough about our relationship with Jesus. There are Christians whose experience does not follow a true inner longing to be more like Jesus.

Another big differences is that we show verses that Sabbath can be followed: I will repeat the verses... you can ask bible publishers to remove these verses. "Let no man judge you...regarding...sabbaths" (Colossians 2:16).

In Romans 14:5-6: "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it."

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however,is found in Christ"(Colossians 2:15-17)

Holiness is "I can do everything through him who gives me strength." (Philippians 4:13) regardless what happens in our personal situations. Holiness is giving ourselves to Christ (see Romans 12:1-2). God has given the Holy Spirit to enable us to have a holy relationship with our Father.

I'm not sure I understood the first half of your post, but I managed to understand enough to make a comment on it.

I agree with Cliff. We have a couple of verses, which could be pointing towards us not having to keep the sabbath.

Yet we have over 150 (I'd say likely more) verses which clearly clearly state honour the seventh day and keep it holy.

Now, in the bible, there are verses which seem to indicate that hell is everlasting fire by using the word "eternal". However, if we look elsewhere in the bible, then we can see "eternal" is in the other cases (and its used a lot outside of those verses that don't talk about hell) and it doesn't mean everlasting. Now, this would explain the overwhelming verses which state the evil don't burn forever, they are destroyed by fire. By looking at the verse in context with the rest of the bible, we can make sense.

Now, the bible doesn't contridict itself right?

Well, there are overwhelming number of verses which clearly state the sabbath is saturday and should be kept holy. Yet, we have a couple of verses which might state otherwise. Obviously, the bible must be in harmony with each other.

So, what do you do? Well, simple, we try and put the verses in context.

The verses you quoted:

[bible]Romans 14:5-6[/bible]

Look at the chapter. Its all on judging people (Verses 4, 10, 13).
The issue wasn't over the moral law, but over the cerimonial laws. The cerimonial sabbaths. The Jwish christians were judging the gentiles for not keeping these. Paul was telling them to stop it, because those laws are no longer binding.

[bible]Colossians 2:15-17[/bible]

This merely is talking about the sabbaths that were a "shadow of things to come." There were seven yearly Holy days, or if you prefer, "holidays" in Ancient Israel which were called sabbaths. There were in addition to the Seventh day sabbath, as shown by this verse:

[bible]Leviticus 23:38[/bible]

 

[Nightfire]

As for the 613 Levitical laws, they are a matter of some dispute, just as the Sabbath is. Yet Paul makes it very clear in Galatians 5:2 that circumcision is not required for Gentile Christians. "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." And Jesus himself said, "'Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him "unclean"? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.' (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods 'clean.')" --Mark 7:18-19. That's two of the Levitical laws; it is probable that others are not strictly binding on Christians, Jew or Gentile.

You avoided my question. If the teaching to stop circumcising is not in the Bible - in any chapter and verse - where did Paul get it from, and why was he believed? Circumcision isn't a Levitical law, by the way - it's part of the original covenant with Abraham.

And likewise, Jesus declaring that all foods are clean does seem to go against some chapters and verses. Since he aimed to uphold every letter of the law - and "the law" doesn't refer to just the ten commandments - you have to account for this apparent discrepancy. I have done so, and I want to see how you do it.

But there is little controversy over the Ten Commandments--at least, not over nine of them. If someone says that one of the Ten doesn't need to be followed literally, I want to see chapter and verse. Finding no specific revocation, I hold to the understanding I have lived with most of my adult life. Again, I condemn no one. You are all my brothers in Jesus, and I look forward to meeting you in Heaven. But I will continue to defend the Sabbath as well as I can.

In the first place, Jesus said literal interpretation of the law is not enough. In treating the whole law with the same brush that Jesus interpreted some laws in his sermon on the mount, we come across a new understanding. It's this new understanding that Paul understood most clearly, and that he put into practice - like you see in his explanation of adultery vs. remarriage.

The Sabbath is not under attack unless you think it is being ignored. We do not ignore it - rather, we consider it fulfilled in Christ, like all the commandments. If we obey Christ's command to love each other, we are keeping the whole law; yet "whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." (James 2:10). Combine that with Gal. 3:10, and consider the implications of that for a moment...

I can't speak for anyone else but we need to be very careful that when we reply on the spirit for what we believe that we rely on the right spirit.

We are told to test the spirits. So that means there is more than one spirit. It also means that the test we apply here is Biblical.

"To the law and to the testimony..."

In other words it is the Bible that we come back to.

If the spirit is telling us to do something that is not Biblical then we need to leave it and stay with the Bible.

I agree completely. "This is how you can recognise the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God" (1 John 4:2). Our salvation revolves around Christ, the Law revolves around Christ. Just like Paul declared that making an issue of something so central to the covenant as circumcision is missing the mark, now that Jesus had come to proclaim "freedom for the prisoners" and "the year of the Lord's favour", it must hold even more true for making an issue of something that hangs on the law (see Gal. 3:18), which "was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come" (v.19). The Sabbath Jesus kept was, after all, not the one that hung on the exodus - with all its external regulations - but the one that hung on God's creation and His rest - the seventh day that never came to a close (the sun had never set on it). For that reason it took precedence over the laws Moses later gave Israel regarding it, and focused directly on the goal of the law: loving God and each other. The physical aspect, physical rest, is good for our bodies, but useless for clearing our conscience.

 

[rstrats]

Windmill,

re: "Look at the chapter. Its all on judging people (Verses 4, 10, 13).
The issue wasn't over the moral law, but over the ceremonial laws. The ceremonial sabbaths. The Jewish christians were judging the gentiles for not keeping these. Paul was telling them to stop it, because those laws are no longer binding."


Actually, the "issue" of the chapter from start to finish has to do with judging people with regard to eating. Paul is writing about asceticism. Some in the church at Rome believed Christians should eat only vegetables. Paul calls these people "weak in the faith" (verses 1-2). The stronger in faith know they could also eat meat. Nothing in God’s law prescribes vegetarianism. The stronger in faith knew they were free from non-biblical asceticism. A part of the controversy that had sprung up between the weak and the strong Christians was the esteeming of days. In Rome some people had the pagan idea that on certain days certain foods should or should not be eaten. In this whole chapter Paul was just showing that others should not be offended, particularly weak members who have not yet learned the truth about the proper Christian diet and that they should not be judged by the stronger in the faith. Nowhere in the chapter does Paul say that the gentiles were not observing the annual Sabbaths or that the annual Sabbaths were no longer binding.


re: "This [Colossians 2:15-17 ] merely is talking about the sabbaths that were a ‘shadow of things to come.’ There were seven yearly Holy days, or if you prefer, "holidays" in Ancient Israel which were called sabbaths."

Colossians 2:16, " Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days..."

Any thoughts on what "holydays" are being referred to here if the "sabbath days" being referred to are the annual sabbaths?

 

[Oblio]

n the Bible there are about 150 plus verses that is about the Sabbath.

And there are thousands more about the Resurrection, yet you do not keep that day as Holy

 

[Nightfire]

Windmill, also re: Col. 2:16

This merely is talking about the sabbaths that were a "shadow of things to come." There were seven yearly Holy days, or if you prefer, "holidays" in Ancient Israel which were called sabbaths. There were in addition to the Seventh day sabbath, as shown by this verse:

See the third paragraph of my earlier post in this thead. This is from a scholar that seems to be well respected among SDA's.

 

[Nightfire]

In the Bible there are about 150 plus verses that is about the Sabbath.

We have one verse that indicates to some that they do not have to keep the Sabbath day holt anymore.

When you look at the weight of evidence the scales tip very heavy for the 7th day Sabbath.

I would much rather go with 150 plus than one verse that does not even say Sunday is holy.

How many of those verses impose the death penalty for those who work on the Sabbath (and by "work" I mean the same as the verses in the law that defines it), and how many verses revoke the death penalty? How many verses command and portray circumcision, and where does Jesus revoke it?

 

[applepowerpc]

50% of American Christians broke a commandment at the Superbowl: "Thou shalt not Steel". Jesus never revoked the commandment not to root for the Pittsburgh Steelers, either. You have SINNED, brother, SINNED!

 

[jochanaan]

You avoided my question. If the teaching to stop circumcising is not in the Bible - in any chapter and verse - where did Paul get it from, and why was he believed? Circumcision isn't a Levitical law, by the way - it's part of the original covenant with Abraham.

But Paul never said for the Jews to STOP circumcising; he merely forbade the Gentiles in Galatia and elsewhere from starting to circumcise.

And likewise, Jesus declaring that all foods are clean does seem to go against some chapters and verses. Since he aimed to uphold every letter of the law - and "the law" doesn't refer to just the ten commandments - you have to account for this apparent discrepancy. I have done so, and I want to see how you do it.

On second thought, since there is some question as to the intent of that passage, perhaps this law was a bad example. But see my comments below.

In the first place, Jesus said literal interpretation of the law is not enough.

Of course not! But it should not be disregarded either. "These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Matthew 23:23)

In treating the whole law with the same brush that Jesus interpreted some laws in his sermon on the mount, we come across a new understanding. It's this new understanding that Paul understood most clearly, and that he put into practice - like you see in his explanation of adultery vs. remarriage.

I think that perhaps my understanding of the Law is different from yours. Many people act as if every law in the Bible is of equal force; yet Jesus didn't. Even where He upholds the law with all zealousness in Matthew 5, he speaks of "these least commandments" (vs. 19), and when asked which was the greatest commandment, He readily named the two we all acknowledge. (Matt. 22:37-40)

It would be wonderful if we all could obey all the Law, at least in principle! But since our world is imperfect and conditions have changed considerably since the Lawgiving at Mount Sinai, it is often necessary to focus on greater laws at the momentary expense--not exclusion--of others. As for me, I obey the Two, to love my Lord and my neighbor, first; then the Ten, including the Fourth; then the others as I am able. Others may do differently, and I will not judge them. But since setting aside one day in seven is a good principle whether you follow Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha or whoever, I might as well set aside the day that many affirm is the day the LORD originally set aside at Creation and affirmed at Mount Sinai.

 

[woobadooba]

50% of American Christians broke a commandment at the Superbowl: "Thou shalt not Steel". Jesus never revoked the commandment not to root for the Pittsburgh Steelers, either. You have SINNED, brother, SINNED!

Looking at this argument I can see that this thread has gone beyond the point of being ridiculous.

I think it's time to just hang it up now.

 

[jochanaan]

50% of American Christians broke a commandment at the Superbowl: "Thou shalt not Steel". Jesus never revoked the commandment not to root for the Pittsburgh Steelers, either. You have SINNED, brother, SINNED!

LOL Thanks for the laugh, applepowerpc! I think we all needed it.

 

[Windmill]

You avoided my question. If the teaching to stop circumcising is not in the Bible - in any chapter and verse - where did Paul get it from, and why was he believed? Circumcision isn't a Levitical law, by the way - it's part of the original covenant with Abraham.

I fail to see the point. Where did Paul get it from? Tradition. People had been doing it, and now they were judging others for not doing it, when it wasn't necessary.

And likewise, Jesus declaring that all foods are clean does seem to go against some chapters and verses. Since he aimed to uphold every letter of the law - and "the law" doesn't refer to just the ten commandments - you have to account for this apparent discrepancy. I have done so, and I want to see how you do it.

Jesus never, ever made all foods clean.

Now, there were two laws in the bible. Gods law, and moses law. This picture here explains that quite well

In the first place, Jesus said literal interpretation of the law is not enough. In treating the whole law with the same brush that Jesus interpreted some laws in his sermon on the mount, we come across a new understanding. It's this new understanding that Paul understood most clearly, and that he put into practice - like you see in his explanation of adultery vs. remarriage.

So... when did Jesus do this to the sabbath? Jesus still expected his disciples to follow the sabbath after his death.

[bible]Matthew 24:20[/bible]

The Sabbath is not under attack unless you think it is being ignored. We do not ignore it - rather, we consider it fulfilled in Christ, like all the commandments. If we obey Christ's command to love each other, we are keeping the whole law; yet "whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." (James 2:10). Combine that with Gal. 3:10, and consider the implications of that for a moment...

I'm confused. When did Christ come to get rid of the law, and make it all come under one hat?

[bible]Matthew 5:17, 18[/bible]

Jesus mentions nothing... absolutely nothing about the sabbath being abolished to simply "love one another".

 

[Windmill]

How many of those verses impose the death penalty for those who work on the Sabbath (and by "work" I mean the same as the verses in the law that defines it), and how many verses revoke the death penalty? How many verses command and portray circumcision, and where does Jesus revoke it?

I'd say... nothing that many had to do with the death penalty. The death penalty was completely seperate from the law. Its something God gave to the Isralites.

I suppose you could say, how many verses mention an eye for an eye? Does this mean we follow that?

Same with circumcision. And yes, Jesus does pretty much revoke it. That was of the old convenent. We're living with the new one.

 

[Windmill]

Windmill,

re: "Look at the chapter. Its all on judging people (Verses 4, 10, 13).
The issue wasn't over the moral law, but over the ceremonial laws. The ceremonial sabbaths. The Jewish christians were judging the gentiles for not keeping these. Paul was telling them to stop it, because those laws are no longer binding."


Actually, the "issue" of the chapter from start to finish has to do with judging people with regard to eating. Paul is writing about asceticism. Some in the church at Rome believed Christians should eat only vegetables. Paul calls these people "weak in the faith" (verses 1-2). The stronger in faith know they could also eat meat. Nothing in God’s law prescribes vegetarianism. The stronger in faith knew they were free from non-biblical asceticism. A part of the controversy that had sprung up between the weak and the strong Christians was the esteeming of days. In Rome some people had the pagan idea that on certain days certain foods should or should not be eaten. In this whole chapter Paul was just showing that others should not be offended, particularly weak members who have not yet learned the truth about the proper Christian diet and that they should not be judged by the stronger in the faith. Nowhere in the chapter does Paul say that the gentiles were not observing the annual Sabbaths or that the annual Sabbaths were no longer binding.

I never said that.

Notice I mentioned that the whole chapter was on judging. Never mentioned that Paul had said that. If I did, it was accidetental.

My point was that he was reffering to the ceramonial sabbaths/holydays/holidays.

re: "This [Colossians 2:15-17 ] merely is talking about the sabbaths that were a ‘shadow of things to come.’ There were seven yearly Holy days, or if you prefer, "holidays" in Ancient Israel which were called sabbaths."

Colossians 2:16, " Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days..."

Any thoughts on what "holydays" are being referred to here if the "sabbath days" being referred to are the annual sabbaths?

Okay... examples... sure

[bible]Leviticus 23:24[/bible]

[bible]Leviticus 23:27-32[/bible]

 

[ThreeAM]

And there are thousands more about the Resurrection, yet you do not keep that day as Holy

The word resurrection is used 41 times in the Bible in 40 verses.

Interestingly no verse ever says the resurrection day was Holy. The Jewish feast day that was the TYPE for the resurrection was the firstfruits. The TYPE of the crucifixion was the Passover. The Passover Nisan 14th was not a Holy Convocation...not a Holy day. The firstfruits Nisan 16th which is the TYPE of the resurrection was also never a Holy convocation......not a Holy day. So God in His wisdom never set the the TYPE of the resurrection up as a day of Holy Convocation. Other feast days were Holy convocations but Passover and Fristfruits (the resurrection) were not. See Lev. 23


1Cr 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

 

[TruthMiner]

The word resurrection is used 41 times in the Bible in 40 verses.

That's misleading. There are dozens of others which use terms like "raised from the dead" and the like.