Samuel, I think you're the only one so confused. The rest of us are following eachother pretty well, but no one has any idea what you're talking about. Maybe if you actually quoted something I could help you out. Here's the first few paragraphs of Hebrews 6: splat
1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[
a] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3And God permitting, we will do so. 4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because[
b]to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
I have no idea what that has to do with what's being discussed here.
It looks to me Bacchiocchi also must have thought along the lines you are thinking, Darren, that every Sabbath-incident actually had to result in a little further degradation of the Sabbath instead.
I was afraid you might think I was doing that. True, what I said stands, the passages do little more than support a less reverent view of the Sabbath, but I don't think it was truely the intent of Jesus to dishonor the Sabbath. He pointed out several times the natural work men still had to do on the Sabbath, read the passages again. Also, notice His emphasis on what is lawful on the Sabbath, good or evil?
It is absolutely not true that Jesus was saying the Sabbath unimportant, but pointing out the false emphasis thrown at it.
I'll just put it plainly. I don't think these passages are even relivent. Jesus hadn't died and risen yet, hence, the new covenant, was not in effect. Also, Jesus was not saying how important the Sabbath was or was not, actually I think He was trying to get the Pharasees to use common sense regarding it.
I believe Jesus was also acting as a model for us, not freeing people up from work. My good sir, if you see a crippled man on the street on the Sabbath, help him out, don't leave him. This is your human duty, despite the Sabbath.
As for the 4th commandment being edited out of the Ten Commandments - not according to Isaiah 66 "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall All Mankind come before Me to worship" speaking of the New Heavens and New Earth that we see in Rev 21:1-4.
However your point is correct - that is the question to be answered by each individual.
Okay, first off, I have no problem with your Revelation quote, good context (yes, context can be just 4 verses, just not usually). However, Isaiah 66 and it are both speaking of an unfullfilled, as of yet, prophecy, hence, both are speaking in future tense of today. Might I also point out, Sabbath to Sabbath most likely meant, every day in between, as well. Please read things more carefully.
Also, yes, depending on situation, the law can apply differently. If the enemy attacked Isreal on the Sabbath, I'm sure they would have fougth them off. However, with out mitigating circumstances, we're discussing what should be the norm mostly. I did put forward circumstance need be considered and I stand by that, but I'd like to move on to what should be done simply, suspending unavoidable circumstances for the moment. For instance, thou shalt not kill... but I'll kill to stop a man from killing my sister. However there is a norm when such circumstances aren't present, that one should not shed another's blood.
