It is mentioned all over as 'blasphemy', and there is no set of passages calling it into question by saying not to judge over it.Sort of like "no scripture that says -- the command not to take the Lord's name in vain is not longer binding, and no scripture that says after the Gospels - that taking the Lord's name in vain is still binding".
So what you're doing is pasting Mark and Isaiah together. One is saying what "all mankind" will do, the other it is something made for mankind as opposed to man being made for it. You still can't change the meaning of one passage because another one uses the same word.That means that "all but" mark 2:27 and Isiah 66 are "legitimate" in the minds of those who choose not to honor Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 holy day "made for mankind".
And here's your mangling of the two texts playing itself out.So - when we see the "making" of Christ the Creator's Holy day in Gen 2:3 Are proposing that "it is NOT made for mankind"? ( a direct contradiction of the Mark 2:27 text) and then need some "spin doctoring" to get it to come out in favor of your preference?
Are you proposing Adam was a Jew?
Are you proposing that it was MADE in Gen 2:3 - and mankind given a 7 day week - but "kept secret" until the Jews came along?
Are you suggesting that Christ "should have said" it was "MADE for some of mankind"?
Are you suggesting that God Himself is in error when He considers the scope to be "ALL MANKIND" in Isaiah 66?
No, I am not contradicting Mark, because I am not saying man WAS MADE FOR the sabbath. IT does not address "all men"/"some men".
No, adam wasn't a Jew, and he was not given the Law of Moses, either.
The sabbath as a day of worship was not revealed until Moses. You just do not see it there. God rested, but He did not tell everyone else until Moses to rest like He did. It is just not there!
And the 10 commandments were a summary of the Law He gave to Moses, which included the universal precepts that He always expected of men.God has placed many different ways - no escaping EVEN to the point of including it as a commandment within the 10 commandments themselves.
Because that's the depth of your exegesis of these texts (pasted together and often changed in meaning)quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still, they do not really equal a command for us today; they are more inferential.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again - "that about summs up" the depth of the response to those text.
What editing and deleting? Just read it, and then see God refer back to it to Moses, and the most clear conclusion is that God rested on the day, and when the time was right, He rasied this nation, and gave them a memorial of His act. This says nothing about all the people before that. No, it's editing and ADDING that you are doing! Still just as bad.A lot of "editing" and "deleting" of God's Word would be needed to "pretend" that God does not identify the REST of Gen 2:3 and that God does not identify this as a day of "Worship".
That is "a lot of pretending" needed on the part of those whose traditions choose not to honor Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 Holy day.
Hence Exodus 20:8-11 specifies no animal sacrifice for the day. UNLIKE the Lev 23 list of annual Sabbaths.
And the Sabbath was one of them. But it doesn't specify WHICH day is observed. Suppose one chooses to observe Passover, but not the weekly Sabbath, then. But before you accuse me of changing my position again, if one simply takes the verse for what it says, and not adds their own preconceived ideas, then "one day above another or all days the same" means some keep some or all of the days, and some do not. You have to once again add some distinction that is NOT THERE to try to get the weekly sabbath out of it. But once again, he does not specify that while one day is mandatory, but the other ones are optional. He does not say "annual days" or "feast days" or "days accompanied with a sacrifice" or "days that were not established in Genesis, made for all mankind by Christ in Mark, apart of the Ten commandments, and will be observed in the New Earth". You use those four premises to interpret the text instead of just letting it speak for itself.Romans 14 makes no mention of the Sabbath at all.
It speaks of "Some who OBSERVE one day ABOVE another while others OBSERVE all the days" given to the Jews.
But we no longer look backward, but rather forward to the New Creation. And the feast days WERE "sabbaths", not "included" them, except for the week of unleavened bread.The problem is that ALL the annual feast days - included annual "sabbaths" and only the annual feast days constituted "Shadows" of the cross.
The Gen 2:3 Holy day of Christ the Creator was made as a memorial pointing back to God as Creator - not FORWARD to God dying for sin.
Once again, you mistake the spiritual application discussed here for the physical, and then conclude "no change". But that's the point. the sabbath is being applied spiritually here, and this says that the INTENT of it is "fulfilled" by resting in Christ. It is something we must "strive" to enter in, and the context of "ceasing from our workS", is about trying to justify ourselves, not literally refraining from physical work on a day of the week. Just like there remains a sacrifice for us. We don't do the ritual anyomre,but it has been fulfilled for us. "Yea, we ESTABLISH the Law!" You didn't even address where I discussed that some more.Hebrews 4 represents the day in a way that applies EQUALLY to OT as well as NT. "No Change".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heb 4:
9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hebrews 4 represents the day in a way that applies equally to OT as well as NT. It forces the observation of the fact that there is "No Change".
Instead of saying "It USED to be given by God as just an external act but NOW it is an internal spiritual relationship with God" - the text argues that the same Sabbath principle of all OT saints remains (that would be "all" according to list of Heb 11 not just Jews) is still in play.
The text of Heb 4 does not argue for "a change" it claims that the Sabbath "remains" today as it was in the OT - just as God intended it "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the People of God". It does not say "we now have a NEW kind of Sabbath very different from what God gave in the OT - that one does NOT remain - a NEW one is now instituted".
But those who choose to ignore Christ the Creator’s Gen 2:3 Holy day sometimes ignore this disconfirming aspect of Heb 4 as it does not fit the tradition they have chosen.
"There REMAINS a Sabbath rest"? No. (you say) RATHER what WAS in the OT is "abolished" and "NOW we have a NEW kind of Sabbath rest - the old one does NOT remain".
Then you sayIndeed - Matt 7 Christ tells His pre-cross Jewish followers it is "wrong to judge others" and this is in FULL harmony with the obligation of the Sabbath that "even your view" can not deny for them.
Having said that - the "judging" of Matt 7 pre-cross was still "wrong" in Col 2 "post cross" even for the weekly Sabbath "in both cases".
Instead of the Romans 14 argument that "not judging" is the rule - when "Observing" one of God's ordained holy days - Gal 4 shows that "Judging IS the rule" to be followed if one is in fact turning to pagan days.
What a contrast to the "feasts and Sabbaths" -- the annual Sabbaths - of Colossians 2. In every instance of the Annual Sabbaths the rule is "not judging".
But in the case of pagan practices "The rule is judging"
The contrast could not have been more clear.
You take Christ's words to say "judging was always wrong, even pre-Cross", but now you see that dyas CAN be judged. Why? for "evil intent"! (Does not say "paganism" here!)Just when you want to claim that Romans 14 and Gal 4 are BOTH addressing those who would "observe the Sabbath" of Christ the Creator - ONE shows that "NO judging is allowe at all" while the other shows that JUDGING is ALWAYS insisted upon. Because ONE is the observing of God's Holy days - in HIS Word while the Gal 4 case is MAN's holy days - paganism -- "always to be judged".
I clearly showed what "observed with evil intent" means (the same as the way the Jews "watched" both Jesus and Paul to "trap" them. You still insist it is paganism, but everything speaks unanimously against this. The context-- "those who desire to be under the law", the Greek meaning of the words and its other uses in scripture. All points to the legalizing of something God now declared there is liberty to. this is the "judging" Paul speaks against in Col. and is itself judged.Eric said --
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, of course, the Gal.4 debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed. There it was clearly seen that those who would even dare to "return to paganism" as Paul said "return AGAIN to the weak things of the world" to which the pagans were once enslaved - is "condemend" and judging them is "the rule".
We saw in the discussion that one example of a pagan system of "days, months, seasons and years" was the cult of the Emperor in Asia - in Galatia.
So in all those cases, the evidence seems to weigh on the side of the sabbath. As can be seen in the review above.
The choice to honor Christ the Creator's Gen 2:3 Holy day "made for mankind" Mark 2:27 according to the words of Christ - could not be more "clearly" called for.