The person that engages in marriage is obligated to honor it JUST as God demands.
The human that lives long enough to know what a 7 day week is - and that learns about Christ the Creator's action on the 7th-day of that week - also THEN becomes obligated to submit to the will of God regarding that point. To him that "knows to do right" and does it not - to him it is sin.
But the point is not everyone who lives long enough to get married is obligated to get married. Even though this was "created in the beginning", is a picture of something eternal (our union with christ), and even has an actual command associated with it: "Be fruitful and multiply".
"To him who knows to do right"-- that's another good scripture pertaining to this. Any culture pretty much knows what marriage means, and about not violating it, as that is a universal command. Once again, who would "know" to keep a sabbath, unless intructed from the Law of Moses? Together, with NT scriptures such as Rom.14, Col.2:16, etc. it appears that the sabbath was for Israel and not binding on everyone. I was getting ready to put together these points to try to wind these discussions down (especially the other one, at 20 pages, twice what the moderators of other forums allow). But while there is no NT scripture that clearly says "the weekly sabbath is still binding" or "the weekly sabbath is no longer binding", we have to weigh the evidence for both sides. Your main evidence is "it was established at creation, "made for mankind", included in the 10 Commandments, and mentioned in Isaiah as being in the New Heavens. All but "made for mankind' are legitimate, as you have to change the meaning of that phrase to get it to support your view; Christ said "the sabbath was made for man;
not man for the sabbath", rather than "the sabbath was made for [all] man; not only some men". But the other three together have a bit more substance.
Still, they do not really equal a command for us today; they are more inferential. The closest they can prove is that the sabbath has some universal significance. That in itself doesn't tell us what to do with it. Especially when you take into consideration the points on the other side, involving New Testament scriptures. Rom. and Col. tell us not to judge over days. This seems clear, yet you have to interpret it as referring to annual days. (But then those who believe the annual days are still in effect have other ways of interpreting them). Col. for one thing distinguishes "feast days" (annual sabbaths) from "the sabbath day". Even in Rom. there is no distinction between which "day" (weekly or annual) that is esteemed above another. You insist that there are, though I do not see it. Hebrews 4 interprets the true "sabbath rest" as a spiritual state we must "strive" to enter it, rather than a physical day of rest. You take it is referring to the physical day, though the context seems to argue otherwise. Then, of course, the Gal.4 debate.
So in all those cases, the evidence seems to weigh on the side of the sabbath not being binding on all. We must interpret the not so clear scriptures in light of clear ones.
Gen.2:3, records the instituting of the sabbath; Exodus 20:8-11 uses that account to establish its significance to the Israelites who were being commanded to "observe" it as a special day, Isaiah says it will be kept in the New Earth, but this possibly could be a conditional picture, as new moons and other facets of Israel are mentioned as well, and In Mark, Jesus simply tells the people that the sabbath was made for man, not made for the sabbath. Then we see gentiles meeting on the Temple in the Sabbath. This too does not prove they, let alone all "kept" it. They met on the day the synagogue or temple had its services. None of these are clear on the sabbath as being binding on all at all times. Only for Israel, or perhaps all in the new Earth. You must put these together and
generalize them to conclude "it was always expected of man". But admit, they do not SAY that. Yes, other laws we see enforced or judged before they were recorded as commanded, but the fact that they even have such a first-mentioning is proof enough that God expected them of man, and perhaps they were universal laws. (This is supported by the human consience, which we are told, tells man what is right and condemns or justifies.) This we do not see with the sabbath until Ex.16. So the scriptures you have provided, while some of them being genuine "evidence", are not "clear" PROOF. Yet, there are these NT scriptures that seem to confirm that it was for Israel only, not for the church. These you say are annual days or pagan days. Paul teaches that we live by the spirit of the Law, not the letter, and Jesus had showed us how the spirit of the Law differed somewhat from the letter. Then Hebrews gives us a spiritual application of "sabbath rest". This seemed to echo Jesus' own words in Matt.11:28. You say "but the spirit of the other laws still means that the letter is kept, and they are magnified, not diminished (or "ignored" as you like to put it). But the sacrifices and other temple rituals are, and to you, the annual feast are. So taking Heb.4 in its context would allow for that principle to apply to the sabbath as well. And Col. and Rom. confirm that by telling us not to judge over days.
You say this cannot be, and your basis for that is the four scriptures you have given as proof that the sabbath is universal. So instead of weighing the evidence from both sides, you take your evidence as given clear "proof", and claim to "obliterate' my evidence with it. But both sets of interpretation of various scriptures are on the stand. You can't declare yous proven because we are still in the process of arguing it. I try to prove to you that your interpretations of those scriptures are mistaken first. I try not to say "it is wrong, because these scriptures [which I am using] say this", because you are not convinced that I am interpreting those right. I uses them as evidence, not conclusive proof. Then the debate swings over to the meaning of the scriptures on my side.
From the testimony of history, we see the the earliest Christians understood scripture more the way I do. Some still kept the sabbath, but there was liberty. Some then decided to change it to Sunday, and this eventally became the norm. there was no mass conspiracy that forced a strictly sabbatarian church to become strictly Sunday within a century. This shows there was liberty, though some abused and ultimately violated it to try to force out the Jewish day in favor of their new day.
So while you can have your interpretations of these scriptures, and we can go on forever about it, it seems to me that the evidence weighs in favor of liberty regarding the sabbath in the Church age. This by taking all the scriptures in their contexts, and understanding unclear ones (as far as proving the universality of a command for all men in all times) in light of clearer ones (giving us liberty today). So then by your last scripture, "To him who
knows to do right, and does it not,
to him it is sin", I cannot say that I know from scripture that the sabbath is still binding; because the evidence of scriptures taken in their context does not support it. You cannot accuse me of "attacking" the "creator's Holy Day", or even "ignoring" it, or "rebelling", or willfully "living in disobedience". If you think it is so important and pleasing to Him, then you can keep it unto the Lord. But you can't judge others on it. But then this right here goes along with what I have been saying regarding romans and Colossians. So to me, it is unanimous.
Believe men, I have been through the gamut, or quitting jobs over the sabbath; another one took me and gave it to me off, but then got rid of me quicker because it was inconvenient to them. At the same time, I was walking around thinking all other "christians" were living in disobedience and deceived by the antichrist (though it wasn't officially his "mark" yet), and argued with just about very pastor and evangelist I met. I read Wlter Martin and other apologists, and dismissed their use of Rom.14 and Col.2:16 looking for a valid answer (Armstrong said they referred to "fast days", and I just bought that) But when one evangelist really expounded upon Galatians, then then Romans, Col. and Heb4 in light of that, it was clear the evidence weighed in favor it it not being binding upon all. I could keep it unto the Lord, but man, it would no longer be "fun" thinking I was better than "all those churches" as Armstrong said in his story, that were "wrong". I then learned a valuable lesson regarding the Law and our fallen nature. It was then that I wrote
My Sabbath and the Faith of Abraham page, and now, some 15 years later, decided to put it online. So I am defending no "tradition". This is what the acriptural evidence weighs in favor of.
