Sabbath

Jesus was rebuking the Pharisees for accusing Him and his disciples of doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.

And who was Christ addressing? The Pharisees under the law or the Church under the new covenant?

So they rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment under the old covenant. And what does that prove? Just because they rested (as they were used do doing for how many years?) whether shortly before or after Christ died does not prove keeping the Sabbath day is binding on the Church under the new covenant.

I noticed the NASB reads - but taking leave of them and saying, “I will return to you again if God wills,” he set sail from Ephesus. *No mention of keeping a feast.

Regardless, there would have been a reason for keeping it other than must or else under the new covenant. *Now show me UNDER THE NEW COVENANT where Paul specifically commands the Church to keep the Sabbath day.

NO. It's still 9 for 10. *Colossians 2:16 - Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

By Christ rebuking the Pharisees in regards to the Sabbath day and certain people resting on the Sabbath around the time of Christ's death (as they had been used to doing for years) and Paul keeping a feast (for whatever reason) still does not justify you turning keeping the Sabbath day into a legalistic prescription for the Church under the new covenant, but you have your agenda.

...wait what?...? But you just referenced some gospel passages where Christ was speaking to Pharisees about commandments in your previous post as PROOF that they apply in the new covenant...but his words to them regarding the Sabbath don't apply? Now it matters who he was talking to? Were they not all Jews under the law he was speaking to during his ministry?

...resting after Christ's death?? Either its adherence is against the new covenant (i.e. trampling the work of Christ) or it isn't. So do you believe Christ's closes friends trampled over Christ's work the very moment "it [was] finished"? What about Paul heading to the synagogue every Sabbath (Acts 18:4)?

Firstly, that IS strange... Why would newer/later publications of the bible no longer detail that Paul was heading to a High Sabbath feast like the original KJV and 1550 Textus Receptus once delivered to the saints?

Notwithstanding, notice what is said of Paul earlier in the chapter:

Acts 18:12-13
12 And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat,

13 Saying, This fellow persuades men to worship God contrary to the law. Their charge against Paul - New Covenant; Post-Cross - was that he was teaching people to worship Yah contrary to his law.

Now notice what Paul does next (which is indeed found in all publications of the bible)...

Acts 18:18 [brackets mine]
18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shaved his head in Cenchrea: for he had a [Nazarite] vow.

And again later...

Acts 21:20-24 [brackets mine]
20 When [The Elders heard Paul's testimony about his mission to Gentiles], they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.

21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.

22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow.

24 Take these men, join in their [nazarite] purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

A Nazarite vow is specific to Yah's law through Moses (Sinai Convenant). So Paul entered into a Nazarite vow (found in Yah's law) at least TWICE during his ministry in Acts.

So even if we set aside Paul's trip to Jerusalem, he was publicly proving to everyone that he obeyed Yah's Law after Christ. And the fact that the Elders suggested it means they were too...again, this is AFTER Christ and the cross. We know that one of those laws is the Sabbath (as we also know you can't be partial with Yah's law).

Secondly, show you "where Paul commands"?? But Paul isn't our lord. I definitely don't remove Paul's words from our instructions, but do we discount Christ's words for Paul's? Christ's instructions are the foundation for understanding Paul's instructions. And the scriptures are the foundation for understanding Paul's letters.

It doesn't matter if Paul never commands it.

This was the point of the Elders instructing the Gentiles not to worry about circumcision but to focus on avoid food with blood, strangled food, and sexual immorality, saying "because the law of Moses is preached by people every Sabbath day since ancient time". In other words, don't burden gentiles so heavily because they will learn more and more about Yah's law from those that preach it every Sabbath (acts 15:21).

^Unfortunately, THIS doesn't happen anymore. Hasn't since the Elders were killed and/or replaced, the Holy Day of rest was changed, and Yah's law was "done away with".

Apparently many have an agenda.

What exactly is the New Covenant?

Some are wholly ignorant and unstable in the law and so completely twist Paul's words to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16; Peter). Completely. They're so unlearned that they also believe Pharisees actually DEFENDED Yah's law instead of their own religion that twisted Yah's law. But they don't see these things because they don't study the law.

It's amazing that some would waste time labeling people instead of actually hearing what the Spirit says to the churches.

1 John 3:6-7
6 No one who remains in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has seen Him or known Him.

7 Dear children, don't let anyone deceive you about this: When people do what is right, it shows that they are righteous, even as Christ is righteous.

1) Obey the commandments, including the Sabbath.
2) Have faith in Christ.

lol. Hmm.

No one has a right to change one Jot or tittle of His Law but Yah (Matthew 5:18). If the NT Elders didn't change things then no one has a right to. But those who would use their intellect to suggest that obedience somehow equals a "hardening of the heart" when the very words they have quoted from scripture (Ezekiel 36:26-27) clearly show that a non-stony heart of flesh actually DESIRES to obey Yah's law, are truly "stiff-necked", possibly dishonest. Definitely unlearned.

Then to make up their own definitions for what scripture clearly says a stony heart is, further proves that fact.

Some don't even realize that the New Covenant says NOTHING about making ANYONE a nation of priests, that ONLY the Sinai Covenant is for that (Exodus 19:6; Yah). They don't understand that Christ came to redeem ONLY THOSE who broke the Sinai Covenant ("I am but sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Matthew 15:24; Daniel 9:24 "...decreed for YOUR PEOPLE and YOUR HOLY CITY..."); to mend the Sinai Covenant with the ONLY PARTIES WITH WHOM it was made.

Some don't study to show themselves approved to understand that the NEW COVENANT is simply but profoundly PLACING THE VERY SAME SPIRITUAL LAW, given at Sinai on tablets of stone, ON THE INSIDE (Jeremiah 31:33; Yah) to make a person WANT to obey SO THAT the Sinai Covenant's purpose finally can be realized and NEVER be broken again, THUS the New covenant makes the Sinai covenant "everlasting". They don't realize that the New Covenant was ONLY PROMISED to the House of ISRAEL and house of JUDAH (Jeremiah 31:31; Yah).


Ezekiel 16:59-63 [brackets mine]
For this is what the Lord GOD says: ‘I will deal with you according to your deeds, since you have despised the oath by breaking the covenant.
60 But I will remember the covenant I made with you [Israel] in the days of your youth, AND I will establish an everlasting covenant with you.

61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you receive your older and younger sisters. I will give them to you as daughters, but not because of My covenant with you.

62 So I will establish My covenant with you, and you will know that I am the LORD, so that when I make atonement [CHRIST's Blood] for all you have done [broken Yah's law], you will remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth again because of your disgrace, declares the Lord GOD.’”


Leviticus 26:44-45 [brackets mine]
Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject or despise them so as to destroy them and break My covenant with them; for I am the LORD their God.

45 But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors, whom I brought out of the LAND OF EGYPT [Sinai Covenant] in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God. I am the LORD.”


...so if any gentile wants to be saved during the time of Israel's "blindness in part" (Romans 11:25; Paul), salvation is made freely available THROUGH CHRIST (Acts 28:28; Romans 11:11; Paul) but they have to be GRAFTED INTO ISRAEL because SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS (John 4:22; Christ), not the other way around, in order to make ISRAEL - Yah's unfaithful wife - JEALOUS enough to repent, return to her husband and be saved (Romans 11:11; Paul). This means a temporary door is open until the fullness of gentiles comes in. But some are prideful enough to believe that THEY actually bear the root instead of humbly understanding that the root bears them. Not realizing that they can be BROKEN OFF just like the natural branches were (Romans 11:21; Paul)

Some don't realize there's a reason why they're called "wild" branches that are grafted in "contrary to their nature", and that it's EASIER for the natural branches to be grafted back in (Romans 11:24; Paul). Why is it easier? What's different between the wild branches and the natural branches?

Some are wholly ignorant and unstable in the law and so completely twist Paul's words to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16; Peter). Completely. They're so unlearned that they also believe Pharisees actually DEFENDED Yah's law instead of their own religion that twisted Yah's law. But they don't see these things because they don't study the law.

It's amazing that some would waste time labeling people instead of actually hearing what the Spirit says to the churches.

----


1 John 3:6-7
6 No one who remains in Him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has seen Him or known Him.

7 Dear children, don't let anyone deceive you about this: When people do what is right, it shows that they are righteous, even as Christ is righteous.


1) Obey the commandments, including the Sabbath.
2) Have faith in Christ.

What about Paul heading to the synagogue every Sabbath (Acts 18:4)?

I shared with you that references for the moral aspect of 9 of the 10 commandments are reiterated under the new covenant, yet the command to keep the Sabbath day is not binding on Christians under the new covenant.

[...]

You are rambling and still have not shown me where scripture commands the Church to keep the Sabbath day under the new covenant. In regards to Paul in Acts 18, what we have are examples of Paul preaching to non-Christian Jews in THEIR synagogue on THEIR Sabbath day,
[...]

That is a whole other topic and discussion. KJV "only" nonsense.

You are getting off topic. What happened to the Sabbath? Many of the Jews were still living under the law. Paul may have simply taken a Jewish vow so that he might appease more of the Jewish population and thus be able to help them believe in Jesus Christ more readily. *In 1 Corinthians 9:20, Paul said - To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law. Makes perfect sense!

You are simply grasping for straws.

People who have a hard time transitioning from the old to the new covenant usually favor the words of Jesus in the 4 gospels over Paul's words in most of the NT, yet ALL scripture is inspired by God. So where did Jesus command believers under the new covenant to keep the Sabbath? He didn't.

WOW! It doesn't matter? Really? You are saying that because it hurts your case and proves you wrong.

WHEN THE COUNSEL OF ACTS 15 CONVENED to determine what Gentile Christians must observe, SABBATH KEEPING IS CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT. [...] The final judgment of the Jerusalem Council contains no reference to Sabbath keeping. Circumcision was discussed and deemed unnecessary (verses 5-6; 19-20).

If Sabbath keeping were to be an essential part of the new covenant then it would have been mentioned in the discussion because it would have been an unfamiliar practice to the Gentiles.
[...]

Obviously the Holy Spirit did not think Sabbath keeping was an essential thing anymore.

Your true colors are really beginning to show. I knew you had an agenda!

[...]

was he going there because he considered himself under the Law or in order to preach to those who were? just 3 verses later he ceased attending the synagogue ((Acts 18:7))
in the next chapter he did the same thing again, when the Jews stubbornly rejected the good news, and stopped weekly meeting with them, instead meeting daily with the Gentiles ((Acts 19:9)). what about that?

when those who call themselves Jews and boast in the Law do the same thing today, rejecting the good news, should we also leave them and go to the the uncircumcised, who actually believe?

The Gentiles weren't under the law, yet they attended the synagogues every sabbath day.

Acts 18:4 [brackets mine]
And [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

so what?
proselytes existed, and the Greek culture was enormously interested in all kinds of religion and logical philosophy as a whole.

if you are trying to make the case that ceremonial Sabbath observation is required as a law for all believers because Paul evangelized in synagogues, where his people would be known to be found, it's a flimsy argument from first principles, and the fact is that Paul wound up abandoning this practice when the gospel was rejected there.

Galatians 2:19-21
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.


We are dead to the 10 Commandments so that we would live unto God.

What point is there in commanding a person to not kill when they are given Love and Peace by God and sharing that Love and Peace with everyone they meet?

What point is there in commanding a person to rest on a certain day when a person is resting every day in Christ?


If Righteousness DOES NOT come by the law, which verse 21 states, then how does resting on a certain day because the law says so show that a person is doing right??

SO what is doing right if it IS NOT defined by the commandments contained on stone? (the law)

Easy answer; whatever is of faith (in Christ)

And the law IS NOT of faith

...what can I say...

...Where are the right words...

Ok, I agree with some of what you said, but not with other points.

There's a context to Galatians. When Galatians explains righteousness, the premise is "attaining righteousness from a state of sin", not "living in righteousness from a state of righteousness". The topic of Galatians 2 is, "can a person become clean by doing anything but believing in Christ's blood to clean".

You and I both agree that the answer is "No". But we don't agree on exactly "why", which leads to our disagreement with what happens afterwards; after Christ's blood.


Let me start with a commandment we all agree with:


1) Law: Yah is one. No other Gods.


Is the righteous person expected to follow this command?

Answer: Yes.


Does the righteous person follow this command?

Answer: Yes.


If the righteous person breaks this command do they remain righteous?

Answer: No. They become a sinner by definition.


Can a criminal, who's already CAUGHT breaking a law, start following that law he broke to no longer be a criminal?

Answer: No. He first needs to be acquitted of the crime.


Can a sinner, follow the above command to make themselves righteous?

Answer: No. First they must be acquitted of the crime. Cleansed of the sin.


How?

Answer: Faith in Christ's blood.


Once a sinner is cleansed of their sin, are they righteous?

Answer: Yes.


Is the righteous expected to follow the above commandment?

Answer: .....Yes.


----


All laws in existence are expected to be obeyed. But no law in existence can clear a criminal of breaking a law. Laws don't work that way. Laws set right and wrong; show what's lawful and unlawful to do. So a criminal who breaks the law must pay the price of their crime or be cleared of their crime. Those are the only ways to satisfy ANY law that's broken, in any society in existence. But once we're cleared or once we've paid, we're expected to obey the law again.

We know this intuitively by living in society. But for some reason something switches in our minds when we start considering Yah's law and Christ's blood. I'm not immune to this. I grew up learning and believing the same traditions many of our brothers here defend against my position. But Yah's law works exactly how society's laws work because the basic principles of how laws work are universal:

- Laws show what crime is.

- Broken Laws (i.e. crimes) must be satisfied with a payment.

...The only difference is, Yah ALSO shares ANOTHER set of laws that criminals WERE to do for "paying the price": the sacrifices. But these laws were ALWAYS meant as teaching tools to explain what only Christ could do when he came. So they were fine to do up until Christ. But to continue to do them after Christ performed the real version is to trample over what Christ did. It is THESE LAWS (i.e. anything that would be followed to pay for a crime against Yah) that fade away because they were just teaching tools that led to Christ.

But that didn't erase the main laws that righteous citizens are to live by in Yah's society.

----

The topic of Galatians 2 has nothing to do with what a "FORMER CRIMINAL" is required to do "AFTER ACQUITTAL" once they're made CLEAN/RIGHTEOUS.

But...

The topic of 1 John 3 DOES have to do with what a former criminal is required to do "AFTER ACQUITTAL" because they are NO LONGER A CRIMINAL anymore by the blood of Christ. They are NOW RIGHTEOUS. This is why it has such harsh language as "those who continue to sin are liars" etc, etc.

----

The payment of a broken crime against Yah is death. So through faith in Christ we die to satisfy the law's payment. Nothing happened to the commandments when this happened. They're not gone. But a change happened to us by faith.


Galatians 2:19
For through the Law I died to the Law so that I might live to God.


- For through the law = "Yah's law says you are guilty and must die."

- I died to the law = "by faith I am baptized into Christ's death. dying with him"

- So that I might live to God = "I am resurrected as a new Adam in Christ and now a slave to (doing) righteousness, like Christ."

(No animals were harmed in the making of this new man.)


NOW, we live in that righteousness by obeying the commandments because we're no longer of the 1st Adam anymore. That old man is at war with Yah and hates His law and can't be subject to it no matter how hard he tries. However, the New man finally can be subject to Yah's law, loving it and he's at peace because he is a descendant/child of the 2nd Adam who himself had the divine power to be obedient, who's no longer flesh but Spirit. And a child if of their father, and we are now of our everlasting father carrying his strength.


- If the children of 1st Adam carry his weaknesses...

- Then the children of 2nd Adam carry His strengths (He who was full of grace and truth).

----

4) The Sabbath: Remember it and keep it Holy

- So like our father did, we do good on the Sabbath, and teach others to do good also.

- Like our father did, we celebrate Yah's High Sabbaths because they are a delight to us.

- And like our father did, we rest on the 7th day and we are refreshed because He did at creation.


We are of our father and we do what we see.

was he going there because he considered himself under the Law or in order to preach to those who were? just 3 verses later he ceased attending the synagogue ((Acts 18:7))
in the next chapter he did the same thing again, when the Jews stubbornly rejected the good news, and stopped weekly meeting with them, instead meeting daily with the Gentiles ((Acts 19:9)). what about that?

when those who call themselves Jews and boast in the Law do the same thing today, rejecting the good news, should we also leave them and go to the the uncircumcised, who actually believe?

This is all MOSTLY error.

You say we die to the law so that we can come back and be alive to the law.

The bible doesn't say anything close to that. It says we are dead to the law to live unto God.

Then later in Galatians it says to stand fast in the liberty of Christ and don't become entangled again in the yoke of bondage.

But you say to die to the law and then become entangled again in that same yoke of bondage.

I already know you don't understand this. I just don't exactly know why you don't. Its perfectly simple to me.

But judaizers, legalists, SDA's, Hebrew roots etc.. always bring in their circular reasoning to try and twist everything to be about their supposed obedience to the 10 commandments. Which would be funny if it weren't so sad.

2000 yrs ago; Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

It is abundantly obvious to every Christian that the way of following Commandments did not work. We needed a Saviour from this ministry of death. We needed a New Way that would actually make us Righteous before God.

And if it is not abundantly obvious it sure as well should be.

SDA's seem to spend a lot of time harping on the sin of not keeping the Sabbath, yet we hear nothing about this under the new covenant. Adventists want us to believe that worshipping God on Sunday is the one heinous sin above all others that identifies someone who is disloyal to God and according to Adventists, the Mark of the Beast is Sunday-keeping.