Legalizing the Sabbath - Judaizers

[Churchwork]

Legalism is doing anything to obtain favor. That is not what I'm talking about, at all.
When you answered "No" to question 20 to disagree with the finding ("No Christian Sabbath"), you don't realize you are trying to obtain God's favor because the Sabbath has passed. God does not require even a single Jewish person to keep the Sabbath anymore!

I do not believe you are loving God when a person is employed in their job on Saturday and they must quit their job because of your rule, when Jesus himself worked in the Sabbath. This is not love, this is your fleshly self-exaltation of perhaps a cult you are in, to puff up self and it is your sin, an idol you place above God to try to control others with. This is not love, but of the Devil. Pentecostals do the same thing by claiming you got to get what they got-gibberish babble as the infilling or baptism of the Holy Spirit. Are you in a denomination like 7th Day Adventists?

Jesus filled up the law, by telling us His Spirit will be the rest that the law of the Sabbath points to just as the animal sacrifices point to His death on the cross. Believe me, what you are doing is not love.

It's so simple, but not for someone who worships by the flesh by legalizing the Sabbath.

Your distortion of Christianity goes by the name of legalism-you live by a list of do's and don'ts. One of your don'ts is don't work on the Sabbath. One of your do's is rest of the Sabbath. Your concern for genuine change is valid, but not in the way you go about it. You tend to make God's love something to earn rather than accept freely because you create a law unto yourself. You would reduce Christianity to a set of impossible rules and transform the Good News into bad news. As important as change in action is, can you see that God may be desiring different change in you than others?

Trying to keep a particular day of the week is not love or life. So let go of your trying to keep the Sabbath, and I will pray for you to be delivered from your long-held belief. Continue to study the proof why the Sabbath is no longer (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/lordsday.htm) though not one tittle of the law will pass till these things are finished. Read question 20 in your profile again, and again. It has been newly updated for the sake of clarity so no stone is left unturned for your sake.

Try to gather on Sundays if you can, but if you can't, no worries. You can gather in His name with 2 or 3 or more anytime anywhere, and that is where the Church is.

[jerusalemcouncil]

In fact, you don't realize it, but this is what you are talking about, because the Sabbath has passed.

If Hebrews says there remains a Sabbath rest for us, then what Sabbath rest are we looking forward to if you say it's already past? As it is written:

Hebrews 4:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=65&chapter=4&verse=9&version=31&context=verse)
There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God;



I do not believe you are loving God when a person is employed in their job on Saturday and they must quit their job because of your rule, when Jesus himself worked in the Sabbath.I am curious from your perspective, are the commandments to keep, guard, do, serve, holy, enjoy, and not profane the Sabbath, of God or of the devil?



This is not love, but of the Devil.When one describes it as a means to control others, it can most certainly be of the devil. Last I checked though, we aren't called to make disciples for ourselves, but for the Master, Jesus Christ.


Are you in a denomination like 7th Day Adventists?No, I am not in any denomination.


Jesus filled up the law, by telling us His Spirit will be the rest that the law of the Sabbath points to just as the animal sacrifices point to His death on the cross. Believe me, what you are doing is not love.Is love a feeling, a verb, or both?



Your distortion of Christianity goes by the name of legalism-you live by a list of do's and don'ts... Your concern for genuine change is valid, but not in the way you go about it.Contrary to popular opinion, legalism is not following a list of do's and don'ts, after all, what are new believers encouraged to do? Keep sinning? Of course not. :) So then what is legalism? It's doing something to gain the favor of another. As believers, we already have God's favor, so what then is the list of do's and don'ts, but for our own protection?


You tend to make God's love something to earn rather than accept freely because you create a law unto yourself.On the contrary, as believers, we already have God's love, as it is written "for God so loved the world..." so there is nothing left to earn. So then what is the instruction of God for? Instruction in how to love God and others as He desires.

Let me explain:

What is the Law? In Hebrew the word is "Torah." It comes from the root "yarah" which is an archery term which means "to hit the mark." Contrariwise, the Hebrew word for sin means to "miss the mark." Torah also comes from the Hebrew root "orah" which means "light" as in "thy word is a lamp unto my feet and light unto my path."

Furthermore, "Torah" does not mean "law." It can contain law, but it does not mean law. "Torah" means "instruction." As in God's instructions in how to live.

So as I was saying before, if Jesus teaches us that the entire Torah "hangs" from "love the LORD your God" and "love your neighbor as yourself," then the entire Torah is God's "instruction" in how to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. By very definition then it is the mark at which we aim at as we love one another. :) To fall short of the mark, is to in fact, hate.

The Man of Lawlessness (Torahlessness) is not a man of the Law. He is lawless (torahless), against the law. It could even rightly be argued at the mark of the man of lawlessness is literally the antithesis of keeping the Torah. That is also why the love (agape) of many will grow cold because (lawlessness) Torahlessness is increased - the direct relationship between keeping the "Torah" and love, and not keeping the Torah and "love growing cold" is absolute when viewed this way. After all, if there is no Torah, and Torah does not define lawlessness, and thus hate, then what does?


You would reduce Christianity to a set of impossible rules and transform the Good News into bad news.Well I most certainly agree that keeping the Torah perfectly is impossible, yet perfection is never what the Torah intended (after all, why then is the sacrificial system given within its very pages?).

Also, if you are saying it's impossible to obey God's teaching and instruction in how to love God and love others, then I ask you, are we as believers not to love God and love others?

I was reading one of your other posts on this forum where you said:

"Should anyone tell you: "You must keep the law, you must keep the Sabbath day", you ought to realize that if you try to keep one single item in the book of law you unwittingly declare that Christ has not died for you, and therefore you cast away the work of Christ."

To which I ask, if one keeps the command to love God, or love their neighbor, are you saying then that by doing so they unwittingly declare that Christ has not died for them, and they cast away the work of Christ? After all, those two commandments are also items in the "book of the law." According to your warning, what then is a Christian supposed to do in their life so as to avoid not keeping any of God's commands in the book of the law? Sin?

I think our thoughts on this matter have very serious concequences in our walk, and how it affects the walk of others, if we fail to think through statements such as yours like this.


As important as change in action is, can you see that God may be desiring different change in you than others?Oh by all means! We aren't saints over night, nor really is that the goal. Each of us are drawn by the Spirit learn what is already confirmed in the scriptures, and if we are saved, this always results in repentance, for repentance is the return to God's Word.



Trying to keep a particular day of the week is not love or life.I think scripture clearly disagrees with your judgement on this:

Isaiah says its love:

Isaiah 56:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=56&verse=6&version=31&context=verse)
And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant

Ezekiel says its life:

Ezekiel 20:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=33&chapter=20&verse=13&version=31&context=verse)
" 'Yet the people of Israel rebelled against me in the desert. They did not follow my decrees but rejected my laws—although the man who obeys them will live by them—and they utterly desecrated my Sabbaths.

This also goes for all of God's commandments, not just the Sabbath, as it is written:

Exodus 20:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=20&verse=6&version=31&context=verse)
showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

and

Leviticus 18:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=18&verse=5&version=31&context=verse)
Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them.



Continue to study the proof why the Sabbath is no longer (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/lordsday.htm) though not one tittle of the law will pass till these things are finished.
It is a fascinating read. The point we last left off on was in PM, and that was over the article's first case that the Sabbath is only a ceremonial law, not a moral one, yet in PM you agreed that it was a moral commandment. So then, how can the article continue to be right if it is built on that premise that the Sabbath is not a moral commandment? Should Christians be encouraged to keep the moral law?

[Churchwork]

We already have the rest which is in Christ: "I give you rest" (Matt. 11.28) which the Sabbath points to so no longer is the Sabbath kept for those who are in Christ. We don't need a specific day of the week. Ceremonial laws, though moral, were for just the Jewish people under the Old Covenant. Just as there are no more ceremonial animal sacrifices because Jesus died on the cross, so too there is no more ceremonial rest of the Sabbath because the Holy Spirit now indwells the believer who is our rest everyday when the veil was rent.


How do we establish the law through faith (Rom. 3.31)? Why are believers not under law (Rom. 6.14)? What is meant by not being under the law? Why is Christ the end of the law (Rom. 10.4)?

Answer:

"Do we then make the law of none effect through faith? God forbid: nay, we establish the law" (Rom. 3.31). This is a judgment made by Paul. Since he has maintained earlier that "we reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (v.28), he may legitimately be asked the question—"Do we then make the law of none effect through faith?" His answer is emphatically, No. Here he employs a Greek form of speech: God forbid! By which he means to say that even God forbid us to say that we make the law of none effect through faith.

In the first three chapters of Romans Paul shows us that even as the Gentiles whom God has not chosen are sinners, so the Jews whom God has chosen are sinners too—that even those who serve God and have the law of God are also sinners. Therefore, no one is justified by the works of the law, "because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin" (3.20).

"But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets" (3.21). Praise and thank God, there is a "but now". Now is there a salvation.

"[Christ Jesus] whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus" (3.25,26). In relation to the people in the Old Testament dispensation God forbears; in relation to the people in this present dispensation He justifies. During the old dispensation the Lord has yet to die and sin has not been taken away, so God forbears with men. Today God justifies us, not just forbears with us. To be justified means more than being forgiven or not reckoned as sinful; it means being counted as righteous. And God gives us this righteousness in Christ Jesus. Because of the death and resurrection of Christ, we come into possession of this righteousness. For this reason, says Paul, "we reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (v.28). Still, being afraid that some people may assume from this that faith abrogates the law, Paul immediately adds, "God forbid".

How, then, do we establish the law through faith? The law has made only two demands: (1) the law commands all to do good, and (2) the law penalizes those who do not do good. The law must be fulfilled in either of them. If you do not keep the law, you will suffer the penalty of the law. If you fail to establish the law by observing it, you will have to take its penalty to establish it. Apart from the Lord there is not a single person who can keep the law. Even Moses the lawgiver has not wholly kept it. The law demands for all who do not keep it to die. We confess that we have not kept the law and that we have sinned, but we declare that we have already died. Since in Christ we have already been judged and cursed by the law, we have not destroyed the law, but rather, that through faith we have established it. Although we are unable to establish the law by keeping it and therefore we must die, thank God, we have already died in Christ! "But of him [God] are ye in Christ Jesus" (1 Cor. 1.30). It is God who puts us in Christ. When Christ died, we too have died in His death. Consequently, faith has not destroyed the law but instead has established it.

Why are believers not under law? Believers are not under law because (1) they have already died, and (2) they have also been resurrected. This is proven by Romans 7.1-6. Paul chooses the parable of a woman with her husband. At the outset, let us determine who is the "husband" in this passage. Some say the husband is the law, while others say the husband is our flesh. These two schools of opinion have their respective reasons. By reading the passage carefully we may see that actually both thoughts are included. In verse 2 we are shown first that the husband is the law, but then it also shows us that the husband is different from the law. So the husband in this passage means either the law or the flesh. Should the husband represent merely the law then the clause, "if the husband die", will mean "if the law die". But how can the law die? For this reason, we conclude that the husband here may point to either the flesh or the law.

Before one believes in the Lord he is bound by the law. How can he be delivered? Only through death. If he dies he is freed. Once he dies he is freed from the law. God has already condemned sin in the flesh of Christ. Since we have died in Christ we are freed from the law. You are like a woman, and your flesh is like the husband. As you die you are freed from the flesh. The most the law can demand is death. No matter how many sins a criminal has committed, the law can at the most condemn him to but one death. Once he dies the case is concluded. When we die we are freed from the law.

On the other hand, it is said that "if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband". This terminates your relationship with the law. You are discharged from the law as though by death. The first half of the sentence emphasizes death, whereas the second half of the sentence stresses deliverance.

This same passage also shows us two pictures: one indicates that through the body of Christ I am dead to the law, being wholly freed from the law. On that day when Christ died, I too died. Thus I can say to the law: I am not under law. The other picture indicates that I now may be remarried. Formerly the flesh was my husband, but now I am remarried to the Christ who has been raised from the dead so that I may bring forth fruit to God. Hence no Christian is today under law.

Should anyone tell you: "You must keep the law, you must keep the Sabbath day", you ought to realize that if you try to keep one single item in the book of law you unwittingly declare that Christ has not died for you, and therefore you cast away the work of Christ. Let us compare the words in Romans 6.14 with 3.19—"Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace." This indicates that believers are not under law. But to whom do the things of the law speak? "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God." The things of the law speak to those who are under the law. Since we Christians are not under law, these things of the law do not speak to us.

Why does Paul write the Galatian letter after he has written his letter to the Romans? Romans informs us that no sinner can be justified by keeping the law; Galatians instructs us that no saint may be sanctified by works of the law. Not only a sinner cannot be saved by works, even a saint cannot be sanctified by works. Just as one begins in grace, so he shall be perfected through grace. How can he who is justified by faith ever imagine himself to be sanctified by keeping the law? If justification is by the Holy Spirit, sanctification must also be by the Holy Spirit. The way of completion is the way of entry, for God has only one working principle. Why is it forbidden to weave together wool and linen (Deut. 22.11)? Because wool is obtained through the shedding of blood, whereas linen comes from man’s planting. Whatever is done by God is God’s work; whatever is done by man is man’s work. God will not mix up His work with man’s work.

What is meant by not being under law? Not to be under law does not mean lawlessness. The Bible says: "Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace" (Rom. 6.14). You are not under law, because you are under grace. Being under grace, you will not be ruled by sin. We need to pay special attention to this word. Not to be under law does not sanction licentiousness; it only means that sin shall not have dominion over you.

What is meant by being under grace? "If it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Rom. 11.6). To be under grace simply means you need not have your own works. What then is meant by being under law? It means you yourself should do the works even though the more you work the worse you become. Being under grace means that the Lord Jesus is doing all; being under law is, you yourself doing all. In being under grace, God so works in you that sin shall have no more dominion over you; in being under law, you are under the dominion of sin because you cannot overcome it. If you are under grace, the grace of God will work in you. Is sin, then, any match for God’s grace? Certainly not.

As the Lord Jesus has died for you on the cross, even so today He lives in you. As He has borne your sins on the cross, so now He dwells in you to give you victory over sin. The law is only God’s commandment; but grace is the power of God. The law commands you to do, but grace gives you the power to do it. Not to be under law but to be under grace means the risen Christ lives in you and causes you to overcome.

Why is Christ the end of the law? This is because Christ has satisfied all the demands of the law laid upon men.

We must see first of all that Christ in His life sums up the law. Leaving totally aside the aspect of the Lord Jesus as God, let us dwell for a moment on the aspect of His being man. There is only one human being in the whole world who has kept the law completely—and that person is the Lord Jesus. There is none other before Him nor any other after Him. He alone possesses the qualification. He is therefore the sum of the law.

Secondly, the death of Christ concludes the law. The last and highest of its demands is death. Suppose, for example, that a person sinned against the law of a country and was then condemned to be shot. After he is shot, the law of the country can do no more to him. The law can only demand death, and in death everything is solved. The law says that whoever does not keep the law must die. But the Lord Jesus has died, and by that death He concludes the law.

"End" means that which is "final". What can be added after the final thing has been reached? What more can be done afterward? Consequently, let every Christian give praise to God, knowing that Christ has already concluded the law and you need not keep the Sabbath.

[jerusalemcouncil]

We already have the rest which is in Christ: "I give you rest" (Matt. 11.28) which the Sabbath points to so no longer is the Sabbath kept for those who are in Christ.

Ok, if we already have the "rest" as you assert, then why are we still cursed to work and labor for our food, a curse that has existed since the Fall?

Also, why does Hebrews say there "yet remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God?"

You write a good letter, but I am afraid you didn't address any other of the other points I was looking for a response to in my previous post.


We don't need a specific day of the week.That is correct, we don't need it for salvation, because it never was required for salvation. But use this as justification for forcing employees to work 7 days a week or they will lose their jobs, and you have a different matter on your hands.


Ceremonial laws, though moral, were for just the Jewish people under the Old Covenant.All the Torah was given to everyone, all mankind, including the Covenant. As it is written:

Hosea 6:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=35&chapter=6&verse=7&version=31&context=verse)
Like Adam, they (Israel) have broken the covenant— they were unfaithful to me there.

and:

Deuteronomy 29:14-15
I am making this covenant, with its oath, not only with you 15 who are standing here with us today in the presence of the LORD our God with but also with those who are not here today.

Those "not here today" ontologically includes everyone in the world, including Adam. Thus according to this passage, the covenant God made with Israel, is for everyone. After all, by what standard are the nations judged, by what standard are sinners condemned? The Torah. The Covenant.

Guess what? As sinners, we break the covenant! This is the old covenant because when God renews his covenant with us when we come to Messiah, He keeps it perfectly for us, and this he calls the new covenant.

We know this is true, because the same content of the covenant is kept: the Torah as of the new covenant Jeremiah writes:

Jeremiah 31:33
"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my Torah in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Their fathers "broke" the covenant God made with them, even though he is "faithful." This is the only difference between the two covenants in the Jeremiah passage - all else is the same. If we are honest with the text and stick to the text alone and not insert our own bias, this is in fact what we see: is that the old covenant was broken, but the new covenant is kept. That is the only difference: one broken, the other kept. The content, the Torah, remains the same!

How is this possible? Well, let's look at the Hebrew word for new covenant used by Jeremiah: brit chadasha. "Brit" means Covenant. Chadasha means "renewed" as it also comes from the same Hebrew root word "chadash" from which "Rosh Chodesh" comes from - "Rosh" meaning "head" and "Chodesh" meaning Moon. The head of the moon - the "new moon" or the beginning of the month. The concept is clear: when ever we have a "New Moon" do we have a totally absolutely different and brand-new "new" Moon, or is it the same Moon "renewed" in its cyle, with the same features as last month's Moon? So too the "brit chadasha" is renewed, the content is the same, but once it is broken by our sinful nature, God then renews it and gives it to us through Messiah who himself keeps it perfectly.

There is so much more to understanding what the "old covenant" and "new covenant" is, but it might help you to understand that they are states of being, and not actions. "Old covenant" whenever it is referred to, is also called "old nature," "old man," etc, and refers to the unregenerate, unrepentant man who can't help but sin and be condemned by the curse of the law. "New covenant," "new nature" always refers to the regenerate, repentant man that keeps the covenant through Messiah rather than through themselves, their obedience meaning nothing, but Messiah's obedience meaning everything. Do you agree, or do you want me to post scripture concerning all of this?


Just as there are no more ceremonial animal sacrifices because Jesus died on the cross, so too there is no more ceremonial rest of the Sabbath because the Holy Spirit now indwells the believer who is our rest everyday when the veil was rent.Which if this were so, then why must we still labor and toil for our food? Obviously we have not entered that "rest." Jesus himself said "come to me, and I will give you rest." He doesn't tell us when, yet it can be assured that have it, just as much as God is faithful to bring about our resurrection to eteneral life at the End of the Age!



Therefore, no one is justified by the works of the law, "because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin" (3.20).I hope you understand that I am not at all talking about justification. We only have that through Messiah and his work.


"But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets" (3.21). Praise and thank God, there is a "but now". Now is there a salvation.This of course, I hope you do see, means that there is in fact a righteousness that is in fact part of the law, otherwise how can he write "now apart from the law a righteousness of God"?


During the old dispensation the Lord has yet to die and sin has not been taken away, so God forbears with men.I respectfully disagree. Is not Jesus called "the Lamb slain since the foundation of the world?" And does not sin still exist, only to be cast with death into hell at the End of the Age? So if anything, if Christ is the Lamb Slain Before the Foundation of the World, then the Torah was given in our current dispensation, and if Sin still exists, we are still in the dispensation when Sin is defined by the Torah. Either way, declaring a universal dispensation one way or another is practically impossible given these facts, and it would probably be more biblical to say that there is no new dispensation except when we as individuals transition from sinner to saint, from unregenerate to regenerate, from old covenant to new covenant, by faith in Messiah - a faith that even Abraham, Moses, and King David had (after all, they are all counted in the hall of faith in Hebrews 11, unless you say there are two kinds of faith or two gospels, they were saved by the same faith in Messiah just as we are! So then, when the Torah is given to them after that fact, then we should be asking what is the Torah for them?).



Today God justifies us, not just forbears with us. To be justified means more than being forgiven or not reckoned as sinful; it means being counted as righteous. And God gives us this righteousness in Christ Jesus. Because of the death and resurrection of Christ, we come into possession of this righteousness. For this reason, says Paul, "we reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law" (v.28). Still, being afraid that some people may assume from this that faith abrogates the law, Paul immediately adds, "God forbid". Amen!


How, then, do we establish the law through faith? The law has made only two demands: (1) the law commands all to do good, and (2) the law penalizes those who do not do good. The law must be fulfilled in either of them. If you do not keep the law, you will suffer the penalty of the law. If you fail to establish the law by observing it, you will have to take its penalty to establish it. Apart from the Lord there is not a single person who can keep the law. Even Moses the lawgiver has not wholly kept it. The law demands for all who do not keep it to die. We confess that we have not kept the law and that we have sinned, but we declare that we have already died. Since in Christ we have already been judged and cursed by the law, we have not destroyed the law, but rather, that through faith we have established it. Although we are unable to establish the law by keeping it and therefore we must die, thank God, we have already died in Christ! "But of him [God] are ye in Christ Jesus" (1 Cor. 1.30). It is God who puts us in Christ. When Christ died, we too have died in His death. Consequently, faith has not destroyed the law but instead has established it.That is correct. Even Paul says that we have put on the clothing of Christ. We take on his identity, his righteousness, his sanctification. But neither does this mean that our behavior automatically conforms. Our behavior, and his sanctification are two entirely different things.


Why are believers not under law?
Believers are not under law because (1) they have already died, and (2) they have also been resurrected. This is proven by Romans 7.1-6. Paul chooses the parable of a woman with her husband. At the outset, let us determine who is the "husband" in this passage. Some say the husband is the law, while others say the husband is our flesh. These two schools of opinion have their respective reasons. By reading the passage carefully we may see that actually both thoughts are included. In verse 2 we are shown first that the husband is the law, but then it also shows us that the husband is different from the law. So the husband in this passage means either the law or the flesh. Should the husband represent merely the law then the clause, "if the husband die", will mean "if the law die". But how can the law die? For this reason, we conclude that the husband here may point to either the flesh or the law. Romans 7:1
Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law

Question, why does Paul preface this, speaking to Romans if in fact he is making the case that they aren't to bother with the law at all? Since Paul says this, it is very clear then that one can not understand what Paul is saying without first knowing and understanding the law! :)

In fact, one should ask this very obvious question: if Paul is writing to "men who know the Torah," then how can anyone understand what he writes in Romans without first knowing the Torah? At best such a person would only see very dimly what he's talking about, and at worst their conclusions could wind up contradicting the very Torah he is teaching from. Do you see the danger in removing the foundation of truth from the teaching and practice of the believers of God in Christ? Romans 7 is my favorite passage of all of Paul's writings. Let's go on:


Before one believes in the Lord he is bound by the law. How can he be delivered? Only through death. If he dies he is freed. Once he dies he is freed from the law. God has already condemned sin in the flesh of Christ. Since we have died in Christ we are freed from the law.I know what you mean by this, and I fully agree. Yet symantically speaking, we are not freed from the law - we are freed from the curse of the law. The law just is. It always exists as a standard for right and wrong, no matter if you stay a sinner or become a believer. Do you agree?



You are like a woman, and your flesh is like the husband. As you die you are freed from the flesh. The most the law can demand is death. No matter how many sins a criminal has committed, the law can at the most condemn him to but one death. Once he dies the case is concluded. When we die we are freed from the law. Again, I know what you mean by this, and I fully agree. We are freed from the curse of the law. The standard for right and wrong, however, does not change.


On the other hand, it is said that "if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband". This terminates your relationship with the law.Um, it does not say that. Not at all. This terminates your relationship to the husband.

When comparing the analogy Paul gives with the explanation Paul gives, in Romans 7, ask yourself these questions when doing the comparison:

1. Who dies.

Analogy: The first husband.
Explanation: "my brothers, you also died to the law"

2. Who remains?

Analogy: the wife.
Explanation: "the law" (for you died to it, remember?)

3. Who lives to the wife after the first husband dies?

Analogy: the second husband.
Explanation: "you belong... to him who was raised from the dead"


4. If the second husband marries the same wife of the first husband, then who is this wife he is married to, if not the same wife which the first husband died to?

Analogy: the wife.
Explanation: "the law," is also called "him who was raised from the dead"

To stay consistent with the analogy to the explanation, one can only conclude that Paul is saying that the wife, the Torah that condemned the sinner, is the same wife, now the Messiah, that the rengerated saint belongs to.

How is this so? Well, is it not written that Jesus is the "Word of God made flesh?" The Living Torah, so to speak? :) Is it not by his standard of living that sinners are condemened for not doing it, and is it not by his standard of living that saints are justified by Jesus' doing of it?



The things of the law speak to those who are under the law. Since we Christians are not under law, these things of the law do not speak to us. If after being brought to Jesus by the teaching of the Torah, then with Jesus as the "Word of God made flesh" how much more so the things of the Torah, the Word of God, the law, speaks to us now as saints, as we seek to know Him even more.


Why does Paul write the Galatian letter after he has written his letter to the Romans?Galatians had to have been written before Acts 15, otherwise it could have just referenced the Council's decision, but it fails to do so in all 5 of its chapters. Also we know Romans was written after Acts 22 when Paul is arrested and afterwards is sent to Rome. I am not sure where you get that Galatians was written after Romans.



Romans informs us that no sinner can be justified by keeping the law; Galatians instructs us that no saint may be sanctified by works of the law.Santification means "set apart" which in Hebrew is "kadosh" which means "holy." Now, granted we are made holy, set-apart, by our faith in Messiah - after all, those who do not have faith in Messiah, are not like us, for we are set apart by our faith in Messiah. Yet it is symantically impossible to say that one is not set-apart if they keep God's commandments, for keeping God's commandments is the very act of separation from the world. For example, by choosing to help our neighbor's overburdned donkey, we are doing something the world does not do. Likewise when we don't eat pork, by definition we are separated from those who do. So it is symantically incorrect to say that if one keeps any of God's commandments, that they are not sanctifying themselves unto God.


Not only a sinner cannot be saved by works, even a saint cannot be sanctified by works. Just as one begins in grace, so he shall be perfected through grace. How can he who is justified by faith ever imagine himself to be sanctified by keeping the law?You are confusing justification with sanctification at this point. To be justified means to be identified in the righteousness that is Christ's, so that no charge of sinfulness can be held accounted to you. To be sanctified simply means to be set-apart, that is, to be sealed with the Spirit of God so that at the end of the Age the saints go on to eternal life, and the sinners go on to damnation.


If justification is by the Holy Spirit, sanctification must also be by the Holy Spirit.That is absolutely correct. One can not be saved without the Spirit of God, and one not keep a commandment of God without the Spirit of God. That is why I disagree with your position that one who keeps the Sabbath is serving the devil (but of course you only meant that one who keeps the Sabbath at the expense of the suffering and death of others, to which I responded very clearly that the Torah commands us to choose life, and that one would in fact be breaking the Sabbath if they refused to save or life or alleviate suffering on the Sabbath).



Why is it forbidden to weave together wool and linen (Deut. 22.11)? Because wool is obtained through the shedding of blood, whereas linen comes from man’s planting.Interesting application, however the reason we are commanded not to wear clothing with wool and linen woven together is because the High Priest alone wears cloathing made of wool and linen weaved together. We are commanded not to wear it, so that the High Priest alone is wearing it, and thus is sanctified, set-apart, different, totally unique, from everyone else in even his clothing. He is made holy in this instance by our obedience to the commandment to not wear what he wears, in this case, clothing made of wool and linen mixed together. Now that is not to say your allegorical application and understanding of wool and linen doesn't apply. I'm just pointing out the obvious reason why it was prohibited to everyone else but the High Priest, and using that as proof that our actions of obedience cause separation with the world. (Also as a side note, I used to be a shepherd of real sheep, and wool is sheared from sheep like one cuts hair. The sheep is very much alive, pretty naked, but still very much alive, after shearing their wool off. If you don't cut them accidentally in the process of cutting their wool off, they won't bleed, so I am not sure where you get that wool is obtained from the shedding of blood - are you sure you're not confusing that with cow hides which does require shedding blood?).


What is meant by not being under law? Not to be under law does not mean lawlessness. The Bible says: "Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under law, but under grace" (Rom. 6.14). You are not under law, because you are under grace. Being under grace, you will not be ruled by sin. We need to pay special attention to this word. Not to be under law does not sanction licentiousness; it only means that sin shall not have dominion over you. To not be "under law" (notice many translators erroneously insert "the" to make it say under THE law) means to be under a curse, specifically the curse of the law, as it is written:

Deuteronomy 21:23
anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse.

Obviously one who is hung on a tree is dead. Therefore death is the curse. One who is "under law" is one who has the expectation of death because they are under the curse of the law. Another way of saying this, is that one who is "under law" is one who is unregenerate, a sinner, condemned by the law. It is a state of being, not an action. Obviously, one hanging on a tree isn't doing anything. They are dead. Thus it is a state of being, and it is a state of being to be "under law."


What is meant by being under grace? "If it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Rom. 11.6). To be under grace simply means you need not have your own works. What then is meant by being under law? It means you yourself should do the works even though the more you work the worse you become.Which by definition being "under law" is a state of being, and is not what one does. Being under law requires that you do something in order to not be condemend by it, but the state of being "under law" is still in fact only a state of being. One could be hanging dead from a tree, remember? Such a person can't do anything, nor at that point is anything required of them. Thus to be under law is to be under the curse of the law, which is a state of being.

Being under grace means that the Lord Jesus is doing all; being under law is, you yourself doing all."You yourself doing all" is what it looks like when one is "under law," but that is not what "under law" is. "Under law" is a state of being. In fact, most people I know that are "under law" (unregenerate sinners) don't even try keeping it, at all, and some blatantly make the point to violate as much of it as they can, period.


In being under grace, God so works in you that sin shall have no more dominion over you; in being under law, you are under the dominion of sin because you cannot overcome it. If you are under grace, the grace of God will work in you. Is sin, then, any match for God’s grace? Certainly not.You are absolutely correct here. :)


As the Lord Jesus has died for you on the cross, even so today He lives in you. As He has borne your sins on the cross, so now He dwells in you to give you victory over sin. The law is only God’s commandment; but grace is the power of God. The law commands you to do, but grace gives you the power to do it. Not to be under law but to be under grace means the risen Christ lives in you and causes you to overcome. Beautifully stated!


Why is Christ the end of the law? This is because Christ has satisfied all the demands of the law laid upon men. In Romans 10:4, the Greek word "teleos" translated as "end" in some of your bibles, is unfortunately is a translator bias when translated as "end". It is better translated as "goal" as in "Christ is the goal of the Torah..." for "teleos" is where we get the same root for "telescope," or "telephone." Much like we view a planet through a telescope, or talk to a person over a telephone - just because we are using the telescope, or the telephone, doesn't mean the object it is bring us to ceases to exist (nor does the instrument we are using cease to exist). On the contrary, the object is seen better or heard better with more clarity than without the use of the telescope or telephone. So too the Messiah is the goal of the Torah. The Torah reveals the Messiah and we see him clearer, as we learn what the Torah teaches about the Messiah, we therefore will learn from its very pages what we must do to earn his righteousness by what he does, and not what we do. The Torah doesn't cease in its function to reveal who the Messiah is and what he does, when we become believers. Yes we have Messiah, but because the Messiah is the Word of God made flesh, we also learn more about Him when we read the Torah.


We must see first of all that Christ in His life sums up the law. Leaving totally aside the aspect of the Lord Jesus as God, let us dwell for a moment on the aspect of His being man. There is only one human being in the whole world who has kept the law completely—and that person is the Lord Jesus. There is none other before Him nor any other after Him. He alone possesses the qualification. He is therefore the sum of the law. For sake of fact, Jesus didn't keep all the Torah. He couldn't do the commandments God gave for only women to do, since he is not a woman, nor could he even keep the commandments God gave the Levites to do since he was not a Levite. But he perfectly kept all that applied to him.


Secondly, the death of Christ concludes the law.It does not conclude the law, it pays the penalty the law demands - a penalty he took upon himself when he, the Righteous One was hung on a tree, made into a curse on our behalf (made into the state of being as one condemned by the law, for us). It is because the law works to this very day, that we are free from the concequence of transgressing it, which he paid for on our behalf. The curse, the state of being in opposition to Torah and thus its state of condemnation, was what died - and this only when we identify with him in his death, not before, and not the Torah itself. The curse is very much alive against those who do not yet identify in the death of Messiah. The Torah continues to exist, its curse is ended for us, but that is because the Torah still works to condemn the curse that hung on a tree! Just like our sinful natures die when we have faith in Jesus, our bodies still live, but not us living, but Christ - the Word of God made flesh (the Living Torah) - living in us continues to live forever, Amen!

For if the law is concluded, then Christ, who is the Word of God made flesh, is concluded. Yet we don't say Christ is concluded, do we? Of course not. So in the same way Christ continues to live in our sinful bodies, even after our sinful nature (state of being in condemnation) is what dies when we come to faith in Christ.


"End" means that which is "final". What can be added after the final thing has been reached? What more can be done afterward?What does one do with the planet they see through the telescope, or the person they talk to on the telephone? They learn about it, and communicate to them.


Consequently, let every Christian give praise to God, knowing that Christ has already concluded the law and you need not keep the Sabbath.One never needed to keep the Sabbath for justification. But of course by keeping the Sabbath, one's behavior is very much sepearted from all others who do not keep the Sabbath. Agreed?

[Churchwork]

As was said before, the Sabbath rest is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant. This is not mutually exclusive of any curse God has upon people such as tilling the land and weeds growing up and woman experience pain of child birth.

Keeping the Sabbath is not going to save you, nor is it going to be something God wants you to keep, because if you do, you are rejecting the rest of the indwelling Holy Spirit which it points to. Keeping Saturdays is not unto rewards, but judgment.

The reason you argue everything is because you are not in Christ. All this is very foreign to you as continue to try to keep the law. That's why you refer to the bibles as "your bibles" and speak lowly of Christianity.

You are confusing sanctification with consecration. Sanctification is being made holy; whereas consecration is being set apart. Different words describe different things. Naturally then Romans comes before Galatians: justification before sanctification and sanctification before consecration. If you are not holy before God there is no way you can consecrate yourself.

I am not so concerned with the many false Christians and false Christians and many different misreadings of the Bible (because they are so blatantly obvious) as much as the more deceitful approach. For those who will wax worse and worse are the Judaizers of Christianity who legalize it with do's and don'ts that God has not ordained. It would make Christianity a lifeless letter. Ultimately that is what Satan wants. In the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reject Satan's Sabbath.

[jerusalemcouncil]

As was said before, the Sabbath rest is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant. This is not mutually exclusive of any curse God has upon people such as tilling the land and weeds growing up and woman experience pain of child birth.

So you agree then we have not entered an age where labor is no longer required to feed ourselves?


Keeping the Sabbath is not going to save you,I have never said that it saves you.


nor is it going to be something God wants you to keep, because if you do, you are rejecting the rest of the indwelling Holy Spirit which it points to.If all of God's commandments are moral, as you agree they are; then how is it that you can say one rejects the indwelling of the Holy Spirit when they keep his commands?

I mean, I don't see how Satan, let alone unregenerate, unrepentant sinful man, even desires to keep God's commands, do you?


Keeping Saturdays is not unto rewards, but judgment.Ok, so you are you saying you believe Christians are condemned by the law, even if they keep the Sabbath or obey anyof God's commandments contained therein?


The reason you argue everything is because you are not in Christ.Please forgive me, I do not mean to come across as arguing. I am only hoping to understand your position, and ask the questions that come up as I read it. It would be unreasonable for you to assume, that is if in fact you assume that you want me to accept everything you say hook, line, and sinker, without questioning it in any way. I don't think this is your heart, and I believe you truly do desire to arrive at the truth, even if you are wrong in certain matters, just as I am eager to arrive at the truth if I am wrong in certain matters. Elsewise, how can anyone grow in maturity without thinking for themselves and owning for themselves what they learn?


All this is very foreign to you as continue to try to keep the law.On the contrary, the Torah leads us to Christ. It teaches us who he is. Do you agree? Do you disagree with Paul, when he says "all" scripture is useful for teaching, correction, and training in right living? Or is the Torah somehow left out of that description?


That's why you refer to the bibles as "your bibles" and speak lowly of Christianity.Are you looking for disagreement, because if you are looking for it, you will always find it - in anyone. If I have demeaned you, or "your bible," or "Christianity" in any way, please allow me to apologize, for that is not my intent, and not what I am communicating.


You are confusing sanctification with consecration. Sanctification is being made holy; whereas consecration is being set apart.Holiness and set-apartness, my friend, are the exact same thing. God is holy because there is none at all like him. A fax line is holy to the fax machine if it is set apart only for the fax machine's use. You very statement "being made holy" being versus "being set apart" is symantically incorrect since both "holy" and "set apart" are the exact same definition for the other.

[Churchwork]

The Sabbath was for the Jewish people, ONLY, under the Old Covenant as a sign of covenant for that nation alone until the coming Messiah.

The reason you keep the Sabbath is because you do it to keep yourself separated from God.

I may be holy before God because I have been cleansed by the precious blood, but if I remain a fleshly Christian, then I do not consecrate myself.

Christianity has not changed on the view of the Sabbath since the beginning. Judaizers want to change God's Word or interpretation therefore to legalize and create a dead letter to deaden your conscience wittingly or unwittingly.

Everyone's test is different. Your test to know you are not born-again is if you can never let go of the Sabbath. I don't know any Christians who try to still keep the Sabbath.

Do not fret, for you can still give your life to Christ TODAY!

[jerusalemcouncil]

The Sabbath was for the Jewish people, ONLY, under the Old Covenant as a sign of covenant for that nation alone until the coming Messiah.

Have you not read what I posted? Did I not give you verses upon verses showing that the Covenant is made with all mankind, and that the standard for right or wrong does not change when one becomes a believer?


The reason you keep the Sabbath is because you do it to keep yourself separated from God.Depends on which God one serves, I guess. My God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who redeemed them, Moses, David, and all believers in Christ Jesus from the consequences of their sin, by faith alone in Christ. I assume your God is the same. If so, then why do you apparently refuse to obey Him and teach others to do the same? I could be wrong, but I think this is what you are saying.


I may be holy before God because I have been cleansed by the precious blood, but if I remain a fleshly Christian, then I do not consecrate myself.So you too agree that our behavior is something we do, to conform to Christ's likeness, who himself is perfect, keeping the Torah. Great. I am not sure where we disagree then.


Christianity has not changed on the view of the Sabbath since the beginning.In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested.

I am interested in knowing what "beginning" you are referring to, since Abraham, Moses, and David are considered as those of the same faith. Yet the Torah and the Sabbath was given to them after the fact.


Judaizers want to change God's Word or interpretation therefore to legalize and create a dead letter to deaden your conscience wittingly or unwittingly.I am not sure how those who desire to live like Jesus, who is Jewish, have their consistences deadened by following him.


Everyone's test is different. Your test to know you are not born-again is if you can never let go of the Sabbath.If Sabbath is a moral commandment, hanging from "love God" - so then are you saying that one can "test to know they are not born-again if they can never let go of the commandment to love God with all their heart"? Preposterous! Do you realize what you are saying? You are saying if one loves God, then they are not saved! Do you really believe this?


I don't know any Christians who try to still keep the Sabbath.You are posting with one. :)

[Churchwork]

You couldn't disprove Hebrews 4, that the Sabbath is now filled up with the Holy Spirit indwelling under the New Covenant and therefore, the Old Covenant Sabbath was just a sign for the nation of Jews only as the chosen people, that is, the first nation God revealed Himself to. Christians are not a nation, nor the first nation God revealed Himself to.

I am not saying you are unsaved for loving God, but for loving the false Christ who is not God.

Moreover, I don't think you will ever be born-again, because you will always keep yourself separated from God by keeping the law of the Sabbath so that your spirit is never quickened by the Holy Spirit.

[jerusalemcouncil]

I am not saying you are unsaved for loving God

Then let our dispute on this matter end with our universal agreement here, for that is all I am and many others Christians are doing: loving God.

Yet you seem to condemn us as not being saved, not having the Spirit, whenever we love God in the ways God has instructed us in how to love him.

[Churchwork]

You are not a Christian, for you are not loving God. You have replaced Him with the law of the Sabbath, and thus, you worship a false Christ.

Realize you condemn yourself for being unsaved. You keep saying it is loving to God to keep the law, when God said if you were Christian, you would have died to the law.

[jerusalemcouncil]

You are not a Christian, for you are not loving God. You have replaced Him with the law of the Sabbath, and thus, you worship a false Christ.

Realize you condemn yourself for being unsaved. You keep saying it is loving to God to keep the law, when God said if you were Christian, you would have died to the law.

If Christ is called the Word of God made flesh, then as a Christian, am I not alive to Christ, the Living Word, the Living Torah? So then when I love Christ, do I not then seek to obey Him?

The very Torah that condemns sinners for their faliure to keep the law, is the Messiah that justifies saints by his obedience to the law.

[Churchwork]

You love a false Christ as much as you love yourself for the Holy Spirit indwelling is now the Sabbath. You can't have both. They are mutually exclusive.

We are justified by faith, not by works, lest any many should boast.

[jerusalemcouncil]

You can't have both.... They are mutually exclusive.

I assume you meant you can't have both Sabbath, and Christ, that they are mutually exclusive. Excuse me then, but what is the Word of God made flesh, if not the Torah which contains the instructions concerning the Sabbath?


We are justified by faith, not by works, lest any many should boast.

I'm not talking about justification at all. At all. Period. End of discussion on this matter, please. You have no proof in anything that I've said that I am placing my hope for eternal life in anything other than the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so why do you keep on approaching me in this way as if I had?

I am simply talking about what our behavior as Christians should look like as Christians - because we are saved, justified, and sanctified; and I believe this behavior is to look like Christ. Do you agree or disagree?

[Churchwork]

The Holy Spirit indwells to replace Sabbath Hebrews 4 says. Because you replace the Christ with the Sabbath, you look to a false Christ and are rejected by Christians and have no communion with us in the Lord.

[jerusalemcouncil]

The Holy Spirit indwells to replace Sabbath Hebrews 4 says. Because you replace the Christ with the Sabbath, you look to a false Christ and are rejected by Christians and have no communion with us in the Lord.

Hebrews 4:1 says "Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands"

If we have already entered his rest, as you assert, then why does the author of Hebrews disagree with you when it says the promise of entering his rest "stills stands"? If it's a promise, it's not something that has been fulfilled. If it was fulfilled, it wouldn't be a promise, but rather it would be something we have.

[Churchwork]

You can still be born-again (Matt. 11.28; Heb. 4.1,3,8-11) which has not yet been fulfilled and may neve be. It's up to you. That's His promise. And Christians have our eternal life and future blessings with Him (Heb. 4.8-11). That's a guarantee!

[jerusalemcouncil]

You can still be born-again (Matt. 11.28; Heb. 4.1,3,8-11) which has not yet been fulfilled and may neve be. It's up to you. That's His promise. And Christians have our eternal life and future blessings with Him (Heb. 4.8-11). That's a guarantee!

That's right, it is a guarantee - one that even Moses and King David had by their faith in the Messiah the same as we, yet they kept the law even after they were saved, and they aren't apart from Christ!

So then if they are with Christ after they had faith in him, and later kept the law, how then can you condemn one who keeps the command to "Love the LORD" through God's strength, and who keeps all His other commandments, including the Sabbath, when they too do it through God's strength?

If you recall, it was the Pharisees who claimed that Jesus operated in the power of Satan when he was obedient to God. Don't make the same mistake and call all those who claim to keep God's commandments through His strength, as really somehow doing it in their sinful nature, or in Satan's strength. Last I checked, the sinful nature, and Satan want nothing to do with the Law of God, let alone keep it.

[Churchwork]

You are not loving the Lord when you try to keep the Sabbath, because the Sabbath has passed.

What does Paul teach concerning the Sabbath? He maintains that the Sabbath is a thing that has passed away: “having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross . . . Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s” (Col. 2.14,16-17).

“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord" (Rom. 14.5).

In the Old Testament time, a person who did not keep the Sabbath day was to be stoned to death. In the New Testament time, the Jews wanted to kill the Lord for His not keeping the Sabbath. They were not able to carry out their plan because miracles through Jesus were definitely being performed. In the days of Paul, the apostle maintained that “every day [was] alike.” Here must have been a change in dispensation. The Sabbath day is a shadow of things to come. There is in the law a portion which serves as type. In the Old Testament, commands to keep the Sabbath day are frequently given. Even in the millennial kingdom the Jews will still offer sacrifices. Yet in the New Testament writings of Paul he did not exhort people to keep the Sabbath day, not even once. It would really be strange if the Sabbath day was to be kept and yet was not mentioned at all. Thus we realize that the dispensation has changed.

Discussing this is with the burden of the proof on you.

According to Acts 15.22, at the council in Jerusalem the apostles and elders were all present. If the Sabbath day was important, surely it would have been taken up and decided on by the council. But this was not addressed. For the law and the prophets prophesied until John. Christ is now the sum of the law. Hence in the New Testament there is no command that we need to keep the Sabbath day. In Colossians we are told that the Sabbath day has passed away. Paul also maintained—in Romans 14—that to keep or esteem a day or not is something optional.

[jerusalemcouncil]

According to Acts 15.22, at the council in Jerusalem the apostles and elders were all present. If the Sabbath day was important, surely it would have been taken up and decided on by the council.



Um, it did talk about the Sabbath, but I'll get to that in a moment.

If not commiting murder was important, surely it too would have been taken up and decided by the council. With all due respect, your position, though commendable that you are thinking through this, falls in on itself like leaky balloon. For if the Acts 15 judgement was a maximum list of behaviors for Gentiles to do, it is seriously lacking in the most basic of morals. Instead the decision is better understood in context, and for sake of space, I'll cut the chase: it was a decision to limit the obvious pagan behavior of Gentiles so that they COULD go to a synagogue. For Acts 15:21 gives the very reason for the giving of the judgement:

Acts 15:21
For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.

Obviously the Jerusalem Council expected the Gentiles to be in the synagogues on the Sabbath. Where else where they to go? The 1st Baptist Church on Main Street?

The prohibitions given to them, then, if you even know 1st Century Judaism at all, was required for any Gentile to even be allowed in a synagogue. The rest of the Torah, the Council expected the Gentiles to eventually learn (including later Paul as he says to the Romans "I am speaking to men (Romans) who know the Torah" in Romans 7).




But this was not addressed. For the law and the prophets prophesied until John. Christ is now the sum of the law.

Christ always WAS the sum of the law. If he's the Word of God, forever, both before the foundation of the world onwards, then there is no "now" to this, as if to say he was somehow "not" before. God does not change. Nor does his Word.



Hence in the New Testament there is no command that we need to keep the Sabbath day.There is no command in the apostolic writings that one should keep from beastiality either. So what is your point? Paul said ALL scripture is useful for doctrine, teaching, correction, and training in right living. This includes the Torah, and the Torah says to keep the Sabbath, and to not have sex with animals.



In Colossians we are told that the Sabbath day has passed away. Paul also maintained—in Romans 14—that to keep or esteem a day or not is something optional. In Col, Paul says no such thing. In Romans 14, the context is food, and thus the "days" in context can only be concerning weekly fast days, not over Sabbath with is an entirely out-of-topic category to bring into the very middle of a discussion over food and eating. And since weekly fast days are not commanded anywhere in the Torah, then they are completely optional.

[Churchwork]

The Sabbath would be a key ingredient on when to worship, but not requirement is stipulated anywhere. That Saturday, like any day, is just what is convenient for people at the time, but the Church uses Sunday, especially after 70 AD and when the Apostles saw Jesus they saw Him on Sundays. These day issues are inconsequential. They are only brought up as an item for legalists and judaizers such as yourself who puff themselves up with it. The Bible is clear,

“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord" (Rom. 14.5). For such things, there is no law.

At this point in our discussion since these are the words of Scripture and you could not show otherwise, you get an infraction for Board Etiquette #6, since you keep repeating yourself through various threads in avoidance of the burden that it is on you for this verse.

[jerusalemcouncil]

The Sabbath would be a key ingredient on when to worship, but not requirement is stipulated anywhere.

It is stipulated in the Torah.


That Saturday, like any day, is just what is convenient for people at the time, but the Church uses Sunday, especially after 70 AD and when the Apostles saw Jesus they saw Him on Sundays.

If you read the histories, you will easily find it was the Christians that were kicked out of the synagogues, which served as the catalyst for there to be a huge anti-Jewish split, and an adoption of even a different day of the week just to spite anything Jewish. Catholic Church history even admits that it invented Sunday worship for this purpose.


These day issues are inconsequential. They are only brought up as an item for legalists and judaizers such as yourself who puff themselves up with it. The Bible is clear,

“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord" (Rom. 14.5).

You keep repeating yourself through various threads.


At this point in our discussion since these are the words of Scripture and you could not show otherwise, you get an infraction for Board Etiquette #6, since you keep repeating yourself through various threads avoidance of the burden that it is on you for this verse.

Oh wait, you're not the only one. Whew. I guess I've joined the infraction club. Churchwork, I have laid out the proof in every post that I have been asked to do so, and you give me an infraction for it? Dude, you're the one posting all these posts under your alternate nicks asking for the same info you want me to post, let's stick to one convo then! If you all you want me to do is leave, just say so, or ban me, just quit playing games with me and actually disprove the points I bring up, or end this discussion.

[Churchwork]

The Torah contained the law for Israel and the Sabbath was for Israel, not for Gentiles.

Jesus was resurrected on Sunday. It is no invention. Jesus saw the disciples in His resurrection on Sunday.

Yes Paul was kicked out of the Synagogue on Saturday.

You keep avoiding the evidence and accuse it:

“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord" (Rom. 14.5).

I want you to stay, but not keep violating Board Etiquette #6, which the burden of the proof is on you, for you reject Rom. 14.5. These forums are not for your self-declarations and avoiding this clear evidence, there is no law to keep the Sabbath under the New Covenant.

You need to repent of being a Judalizer of Christianity.