GODS 10 COMMANDMENTS

God places Christ the Creator’s Holy Seventh-day memorial’s "making" in Gen 2:3 and Exodus 20:8-11 "confirms" that it was "made then" in the Gen 2:3 “Event” – (before Sin entered the world). The Words of Christ the Creator speaking of the "making" of mankind and the "making" of His OWN Holy Seventh-day memorial of His creative act in Making mankind – also agrees with the Gen 2:3 origin of the command as being “before sin”.

It is clear - and obvious.

So also is the reference in Isaiah 66 to the Sabbath in the New Earth - placing it well beyond the time of "sin".

So "in scripture" we see it BEFORE sin begins - in Gen 2:3 and we see it AFTER sin is abolished in Isaiah 66.

And Christ the Creator says it was made as a blessing FOR mankind. Mark 2:27 drawing our focus to both the making of mankind and the making of Christ the Creator’s holy seventh-day memorial of creation – given as a blessing “for mankind” by the Creator.

The only way mankind receives that blessing is to "participate" in Christ the Creator's holy Seventh-day memorial of His creative act in making mankind.

Though some will argue still --

I suppose to one fully opposed to Christ the Creator's own Seventh-day memorial of His own creative act in making mankind - the Gen 2:3 text is "easily ignored" and “insufficient” to establish the command – even though the Exodus 20:8-11 summary that God gives of the Gen 2:3 “event” clearly shows that it IS sufficient to have established the command..

But to those whose traditions are truly opposed to Christ the Creator’s holy day the next argument that comes to mind is often..

Indeed you do not. Just as in Genesis 6 when speaking of clean and unclean animals - you see nothing about "split hoof and chewing cud" though this is spelled out for Moses’ readers later in Lev 11.

(And you see no mention of Adam and Eve "needing to gather sticks" on any other day of the week either and no mention of Adam drinking water or even needing water).

"Still" any straw that is available will be clung to by those whose traditions reject Christ the Creator's own blessing made FOR mankind and clearly kept in the New Earth.

Moses did not have a case where his readers would only be "able to read" the Genesis 2:3 reference to concepts more fully detailed in later books.

The sin of murder (in Gen 4) shows up in that same way as does the concept of clean and unclean meats in Genesis 6.

As some of the Sabbath’s detractors have pointed out - if we choose to toss exegesis out the window in Isaiah 66 - (ignoring the context for the primary audience) we could easily imagine and entirely different concept other than rest and worship in Isaiah 66 since "no sticks are mentioned" in Isaiah 66 regarding the new earth.

Another argument combined with “the sticks” argument that is made against Christ the Creator’s Christ the Creator's holy Seventh-day memorial (of His creative act in making mankind) is the reference in Gal 3 that the Law was added due to sin. Perhaps the Sabbath too was added “because of sin”
.
It has been said --

So for example - the command to Love God with all your heart Deut 6:5,

the command to Love your neighbor Lev 19:18,

the command to honor your parents Exodus 20:12,

and the command to "remember" Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 holy day "added because of sin".

All these are specifics given at Sinai --

But the “sin” that results in codifying the “Laws, Statutes and Commandments” of God mentioned in Gen 26:5 may be the sin of mankind in forgetting them.

Hmm. Perhaps the sin of "forgetting" Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 holy day.

Perhaps the sin of "forgetting" to love God with all the heart.

Perhaps the sin of "forgetting" to love our neighbor.


Still the argument of some is that without all the explicit instructions given in Moses’ later books the early characters in human history could not know what they were being asked to do. The game they play here is to – “assume more "nonsense" in the Gen 2:3 statement of God regarding His own Holy Day - than is actually warranted”.

The fact remains – the Holy Seventh-day of Gen 2:3 "had meaning" even without the "problem of the sticks" in the Garden being addressed later in Exodus and Leviticus for Hebrews in the dessert.

As for the lack of information about “sticks” not negating the command – notice that even in Exodus 20:8-11 - no mention of "sticks". But the commandment is still valid.

The command to rest is "Evident" (according to God) by the example of rest that God gave mankind.

But even more instructive – the arguments made against Christ’s Holy Seventh-day need to assume that when God made the day holy in Gen 2:3 He was not allowed to speak with mankind about the day that He made FOR mankind beyond the words recorded in Genesis 2. Genesis is needed as an “exhaustive account” by these anti-Sabbath arguments.

Those that oppose Christ the Creator’s Holy day also argue that mankind would argue AGAINST the very "reasons" supplied in the Exodus 20:8-11 text as being a valid basis of the Sabbath. God claims that His own Gen 2:3 example of “rest” is sufficient to establish the command – but those who argue against His Sabbath say that this is not sufficient to establish the Holy day and the observance to it.

This is "another" case where their traditions and preferences are in opposition to the Word. They claim that Moses gave an exhaustive account of the dialog instead of Moses accepting the fact that his readers would see terms and commands defined later in his other books.

As we see with the Clean and unclean - though NO distinction is made as to HOW you would know which is which - YET they have the distinction. This is proof that the Lev 11 "information" was being conveyed and that the Gen text is not in fact "an exhaustive account of very word spoken for 1500 years".

In Gen 7 and 8 we find that Noah sacrifices from among the clean animals - "another" case where the Levitical laws explain the actions in Genesis - but no "details" are given in Genesis about "how they knew that" - we simply see the institutions as "fact" in Genesis - with detail explanation coming to the reader of the SAME author - in his other books.

In Isaiah 66 the day is one of "worship" in Lev 23 the 7th day Sabbath is one of "Worship" and in Exodus 20 and Gen 2:3 it is one of rest - but specifically and explicitly a "Holy Day" of rest.

Though the anti-Sabbath views “need” Adam to spend his first Sabbath confused about the number of days in a week, alone and in the dark - we have no reason to believe that mankind had that kind of relationship with the Creator before the fall.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Clearly the "decrees against us" are written in these books out of which each person is judged "according to their deeds".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eric said

In the choice between claiming that Christ paid our debt that the Law demands - nailing our debt to the cross....

Vs taking the Creator's own Law and nailing His own Word, His own commandments to the Cross -- some choose the following

Eric expounds on his view that the Law of God - the Word of God - God's "scripture" as Paul calls it in Gal 3 - is what is "done away" with - and "nailed to the cross" - rather than the the "Certificate of debt" that we incur as violaters of His "HOly Just and True Law - that is Spiritual" Romans 7.

I am saying that the books of record show our "debt" they record each deed and also determine the debt owed - the "certificate of debt".

It is not the books of record that are "paid at the cross" - rather it is the "debt" that they say each individual "owes". The certificate of debt that they decree as owed(a decree made by comparing our lives against the perfect standard - God's Law), is what is nailed to the cross and stamped "paid in full".

And this - for everyone of mankind. But to avail ourselves of that cancelled debt - we must choose Christ - choose to be born again - to have the LAW of God written in our heart - instead of nailed and done away with. To have the new creation that walks after the spirit - instead of rebelling against the Law of God - being hostile to God's Law - refusing to submit and indeed UNNABLE to submit to it (Roman 8:5-8)

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is quite some hermeneutic! God gives a command in Exodus to the nation of Israel. And somewho you infer that all those living before that command was ever made are subject to the obedience of that command though they never knew about it. God resting on the Sabbath is not a command to keeping it holy, as the Israelites were commanded to. You still haven't demonstrated what justice would have been meted out to those who did not keep the Sabbath and lived pre-law. I am waiting for that answer.

This is a reference to the Millennial Kingdom that is in the future when Christ comes and rules on the earth. What has that got to do with this day and age? Nothing!

Yep, that is the nature of history. But there is no command in there for any person other than a Jew to keep the Sabbath, except during the Millennial Kingdom.

No, Christ, in refutation of the Pharisees binding traditions, said that the Sabbath was made for mankind. He said it while the law was still in effect as He had not yet gone to the cross. The Pharisees had put so many burdens on the common man that the Sabbath was dominating the lives of the common man. Jesus corrected them and said that the Sabbath was made for the benefit of man; not the other way around.
You are now taking the position of the Pharisees.

This is the position of the Pharisees, which Jesus opposed--the keeping of the law in regards to the Sabbath. No man can keep the law. The law shows that we are sinners, and thus points us to the need of a Saviour, i.e., Christ.
You make an assumption here that is not necessarily true. It does not follow that one must keep the Sabbath to receive God's blessing. To put it bluntly, that is a foolish conclusion, for the Sabbath was only given to the nation of Israel. Again I refer you to Exodus 31.

This is somewhat redundant. A command given in the future is not applicable to those that live in the past. This truth is self-evident.
DHK

 

The command of Exodus 20 is NOT of the form "AND NOW I command you to start observing the Holy Day of creation week" - though "some here" imagine that this is the language used.

Instead of that - God says that the Gen 2:3 event ITSELF sufficiently establishED the commandment.

God said "HE MADE" it holy then. God said that His own example of rest in Gen 2:3 ALREADY established it. EVEN in Gen 2:3 it is stated as "HE MADE IT holy".

The continual drum beat that "this was confusing to Adam" and that "Adam was kept in the dark" - though "intertaining" does not do justice to the facts.

As already noted --

Though the anti-Sabbath views “need” Adam to spend his first Sabbath confused about the number of days in a week, alone and in the dark - we have no reason to believe that mankind had that kind of relationship with the Creator before the fall.


In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, no matter which way you dance around Gen.2:3, you cannot get a command to keep the Sabbath holy. It just is not there. There is no retroactive command coming back from Exodus 20. It just isn't there.

Genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

(Unger’s Commentary)
DHK

 

The repetitive montra and wooden insistence that "God's Holy day established in Gen 2:3 must be vaccuous since all communication for those 1500 years is fully documented and the command is not listed. Mankind must be ignoring the day made for mankind since God forgot to tell mankind about it".. Seen here (Ifor example in the post above)- is refuted by simple logic and common understanding - but also by the fact that the wooden insistence on the "command not given" fails already in the case of Gen 4 and the sin of murder EVEN though the "command was not given".

That argument fails before "it gets started" and is an obvious dodge of the Gen 2:3 Holy day of the Creator "Made for Mankind".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hey Bob, my wife says you need to write in the English language (RE: above post)

"all communication for those 1500 years is fully documented and the command is not listed."
I would like to see that documentation. Can you document that the Sabbath was kept from the date of creation to the time of the law, all those intervening years. Can you show me that all those listed in Genesis 5 and in chapter 10 (The Table of Nations) actually kept the Sabbath. You have actual documentation for this??
DHK

 

I'm generally critical of KJVOnlyism, but I can certainly see where they are coming from. Many of these translations completely destroy the meaning of certain scriptures.
Still, some of them you have just quoted preserve the meaning of the verse:

So using different translations, while sometimes helping with difficult passages, does not prove that it is what you say it is.

The reason why the Law is written in our hearts, is because, the letter was nailed to the Cross. So not following the letter is not "rebelling" against the Law of God.

So you're referring to "remember". Looking that up, it means to "mark" (from then on), not "you've always known about this, so don't forget about it now".

 

My emphasis was on the "demands", "regulations" and "ordinances". This verse is talking about BOTH the debt AND the regulations added because of sin. Most if those versions eliminated the regulations/ordinances aspect of it, but those two preserved both meanings. The word Paul uses means "law" (civil, eccl.), so that's what he meant, regardless of how anyone translates it.

He referred back to the act of Creation and the Sabbath, but the "past tense" aspect of that is not connected with His command for them NOW to "remember" (which in the Hebrew, is NOT "past tense"). He was simply telling them to "mark" out a weekly day to worship and focus on Him. Nothing else.

 

Your point that God is just now introducing His Holy day in Exodus 20 has already been refuted. It fails in a number of areas.

#1. God already gave them His Holy day "making it Holy" in Gen 2:3 and EVEN in Exodus 20 He says that of his Gen 2:3 act "THEREFORE the Lord BLESSED the Seventh day and made it holy". Impossible to escape the reference to Gen 2:3 in Exodus 20:8-11.

#2. Even if you could turn a blind-eye to the clear reference to Gen 2:3 as having ALREADY established the fact -- Exodus 16:23 says "Tomorrow is the Sabbath" even BEFORE we get to Exodus 20.

All attempts to "pretend" that the term "REMEMBER" in Exodus 20 is ignoring the entire history up to this point about the Sabbath so that "NOTHING" of an already existing Sabbath is to actually be "remembered" - fails the test of simple direct and objective exegesis.

Your position is obviously taken out of a fear of Christ the Creator's Seventh-day Holy day that He made in Gen 2:3 the 7th day of the week of creation week. It is not taken out of supportable proof for your claim that there is NO reference to the Sabbath before Exodus 20 or NO reference to it having ALREADY been made as the Creator's Holy day FOR mankind - in Gen 2:3.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"THEREFORE"; in other words, God sanctified the Sabbath because he had finished creating the world. He's telling the Israelites "honor me on this day, because I am the one who created the world in 6 days". Why read anything else into it? It says nothing about "it was always commanded"

Still, this was the first time God was telling them this. Look at the preceding verse. The rulers did not even know why they had to gether twice as much on Friday, and then Moses explains what the Lord "said". (it was not already established knowledge)

The word mean "mark" (from now on), not what you read into it (you always knew about this). No amount of arguing can change that.

And your insistence is based on a fear of the liberty we have been given in Christ as regarding sabbath days. You want to believe everyone else is living in disobedience, while you have found the "forgotten command". But you in practice make man for it, rather than it for man.everyone else.

 

Eric responds

Still avoiding that devastating point disproving your assertion?

God declares in Exodus 20 that since it was MADE Holy, Blessed and sanctified - man is obligated to keep it holy.

Christ said that this obligation is in fact a blessing for mankind.

Gen 2:3 states that THEN - on the 7th day of creation week it was MADE holy. In fact this is WHY our week is not 6-days. It is WHY it is a Seven day week - to this very day.

"Obviously" this is "devestating" to your view of "please don't remember anything about the Sabbath from the past - but start remembering from today on" method of interpreting the Creator's 4th commandment.

Nope. As already pointed out - in Exodus 16:23 they were to rest on that day JUST as we see God continuing to tell them in Exodus 20.

AND in vs 28 He says it is "A Commandment". Your entire "remember-nothing from the past" interpretation fails before it gets started in Exodus 20.

Furthermore - Moses is the one that tells us that it was in Gen 2:3 that the Creator set the 7-day week, set the 7th day as a Holy day. It is in Exodus 16{28 that he tells us that it is ALREADY a commandment.

And by the time we get to Exodus 20 - we see God going BACK to the Gen 2:3 event saying that IT is what makes the day obligatory - IT alone.

Of course - you are working on the rabbit trail of "gather twice as much manna on Friday" being another fact they did not have to deal with before the Exodus - or after the 40 years in the desert for that matter. As "if" that was an issue for Adam or ANYONE before Manna fell.

In Exodus 20:7 "you shall not take the name of God in vain" is NOT quoted at any time prior to Exodus 20:7. "surely" you are not going to use your "it was ok before that" attack on this commandment as you do with the Creator's Sabbath commandment that HE gives to mankind in Gen 2:3 - are you?

Surely - you see the flaw in your argument.

Well - we "see" the fallacy there as the "commanment" referenced in Exouds 16:28 is not "voided" in the way you propose where "nothing in the past is to be remembered" regarding the Creator's Holy day - rather ONLY remember what you hear about it "from now on".

The argument you present has been so thoroughly refuted - I would think you would be somewhat embarrassed to continue with it.

These are not "blank minds" being told "start over - and from now on remember the Creator's Holy day" - rather in chapter 16 they are ALREADY given the - AND for all the weeks LEADING up to Exodus 20 it is "already" a "commandment" according to Ex 16:28 - AND the manna itself "reminds them" each week in a way that only the "Creator" could do.

Surely you can see that.

Surely you can not "claim bondage" for Adam in the blessing of the Sabbath MADE for mankind.

Surely you can not claim "Bondaage" in the New Earth when "From Sabbath to Sabbath ALL mankind comes before God to Worship" Isaiah 66.

And yet you pretend to believe --

Liberty to dispense with the Creator's Holy day Made FOR mankind?

Liberty to ignore Christ the Creator's Holy day -- UNTIL I reach the New Earth when I will once again be "enslaved to it"???

Eric - your twisting of that blessing given to mankind before sin - as "slavery" is never said to be the case in all of scripture.

Neither is God's Law - regarding Love for God, (Deut 6:5), Love for our Neighbor (Lev 19:18) and not taking God's name in vain "Exodus 20:7" --- "Slavery".

I fully expect to "keep them" With the Law of God "written on the tablets of the human heart" according to the New Covenant promise of Heb 8:7.

Surely you can see that this is "nothing to fear".

Surly you can agree with Christ that in fact Christ the Creator's Holy day is made from the very start as a "blessing for mankind" and that blessing continues to be "For all mankind" in the New Earth as they come before God to worship - "from Sabbath to Sabbath" Isaiah 66.

This just isn't that hard.

When Christ the Creator MADE the day and GAVE it to mankind - do you "Really claim" that it was not "made FOR mankind" unless mankind is allowed to "pick his OWN day"?

Are you really going to stick with that humanistic view of "blessings from God"?

I just can't see how such a humanist centered view is taught in scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is still just your inferential eisogesis. God tells them then to mark it because the day represented His act of Creation, but this says nothing about it always being commanded. You are operating entirely on an assumption that because it was mantioned as being "sanctified" back then, it was always commande. But you can find no such thing in scripture. You just say "it MUST have been, if it was already sanctified". I'm sorry, but this is not enough to go and condemn the rest iof the Church for not keeping it. If you want to onserve the day that way, then you observe it unto the Lord, But no, it just doesn't have quite tghat meaning if you can't conclude everyone else in some inferior spiritual state (disobedience) by it. Once again, man was really made for it.

I acknowledged that it was first commanded in ch.16, not 20. But you still can't find it before that, except for "God sanctified it, so it MUST have been commanded". Exodus 16 does not say it was "already" a commandment (the people didn't even know what it was about at first), nor does Ex. 20 say "it is 'mandatory' BECAUSE of Creation". Once again, you are twisting the verses and then reading your own meanings into them. And you twist my words into all that nonsense about "please DON'T remember...". Neither I said any of that, nor does the Bible say what you are saying. Creation is the reference that gives it its significance. There is nothing about it always being commanded. Once again, God can sanctify something without telling man to observe it immediately.

That is a universal law, which was written on man's conscience (and now written on our hearts through the Spirit). Can you say the Sabbath is like that? If you heard about this holy God, wouldn't you know not to take His name in vain? But then would you know that you had to "rest" on a particular day of the week, without readingabout it in the Law of Moses?

You're having a conversation with yourself again.
You are the one who speaks in terms of restrictions, by which the majority of Christians are living in sin, and you are doing something better than them. Once again, "made for man", Christ was setting the principle that it was ultimately not about restrictions, but REST, and just as without Christ, we are in "the flesh", (physical), in christ, the spiritual becomes the focus, and Hebrews 4 applies the intent of the sabbath rest to be spiritual: cease from ones "WORKS as God did. You are emphasizing works of the Law, and the true "sabbath rest" is the opposite of this.

 

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still avoiding that devastating point disproving your assertion?

God declares in Exodus 20 that since it was MADE Holy, Blessed and sanctified - man is obligated to keep it holy.

Christ said that this obligation is in fact a blessing for mankind.

Gen 2:3 states that THEN - on the 7th day of creation week it was MADE holy. In fact this is WHY our week is not 6-days. It is WHY it is a Seven day week - to this very day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1. The details in the Exodus 20 command show ONLY the fact of Gen 2:3 as establishing the obligation for mankind.

#2. There is NO case where God makes something Holy and man is called to "ignore it".

#3. Christ said that the day was MADE FOR mankind - and you have NO WAY for mankind to participate in that WITHOUT doing as God said in Exodus 20:8-11 regarding the Gen 2:3 facts alone.

#3. The DETAILS of the clean/unclean meat criteria are missing from Genesis 6 and yet the ONLY way for the distinction to be made is for the Lev 11 DETAILS to have been known.

#4. The DETAILS of the 6th commandment speak to the Gen 4 sin of Cain - and without the law there is "no sin" Romans 4. The SIN mentioned in Gen 4 references the COMMAND of Exodus 20.

#5. God says Abraham KEPT His "Commandments, statutes and laws" which you claim "did not exist" -
Gen 26 --
5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.''

We know it was given FOR mankind when MADE holy Christ TELLS us that in Mark 2:27. Impossible to MISS.

We know that it was sanctified and made as a Holy day In Gen 2:3.

We have NO example of a Holy day made by God with NO obligation on anyone to honor it. You simply "imagine" that for Christ the Creator's DAY MADE for MANKIND.

And you only embrace such an extreme nonsensical position because your "traditions" require it.

I did not author the 10 commandments - God did.

Even if you could ever make a case for God "making a holy day that NOBODY was to honor" (as silly as your argument would be in that case) - you would be "stuck again" at Exodus 20 because THEN you find your missing command for the Sabbath and THEN you must "confess" the truth of Christ's Words "The Sabbath was MADE FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27 (though that is very LATE in the history of Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh-day to start honoring it).

Either way - it was MADE FOR MANKIND long before Mark 2:27 and long before the start of the Christian Church.

You are still stuck.

In that display of confused logic you argue that GOD can not GIVE a command that BLESSES mankind IF that command obligates mankind to OBEY. Your argument is that mankind is only "blessed by rebellion" or by "humanist traditions" were mankind is free to "make up his own commands".

But in the MAKING of the 7th day of the week that we STILL have to this day - it is not MAN that makes it - it is GOD.

In the MAKING of Christ the Creator's Holy day it is NOT man that "blesses it" and that "sanctifies it" and that "sets it appart" it is Christ the Creator. It is the exact opposite of "humanism".

God "alone" is its author - and in SUBMITTING to Christ the Creator's Holy day - MANKIND is blessed.

Christ points out in Mark 2:27 that it is intended to BLESS mankind and that deeds of mercy and rest and being refreshed are in complete harmony with the day made FOR mankind.

When the sun sets on Friday - my boss may WANT me to "work more" but I am "obligated" to go home and rest and enjoy time with my family and my God.

(Oh how terrible cries the humanist! Obligated!)

When Saturday morning comes I worship and attend church with my family but my boss wants to work overtime, worry, etc. My neighbor wants me to work in the yard and my own projects want me to go to the store and purchase items to continue home improvement. But alas - poor me - I am "obligated instead" to "rest" to enjoy time with my family in worship and mediation and to study the Bible. I am "obligated" to push all the world's pressures aside and enjoy my God without distraction.

Ahhh the day made "FOR MANKIND" how "awful" that Christ the Creator "MADE IT HOLY" and "BLESSED it" and "SANCTIFIED it" so that I am "obligated to honor IT" above all these other pressures - and so I receive the blessing FOR mankind as "awful" as that would be to a humanist way of thinking.

In Christ,

Bob

 

DHK responds

Clearly you were not "reading-the-english" as It states that this is the wooden assertion of anti-Sabbath people who insist that the HOLY day MADE in Gen 2:3 FOR mankind must NOT have had a COMMAND associated since Gen is such an exhaustive account.

You seem to have missed the point entirely.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Eric said

I see.

Consider the "Certificate of Debt" as that which is the DEBT that we owe - fully consistent with the Col 2 text about "forgiveness of sins" and totally INCONSISTENT with "obliteragint the holy just and true - SPIRITUAL LAW of God" described in Romans 7.

Totally CONSISTENT with the Isaiah 55 concept of "Taking the stroke for us TO WHOM the stroke was due" and totally INCONSISTENT with "Abolishing the LAW by our faith" Rom 3:31.

You already admitted that the "commandment" is given BEFORE Exodus 20 in Exodus 16 (at the very least) so your entire effort to discredit the pre-Exodus 20 commandment failed even by your own confession.

In Christ,

Bob

 

NO IT DOES NOT! It established the obligation then, and the Genesis reference only establishes its significance.

Marriage, as I've said before.
Also, if He did not reveal it at a certain time, the people are not "ignoring" it, as He doesn't expect it of them. Who are you to tell God when He must reveal what He makes holy to us?

You're still taking "made for man" to be regarding the extent of mankind "bound" by it, rather than which is made for which. Don't come whith this when you are reading your own meanings to Christ's words. You go learn what they really mean before you spout them to others.

Still, that was for sacrifice, and it was Moses who wrote that and defined it in terms he was familiar with from Leviticus.

That law is universal and written in man's conscience. Anyone can know it is wrong, without hearing of God or His Law. Not so with the Sabbath.

So what are you suggesting in all of this? There were laws commanded that were not recorded, so we can speculate on the full set of laws, or assume it must have been the Ten, plus the dietary (--what sabbatarians keep today, right? ). Once again Jewish scholars have delineated 7 universal laws, which include some of the Ten, plus blood and things strangled. You may say "but we don't see these listed", but then these references are the evidence of what God expected from man at that point. We cannot go speculating that the rest of what became known as the Law of Moses was in effect, but just not mentioned somehow. Everything that God was angry at man for breaking was mentioned, because man broke everything God commanded.

From my sabbath page once again:
"Prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, murder, theft, sexual perversion, eating live meat/blood and the mandate to establish courts of justice are obviously universal, and God always expected man to obey these. Also as evident from Cain and Abel (and even God's killing an animal for skins to cover Adam and Eve), blood sacrifice for sin was universal. These are the "commandments and statutes and laws" God refers to regarding Abraham, and people who kept these laws were "righteous", or "walking with God". If God had not commanded the Sabbath then, then people could be righteous without it, so that logic is far from the truth. So it's doing whatever God tells you that is the "faith of Abraham". For instance, the main act of obedience that made Abraham such an example in the first place was his willingness to sacrifice his son, not any set of laws and rituals other than the universal commands. Hebrews 11, the "Faith Hall of Fame" mentions this plus the acts of faith of Sarah, Abel, Enoch, and Noah".

Once again, I have no tradition, because I once kept the sabbath, and I am not pushing Sunday. There are others here you can argue with on that, but still, the Bible tells us if we will observe the day, observe it unto the Lord.

This shows once again the straw man you twist my words into. I never said there was "no obligation" ON ANYONE, just not EVERYONE. There is a big difference.

You are still pasting together two scriptures into something they together do not even teach. "made at Creation" + "commanded in Exodus" + "made for man" = "every single man who ever lived is obligated to 'keeping' it". I am sorry, but this is not a Biblical line of thought. You have there three different contexts, which stand alone. God commands one particular people this day (never once condemned the pagans for not keeping it, like He did with all the other laws they were breaking) and explains how He originally sanctified it. These people eventually become so fixated on it, adding more and more rules, that it was but a set of "don't"s, and Christ tells them it was made for man, not man made for it. None of this adds up to a formula of it being a universal law for all men in every age, and no, not when you add Isaiah 66 either. The "sanctified at Creation" may be your strongest argument, but the other three are where you fail. Commanded to one group of people only at one time, was made for man meaning telling us whether it was man or the day that had the priority over the other, not the scope of humanity that was bound to it.

 

quote:Bob said
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if you could ever make a case for God "making a holy day that NOBODY was to honor" (as silly as your argument would be in that case) - you would be "stuck again" at Exodus 20 because THEN you find your missing command for the Sabbath and THEN you must "confess" the truth of Christ's Words "The Sabbath was MADE FOR MANKIND" Mark 2:27 (though that is very LATE in the history of Christ the Creator's Holy Seventh-day to start honoring it).

Either way - it was MADE FOR MANKIND long before Mark 2:27 and long before the start of the Christian Church.

You are still stuck.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point remains. Christ said that "The Sabbath was MADE for mankind". Mark 2:27.

You argue that EVEN though it was made, blessed and sanctified on the 7th-day of creation week and that this is ALL that was done to give us that 7th day- STILL it was not "real" until Exodus 20. But in doing so - you are STILL STUCK because you have not found a good way to delete Christ's statement that IT was MADE for mankind.

Shifting the MAKIng to Exodus 20 - does nothing to solve your problem trying to wiggle out of it actually having been MADE for MANKIND.

Nothing you have said addresses the text - the statement of Christ obliterates all your rationalizing. You need to "re-translate" His words so that He is not saying the devestating thing He DOES say.

By MAKING it FOR mankind - and then placing that MAKING at the Exodus 20 event (that points us at the Gen 2:3 event) you have done nothing for your cause - because as long as it was MADE for MANKIND - you are stuck.

What you "NEEDED" was to have it "MADE at SINAI" and "MADE only for ISRAEL".

Clearly "you did not get that out of Mark 2".

The other option - which you have now been fighting so hard against - was to have the MAKING be in Gen 2:3 for MANKIND - but then at Exodus 20 it is NO LONGER MADE for mankind - so that by the time we get to Mark 2:27 Christ could say "The Sabbath is MADE today just for ISRAEL though at one time it was MADE for mankind".

In either case - you seem to be stuck trying to get to some solution.

In Christ,

Bob

 

But in your logic then, there should have been nothing wrong with what the Pharisees were doing. (after all, Christ was only telling us that all man was bound to it). They too could have argued that the rule not to pluck ears of grain was part of "the blessing", and the Christ was teaching them rebellion is blessing" or "humanism", or "making up our own commands". Some Jews still say that about Him today. But Jesus used scripture, and pointed out how David "did what was not lawful to do" (preceding verse).

So to you, it has the added benefit of giving you a convenient excuse to get out of people's requests. (Just like the dietary laws are about "health". God's lawexists just for our pleasure, which is a pragmatiic mindset much of the modern church is influenced by. Talk about "humanism"! )
But others are expected to quit their jobs. (or with my job, RDO's are based on seniority, and confirmed sabbathkeepers who are new are placed on midnights, which some people can't handle for long). But of course, all of this is "the test" to see what we will do for God, right? Making life as inconvenient as possible is what God aims to do to test our commitment. Then once we accomplish that, boy are we "good", and can look down on all those wicked rebels who do not do our works! This is exactly what the Pharisees thought. Christ sets the principle that that was not what the sabbath was SUPPOSED to be about (even though many of their restrictions were given to them by God). Then, in the NT, we never see an issue of Gentile converts having to "rebel" against their employers to get the day off. Nobody is chastized for not keeping it. It was for man, and served its purpose, of leading up to Christ, like everything else.

And what Rom.7 also says, is that this "holy just and true" Law actually made man's rebellion worse, because of the fact that it was us who were "carnal, sold under sin". So he contineues in chapter 8, showing that we today, following Christ, who "walk in the spirit, NOT in the letter that have the righteous requirements of the Law fulfilled by Christ (v.4) That is why "The Law" (i.e. the letter) was abolished. Because it was not the solution for fallen man. Is howed us our sin, but we could not meet its requirements.

Still, "remember" means "mark" from then on. If anything, your point works against you, because if you insist "remember" means only "not forget what they already knew about", then yes, they already knew about it in ch.20, but still you have not proven it was known about before ch.16. "Remember" wasn't used then.
This part of the debate was another waste of time, because you are the one who tried to argue that "Remember" in ch.20 proved it was always known, and I was proving what "remember" really meant.