You're just pasting together unrelated scriptures. When I say unrelated, I mean that one was not meant to be added to the other like the way you're doing. Once again, one scripture mentione, in passing, the snactifying of the Sabbath. It is not an account of God telling man to keep it. The second, God comands it to His people. Nowhere is it portrayed as "I really expect this from everyone, but I'm focusing on you now". You see that with murder and everything else, but the Sabbath was the "sign" between Israel and God.
The third, is a picture of a fture scenario, that may have been conditional. It says nothing about what we are to do now. The last, once again, Jesus is saying which is made for which. It has nothing to do with "how much of one the other is made for". You take the other passages and read them into this, and expect me to buy this. While we are to interpret scripture by scripture, you have chosen four distinct texts which are relating different events. Exodus is based on Genesis, but there is no connection where because God created it in Genesis, it was revealed to all, and because He commanded it in Exodus, it was binding on all. These are two separate contexts.
See, where do you get all of this from? Jesus spoke in a negative fashion, of what it was not. You're turning all of this into a positive declaration of something it is, and then turning this into a "binding" (more like what He was saying it was not!) Jesus says nothing there of Genesis, and Genesis says nothing of "blessing for all mankind". You cross these passages, and then begin adding each others statements to the other, left and right, until you can no longer tell which scripture is which. This is horrible exegesis!
They were doing a lot of things before the Cross, which we do not do now. yet, all of these things had intents (such as "blessing"), not one jot nor tittle would pass. Whatever you say, it is possible for these things to be fulfilled without our "actual" doing what is in the letter.
But the issue was not whether, man was made for salvation, or salvation was made for man. It was not a general statement about any people. Jews is specific. You are the one who believes it was not for a specific people. But "man" is inclusive, meaning that even if it was made only for the Jews, then they are "men", and either they as men were made for it, or it was made for them, as men. Any other man could also join Israel, or as Christians, keep the day unto the Lord, and as men, it was made for them, not them for it. Christ's statment is still true. "Mankind" can mean some men or all men. Some men were given the sabbath. any others could come and join them. But none of this says anything about ALL mean being bound by it.
It was still not COMMANDED to them, and in fact they were shortly permitted to eat any meat. You are taking one scripture and setting it in opposition to another. The unclean were banned from sacrifice, but not as food, then. That was the only context in which it was recorded as being revealed to Noah.
When you see the big issue He made of it with Israel all throughout the Law and the Prophets, you wonder why it was totally absent before them. Then you see it commanded for the first time to Israel, and the only conclusion is that He did not command it before then.
So apparently with all the other sins they were committing, this was not something God was focusing on then. Later on, it did become a "commandment". (I'll have to research further as to from what scripture the Jewish scholars deduced this as one of the 7 universal laws). And this we see continued throughout the New Testament, and it is universal, because how could God ever allow us to misuse His name? That is totally detrimental to any relationship with Him. God does not need anyone keeping a sabbath for Him.
No, the Laws that God wrote on the human conscience as Paul teaches, and expected of man always. To keep calling this "man made it up", you are mocking the Word of God, based on your idea that God only communicates to us by unchanging lists of written commandments.
But the point is, God still does establish things "for man" that not all men are to "participate" in at all times, and this does not annul the fact that He did establish them. He gives us partial revelation also. (So he gave a 7 day week, but nothing about "keeping" the seventh day, right then). He gives them to man in His own timing, according to His purpose.
Ad once again, I'm not defending any "traditions". I am not arguing for Sunday! You are still erecting straw men to prove your point.
