Evidence for God from Science

B. W. wrote:Mark 12:29-31, "Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31 The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." --[Note: This would Include the Sabbath]-

So because two commandments that Christ says are greater (and in another place the two which all the others hinge), you say that negates the Sabbath? This would only make the others (including the Sabbath) great.

Another question that hasn't been answered yet...What and how does one "do good" if there is no rule of good or evil if there is no law? How can we...basically idiots and worthless walking this earth...know what is good and what is evil? The law was never the means of salvation because no one could EVER keep the law. Don't we think God knew this? If salvation was through the law, then God was just playing games with His people when He gave it. So if we all agree that in God's foreknowledge, knowing no one could keep the law...what is the purpose of the law? Why was the law written with God's own finger and on stone? It's the only direct words written by the Almighty Himself. Now who wants to stand up and face God Himself and say, "God...I've quit following your law because we are now saved apart from law and it now serves no purpose. Your Words have no meaning for me."?

As an Adventist myself...I fail every Sabbath to keep His day. I can't keep it as God intended it to be kept. I don't intentionally belittle those that keep Sunday or any other day as holy because some of those people are better Christians than I am (judging ourselves humanly of course). But I know I could not face God and tell Him the only words He ever wrote to me are now useless and not worth the rock he wrote them on.

The fourth commandment is only one of the 10...yet no one argues against murder or stealing as they do about the Sabbath. In fact no one would ever argue against either of the first three. Or am I wrong?
.
.
.
.

I used to be taught that all laws are good and written by God himself except the additions made by Pharisees and Teachers of the Law. They added burden to the Jews and Jesus reprimanded them savagely. The salvation is intended to perfect the laws (not destroying them, please read the verses in Romans ) so the laws were initially made to be thresholds to let the ancient Jews to know how and why they would breach God's requirements, but not something through which they were to be saved by not violating them. Even if they didn't violate any of the laws, it still wouldn't warrant them to be saved.

Sabbath is, as I trust, part of the laws not invented by Pharisees and we should observe it. Again I trust that it is problem with priority.. As a law, Sabbath is only something that let us know how God is not pleased if we lose the heart to observe it (I mean persistently to get away with it without the slightest repentence of forgetting how God created the world and us) in spite of this, violating it doesn't mean that we are doomed, but I trust that if Sabbath is fading in meaning in your hearts, you can't possibly be taken to be in Him most of the times.

I trust that observing Sabbath is a discipline that guides us for fulfilling the two commandments. At least it is brushinng us up on humbling our hearts in Him. At least we have stronger desire to read the Bible if we observe Sabbath, right?

.

If we keep these two great commandments, then the first four commandments fall under the first great commandment. All the others fall under the second great commandment. "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt.22:40

jenna wrote:If we keep these two great commandments, then the first four commandments fall under the first great commandment. All the others fall under the second great commandment. "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt.22:40

How are you keeping up on your animal sacrifices? On what basis do you believe they are no longer necessary. Were they part of the law?

BavarianWheels wrote:...So because two commandments that Christ says are greater (and in another place the two which all the others hinge), you say that negates the Sabbath? This would only make the others (including the Sabbath) great.

No one is saying not to keep the Sabbath. Just realize if people were zealously legalistic in observing and enforcing it please note that if your house were to burned down on the Sabbath - there will be not firemen on duty and the entire city could burn along with yours. If you were a victim of horrible criminal activity on the Sabbath - no police or 911 would be around. If you were seriously injured with life threatening consequences without immediate aid on the Sabbath — no one would be allowed to lift a finger to help you.

The Sabbath is not about us serving the day but rather made for us to show mercy, be kind, lend a helping hand, etc, in this — you honor God and are worshiping him. You also worship the Lord in service at you local assembly but even the driving and preparing for it — if legalistically, observing, and enforcing the Sabbath — one would break it just getting to Church.

Maybe, instead, we should return and do what Christ did on the Sabbath as he is the Lord of the Sabbath? Showing mercy, being kind, lending a helping hand, etc as well as letting people honor the principle of the Sabbath on whatever day they like — Saturday, Sunday, Monday, everyday of the week and not kill and murder each other over this issue. Then, maybe the non-Christian world would stop laughing at our pettiness and more come to know Christ through our example of Christ likeness.

BavarianWheels wrote:Another question that hasn't been answered yet...What and how does one "do good" if there is no rule of good or evil if there is no law? How can we...basically idiots and worthless walking this earth...know what is good and what is evil? The law was never the means of salvation because no one could EVER keep the law. Don't we think God knew this? If salvation was through the law, then God was just playing games with His people when He gave it. So if we all agree that in God's foreknowledge, knowing no one could keep the law...what is the purpose of the law? Why was the law written with God's own finger and on stone? It's the only direct words written by the Almighty Himself. Now who wants to stand up and face God Himself and say, "God...I've quit following your law because we are now saved apart from law and it now serves no purpose. Your Words have no meaning for me."?

Galatians 3:24, “Therefore, the Law has became our tutor [to lead us] to Christ, so that by faith we should be justified [or, declared righteous]…” ALT

BavarianWheels wrote:As an Adventist myself...I fail every Sabbath to keep His day. I can't keep it as God intended it to be kept. I don't intentionally belittle those that keep Sunday or any other day as holy because some of those people are better Christians than I am (judging ourselves humanly of course). But I know I could not face God and tell Him the only words He ever wrote to me are now useless and not worth the rock he wrote them on.

The fourth commandment is only one of the 10...yet no one argues against murder or stealing as they do about the Sabbath. In fact no one would ever argue against either of the first three. Or am I wrong?

Again -- Galatians 3:24, “Therefore, the Law has became our tutor [to lead us] to Christ, so that by faith we should be justified [or, declared righteous]…” ALT

God writes the Law on our hearts the bible teaches us:

Jeremiah 31:31-34, "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." ESV

2 Corinthians 3:3, “And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.” ESV

As far as I know, no moderator on this forum tells people what day they should honor the Sabbath on and none I know of exalt their Church affiliation as the only Superior True Church. [And we know you, BavarianWheels, are not like this but others we do not know but must discern thier intent]. We have people come on this Forum doing this all the time and the subject of the Sabbath comes up in this context — someone claiming their Church is the only true body of Christians and all should do as they using the Sabbath as a knife for this purpose. The Apostle Paul teaches otherwise:

1 Corinthians 12:14-21, “For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."

We as moderators must make sure that we do not have people on this forum trying to cut up the Body with the Blade of the Sabbath. This is why we honor those who keep the Sabbath on Saturday or Sunday or whatever day because we as Christian have enter the true rest — in Christ.

That is why…

Colossians 2:16-17, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”

Is important to note…
-
-
-

No, animal sacrifices are no longer necessary. The ultimate sacrifice was done when Christ died for us. Sacrifices were not part of the 10 commandments, but were more of a requirement for repentance of sins commited before Christ died and took their place. This does not do away with the ten commandments, which God wrote in stone. They are still in effect today. It was the curse of the law that was done away with.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

jenna wrote:If we keep these two great commandments, then the first four commandments fall under the first great commandment. All the others fall under the second great commandment. "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt.22:40

How are you keeping up on your animal sacrifices? On what basis do you believe they are no longer necessary. Were they part of the law?

Once again I'll point out that this is not part of the Decalogue. There are ONLY ten commandments written by the hand/finger of God...these are the only ones I speak of. Continually bringing up any others is simply grasping in desperation...or so it seems.

To B.W. - I agree there are many jobs that are necessary in our lives today. There is nothing wrong with doing your job on the Sabbath...so long as either, 1. You've done everything possible to avoid such hours/work (obviously according to your own heart's conviction)...and I lost my thought for the second.

I know plenty of "Adventists" that have purposely gone into fields where Sabbath work is common and accepted. I think anyone purposely going into a job with intention to work on the Sabbath as to "getting away with something" is pretty low. Humanly judging this, I would say it's a pretty "bad" sin. To try and thumb your nose at God in doing this is pretty bold to say the least. On the other hand, I know plenty of people that have been so convicted about the Sabbath and it's importance that they've actually changed careers. There are certainly those that go too far on either side.

Legalism is ugly. Unfortunately B.W. is right. It does run rampant in the Adventist Church. However, if I may, I'll suggest the main reason why I think it is this way. Adventists have always been "made fun of". Growing up Adventist and being so different from everyone else for simply one reason has left a feeling of being an outsider. As such we tend to hold on to that which sets us apart that much more closely. Some of us use it as a hammer...or a knife as someone put it.

I hope just to give the Sabbath "keeper's" perspective here.
.
.

Hi Jenna,

Here's some trivial information for you. Well it may sound trivial at first, but when you have a think about it, it is quite astounding.
Everything in nature is controlled by natural laws. Many of these laws are to do with cycles, especially lunar and solar cycles. For example, women have their monthly period (lunar), certain corals in the ocean spawn only once a year (solar) and on a very specific time of the lunar cycle. There are many other examples that are too numerous to mention.
Here is the punch line. All, I repeat, ALL living creatures on earth have a seven day metabolism (circaseptan rythm) . It is something scientists know to be true, they just cannot work out why as there is NO seven day cycle anywhere in the cosmos.
Is it possible, perhaps at a stretch, that the Creator put His signature on His creation that was independent of any natural cycle.
Something to think about.

Jash

BavarianWheels wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

jenna wrote:If we keep these two great commandments, then the first four commandments fall under the first great commandment. All the others fall under the second great commandment. "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt.22:40

How are you keeping up on your animal sacrifices? On what basis do you believe they are no longer necessary. Were they part of the law?

Once again I'll point out that this is not part of the Decalogue. There are ONLY ten commandments written by the hand/finger of God...these are the only ones I speak of. Continually bringing up any others is simply grasping in desperation...or so it seems.

To B.W. - I agree there are many jobs that are necessary in our lives today. There is nothing wrong with doing your job on the Sabbath...so long as either, 1. You've done everything possible to avoid such hours/work (obviously according to your own heart's conviction)...and I lost my thought for the second.

I know plenty of "Adventists" that have purposely gone into fields where Sabbath work is common and accepted. I think anyone purposely going into a job with intention to work on the Sabbath as to "getting away with something" is pretty low. Humanly judging this, I would say it's a pretty "bad" sin. To try and thumb your nose at God in doing this is pretty bold to say the least. On the other hand, I know plenty of people that have been so convicted about the Sabbath and it's importance that they've actually changed careers. There are certainly those that go too far on either side.

Legalism is ugly. Unfortunately B.W. is right. It does run rampant in the Adventist Church. However, if I may, I'll suggest the main reason why I think it is this way. Adventists have always been "made fun of". Growing up Adventist and being so different from everyone else for simply one reason has left a feeling of being an outsider. As such we tend to hold on to that which sets us apart that much more closely. Some of us use it as a hammer...or a knife as someone put it.

I hope just to give the Sabbath "keeper's" perspective here.
.
.

I appreciate your candor.

I believe in the keeping of a Sabbath and I do so in my own personal practise, on Sundays. I don't do it out of a sense of legal obligation. I do it because I believe God created me in such a manner than physically and spiritually, I operate best when I take the time to relax from the grind. I do it because it's a natural (maybe supernatural would be a better word) desire of my heart to follow healthy practices and because I believe it honors God.

I understand the arguments of those who believe the Sabbath should remain the same as the Jews observed it. Frankly, where I have difficulty with it is not so much the arguments as the attitude I see fostered around it. It mirrors, in my observation, the same attitude of the Judiazers that the early Church dealt with that wrestled so much with the entrance of the Gentiles into the Church which up to that point was seen more as a sect within Judiasm. The issues there were kosher laws, circumcision, sabbath and festival days etc. It's exactly what Paul was addressing in his epistles and yet many (not directed at you personally) appear very willing to pick up where those Judiazers left off, aside from the fact that Paul in God's inspired Word, pretty much settled the issue. Pauls suggestion to the circumcizers that they weren't going far enough and should mutilate themselves and finish the job is about as blunt (no pun intended) as you can get as to the "respect" he had for those seeking to impose their legalism upon new believers who were not Jewish.

If someone, or a group of someones as a matter of conscious wants to observe the law as a matter of their expression of worship to God, then more power to them. I don't agree with it. I think it contrary to the focus of what I understand God to want from us, which is more a matter of the heart than outward appearance and its smacks too much of what I see Christ blasting the Pharisees over repeatedly. I suppose it is possible however and there are sincere people who hold those convictions and for them it's a personal issue of their walk.

The issue is that most don't leave it there. It becomes a matter of stating they are personally more holy and obedient and therefore, whether they say it outwardly or not, they are presenting themselves as better and closer to God.

It's not exclusive to the Sabbath. I see the same thing in my circles with issues like alcohol and how to respond and love people in the gay community with the love of Christ instead of making their sin worse than our own. I'm guilty of it myself and finding I have blind spots where I don't even realize I am doing it.

The Law is good. The law was given as a means to show us how short we fall of the Glory of God and how much in need of grace we are. Jesus fulfilled the law for us because we could not do it ourselves. I think it flies in the face of God and Jesus' sacrifice to then turn around and try to live as if our relationship with God moving forward depends on our performance. It's like being adopted into the family of the king and then setting up a bed in the stable to take care of the horses to try and merit what the king has already done for us. God wants worship from a heart of gratitude for what He has already done.

It's subtle. It makes all the difference in the world however. That's probably why I come across as a little harsh in my questions. It sets some things off in me when I see people trying to imagine that legalism is a good follow-up to what began in grace.

.
.
I don't have the best approach most of the time...but I try.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I appreciate your candor.

I believe in the keeping of a Sabbath and I do so in my own personal practise, on Sundays. I don't do it out of a sense of legal obligation. I do it because I believe God created me in such a manner than physically and spiritually, I operate best when I take the time to relax from the grind. I do it because it's a natural (maybe supernatural would be a better word) desire of my heart to follow healthy practices and because I believe it honors God.

God created you physically and spriritually. He also gave, at creation, a time to set aside for exactly this purpose. The supernatural desire, one would think, would emmulate that which came supernatually. God never stated a law of 1 in 7...but gave the Sabbath. Not only this, but showed exactly which of the 7 to use for this purpose. To follow His Word from the heart is true love for God. It's almost the same as the sacrifices of Cain and Abel. Why was Cain's sacrifice not acceptable? Was it not a sacrifice also? So it is with the Sabbath. One cannot offer up "fruit" (i.e. Sunday) when God requires blood (i.e. Sabbath).

Canuckster1127 wrote:I understand the arguments of those who believe the Sabbath should remain the same as the Jews observed it.

Not necessarily. We should observe it as the Lord of the Sabbath tells us to or not to.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Frankly, where I have difficulty with it is not so much the arguments as the attitude I see fostered around it.

As do I. I've admitted that as Adventists we've tended to hammer the Sabbath over those that promote the belief as "legalistic" when the God we serve is the epitome of legalism. No one lives having disobeyed one iota of the Law. What or who can be more legalistic?

Canuckster1127 wrote:It mirrors, in my observation, the same attitude of the Judiazers that the early Church dealt with that wrestled so much with the entrance of the Gentiles into the Church which up to that point was seen more as a sect within Judiasm.

..because the Jews misinterpreted being the "chosen" people. They thought they were it. They didn't figure on God choosing them to be His missionaries to the world.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The issues there were kosher laws, circumcision, sabbath and festival days etc. It's exactly what Paul was addressing in his epistles and yet many (not directed at you personally) appear very willing to pick up where those Judiazers left off, aside from the fact that Paul in God's inspired Word, pretty much settled the issue.

And rightly so as the legalistic parts of Sabbath keeping is not what God intended. Christ tells us exactly what and how the Lord of the Sabbath expects in keeping of His day.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Pauls suggestion to the circumcizers that they weren't going far enough and should mutilate themselves and finish the job is about as blunt (no pun intended) as you can get as to the "respect" he had for those seeking to impose their legalism upon new believers who were not Jewish.

He's right. If you're going to promote legalism...then promote it fully. Not just to the point "you're" willing to go.

Canuckster1127 wrote:If someone, or a group of someones as a matter of conscious wants to observe the law as a matter of their expression of worship to God, then more power to them. I don't agree with it.

I still can't understand this logic as I don't think you'd find any disagreement with any of the other 9 commandments.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I think it contrary to the focus of what I understand God to want from us,

Maybe it's in your understanding...we are a fallible people.

Canuckster1127 wrote:which is more a matter of the heart than outward appearance

The heart should follow in happiness and thankfulness that which God commands. When we follow a command of God out of love...it is no longer a command, but a way of life.

Canuckster1127 wrote:and its smacks too much of what I see Christ blasting the Pharisees over repeatedly.

Was Christ blasting the Sabbath itself, Him calling Himself the Lord of the Sabbath and all, or blasting their implementation of their ideas about the Sabbath? I for one find it illogical to on one hand to poke fun of (i.e. blast) something as insignificant as the Sabbath...then claim ownership of that same thing.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I suppose it is possible however and there are sincere people who hold those convictions and for them it's a personal issue of their walk.

I would venture to say it is also God's conviction for us...as it is He that wrote it.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The issue is that most don't leave it there. It becomes a matter of stating they are personally more holy and obedient and therefore, whether they say it outwardly or not, they are presenting themselves as better and closer to God.

Agreed. Not much different from the way some of us promote Christianity as a whole to the unbeliever.

Canuckster1127 wrote:It's not exclusive to the Sabbath. I see the same thing in my circles with issues like alcohol and how to respond and love people in the gay community with the love of Christ instead of making their sin worse than our own. I'm guilty of it myself and finding I have blind spots where I don't even realize I am doing it.

Again...it's in the implementation of these Laws...not in the meaning of them. The laws mean something. Something important. To disregard God's Word is dangerous.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The Law is good.

If the Law is good...then the whole Law is good. This statement you give is just like those that believe Jesus Christ was a good man, but not God. Either Christ was a good man (and so He was God) or He was a lunatic for claiming to be the God and Creator of the universe.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The law was given as a means to show us how short we fall of the Glory of God and how much in need of grace we are. Jesus fulfilled the law for us because we could not do it ourselves.

Fulfilled the Law. Fulfilled it's requirements for us. Never did it remove the Law as it is as you say, "shows how short we fall of the Glory of God..." So then to not remember the Sabbath day, falls short of God's Glory.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I think it flies in the face of God and Jesus' sacrifice to then turn around and try to live as if our relationship with God moving forward depends on our performance.

Nope. We can't perform as God intended...hence Christ's death. But just because we cannot fulfill the Law, doesn't give us license to disregard the Law...or 1 of the 10 as that is the better description of what is happening here.

Canuckster1127 wrote:It's like being adopted into the family of the king and then setting up a bed in the stable to take care of the horses to try and merit what the king has already done for us.

I think it's more like living in the castle and neglecting to show up for dinner when the King says it's time for dinner.

Canuckster1127 wrote:God wants worship from a heart of gratitude for what He has already done.

What He's done is liberate all those who believe from the curse of the Law. This being death to all who do not conform to His "legalism". So Christ, having never broken God's Law, died as the sin offering for us so that we, through Him, would receive the gift of life.

Canuckster1127 wrote:It's subtle. It makes all the difference in the world however.

If you believe this...how can one throw out God's only written Words? Words that God Himself promoted to an even higher plain when He said,

NIV Matthew 22:37-40 wrote: Jesus replied: " `Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'* This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: `Love your neighbor as yourself.'* All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

They hang...as on a noose? I'm not sure of the original language. I would ask for some help here. I'll go out on a limb and say not as on a noose, but as on a wall. For all to see. The first four tell us how to worship God, the last 6 tell us how to love our neighbor.

Canuckster1127 wrote:That's probably why I come across as a little harsh in my questions. It sets some things off in me when I see people trying to imagine that legalism is a good follow-up to what began in grace.

Again...God is the epitome of legalism. Afterall...it is He that wrote the Laws and gave the punishment for breaking one or part thereof.
.
.

Wow, I see discussion on this topic has really picked up since I left it over a month ago. Well, since some additional points have been raised, I'll give my quick response, for anyone who may be interested in the non-sabbatarian point of view:

With regard to the argument that the Decalogue (including the command to keep the Sabbath) is intended to be an eternal guide to let us know how God wants us to behave, consider two things. First, the fact that the Decalogue is clearly and distinctly tied to the Old Covenant. See Deut. 9:9,11,15, where the tablets of the Decalogue are called "the tablets of the covenant". And see Heb. 8:13 which says this Old Covenant is now obsolete. This does not mean that we are now permitted to murder or steal or lie or whatever, but it does mean that the reason we are not to do these things is not because of the Decalogue, since we are no longer under the Old Covenant. (Just as the reason it was wrong for Cain to murder was not because of the Decalogue, obviously, because the Decalogue hadn't even been given yet--but it was still just as wrong for Cain to murder.)

Second, consider the purpose of the Decalogue, as delineated in 2 Cor. 3:7-11:

But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

So the Decalogue is described as a ministry of "death" and "condemnation", contrasted to the ministry of the Spirit which is called the ministry of "righteousness". I.e., The Decalogue's purpose is not to bring men to God or make them righteous; it's purpose is to condemn and kill. It was not given to let people know murder was wrong--they already knew that (as the example of Cain proves). Rather, it was given to make these things not just sins, but also transgressions--legal infractions against the covenant that was being given, showing them in very clear terms their condemnation outside of Christ. A proper recognition of the fundamental purpose of the Decalogue allows us to see how it can include a non-moral (i.e., ceremonial) commandment like the one about the Sabbath as well: The Old Covenant demands people keep both the moral and ceremonial parts, even though the ceremonial parts do not carry over outside of the covenant.

With regard to the argument that Col. 2:16 does not refer to the weekly Sabbath, I don't want to waste a lot of space repeating myself, but briefly this interpretation just doesn't fly. Col. 2:16's reference to "festivals, new moons, and sabbaths" is the very common Old Testament pattern describing all the Jewish holy days, starting with the yearly festivals, then going to the monthly ones, then the weekly ones. It's true that even the yearly festivals were also to be observed as sabbaths, but when the reference already includes the words "festivals" and "new moons", it is clear that the word "sabbaths" is being used of the weekly sabbaths. (In case anyone is interested and missed my earlier posts, you can go to a paper on my website at http://www.noble-minded.org/sabbath.html for a more thorough discussion of this, with references to where this pattern is found.)

BTW, I hope it is clear that I am not saying we are no longer under the Law of God here, as people who take this position are often accused of. I'm simply differentiating between being under the OT Law and being under the Law of Christ, as Paul did in 1 Cor. 9:20-21, where he claims to be under the latter but not under the former:

To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

The OT Law (including the Sabbath commandment) is the thing that differentiated Jew from Gentile, and is described in Eph. 2:14-15 as "the dividing wall" between the two groups, the "enmity which is the law of commandments contained in ordinances" which has now been "abolished in His [Christ's] flesh." This is what I (along with Paul--see Gal. 2:18-20) urge Christians to consider destroyed (in the sense that those who are crucified with Christ are dead to it) and refuse to rebuild.

In Christ,
Ed

edwardamo wrote:To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.

The OT Law (including the Sabbath commandment) is the thing that differentiated Jew from Gentile, and is described in Eph. 2:14-15 as "the dividing wall" between the two groups, the "enmity which is the law of commandments contained in ordinances" which has now been "abolished in His [Christ's] flesh." This is what I (along with Paul--see Gal. 2:18-20) urge Christians to consider destroyed (in the sense that those who are crucified with Christ are dead to it) and refuse to rebuild.

.
.
Edward, you highlight "ministry of death", but neglect to highlight it's glory as it plainly states both have. The latter has more glory because Christ has opened the door to salvation that without Him was closed. Prior to His death, salvation was based on the promise, after it was based on a promise fulfilled of a Savior. It's a ministry of death because no one could/can keep it so that it's glory shines. The only one that could/did is Christ...who being the author of the Law obviously isn't "under" the law as you assume, but didn't he keep the Sabbath, though being Lord of the Sabbath? Of course He did. In fact, He gave us the Author's interpretation of keeping that Law. Read through the gospels and see that most everything happening happened on a Sabbath day. It's mentioned so many times...one would think the writers held it with some esteem.

If the law differentiates between Jew and Gentile, why do you (all who argue against ONLY the 4th commandment) not argue against all of them as being wrong...or, "We no longer have to abide by 'Do not murder'"? It's as though you (not only you) are picking and choosing which part of the law YOU want to keep. Does not the law of Christ include the decalogue? Christ gave two laws as being the "most" important, yet He surmised the 10 in two. Never did Christ say anything about doing away with any of the law. How could God, who wrote the law, say all of a sudden, "You can now have other gods before me, or make idols. You are free to misuse my name..." Ahhh...but again, your point is not the Law of God, it is the Sabbath. You have no problem with 9, but one just is a nuissance. I wonder why that would be? It is set up as God's beacon of Him being the Creator...not an ugly, unkeepable, unnecessary rule just set up for fun.

It's easy to point to all the texts that read how we are no longer under law. I agree 100% that we are not under the OT law. It is because the law's promise is death to anyone who breaks it. Just because death comes from breaking the law, does not make the law itself unGodly. It's the consequence of the law we are no longer under. The ministry of death has no hold on the believer as it is not our own works, but Christ's. We are under Christ's perfect fulfillment of the law. We are gifted His righteousness, His perfect law keeping for simply believing in Him. God's law is eternal...or do you think that come the day after judgment day there will be no law? God still will be God...He doesn't change. Or was that the OT God...the new God has not law?

If the decalogue is solely tied to the OT covenant...why then does Christ reestablish His law by surmising the 10 in two? If Christ said then that He was the Lord of the Sabbath...He still is. How is He Lord of it? Because He made it. He established it. He's the Creator. It is Him the day He made holy honors. The keeping of the Sabbath does not uphold Seventh-Day-Adventists (or any other Sabbatarian group), but upholds the Creator. It does exactly what the 4th commandment reads.

NIV - Isaiah 56:1,2 wrote: This is what the LORD says:
"Maintain justice
and do what is right,
for my salvation is close at hand
and my righteousness will soon be revealed.
Blessed is the man who does this,
the man who holds it fast,
who keeps the Sabbath without desecrating it,
and keeps his hand from doing any evil."

Maintain justice, do what is right, keep the Sabbath? These are God's words? Of course that's OT...and we disregard this because it's in the OT. God's words don't mean that exactly because it's OT. God's thoughts have changed since then.

Has anyone ever taken note that the OT was the only "Bible" Christ had?

The Psalmist tells us in 119 that God's law is true and His laws are right and that they are eternal, he loves God's law. Are they, does he? If not, he's a liar and we're upholding a book full of lies. He also mentions God's righteousness being everlasting. How does the Psalmist know of righteousness if he is under law...holding to/following a ministry of death?

NIV - Isaiah 66:22-24 wrote:"As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares the LORD, "so will your name and descendants endure. From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the LORD. "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."

When will this be? When will all mankind bow down before Him? From one Sabbath to another? Sabbath is a ministry of death...why even mention the Sabbath if it is no longer important? Does not God know the beginning from the end? Wouldn't He know that the Sabbath is part the 10 that are no longer of any importance to the believer? Are these not God's words?

NIV - Matthew 24:19-21 wrote:"How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again."

Why does Christ even mention the OT Sabbath if it has no more meaning in "those days"??? What difference could it possibly make to even mention the OT Sabbath when He, being God, knows it is of no significance to the people in "those days"???

NIV - Mark 2:27 wrote:Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

The Sabbath was made for man? He chose his words poorly here...He should've said the Sabbath was made for the Jews. Chalk that one up to a slip of the tongue on God's part. Afterall, He rarely says exactly what He means.

NIV - Luke 23:56 wrote:Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.

Hadn't Christ, God, told them they were no longer under OT law?
.
.

NIV - Luke 23:56 wrote:
Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.

Hadn't Christ, God, told them they were no longer under OT law?

No, cause they still were at that point. It wasn't until Christ preformed His duty as the ultimate sacrificial lamb, fulfilling the law, that the NT began. I agree that we should try to keep the 10 commandments even though it is impossible, but not to save us or keep us saved but as an act of grateful worship. Jesus told the woman at the well that there would come a day when it wouldn't matter where God was worshipped, because God is a Spirit and they that worship Him should worship Him in Spirit and in truth.

Jesus was not just a safety net.

edwardamo wrote:The OT Law (including the Sabbath commandment) is the thing that differentiated Jew from Gentile, and is described in Eph. 2:14-15 as "the dividing wall" between the two groups, the "enmity which is the law of commandments contained in ordinances" which has now been "abolished in His [Christ's] flesh."

NIV - Ephesians 2:11,12 wrote:Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)-- remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

What is it you say was the dividing line? It seems the "law" being spoken of here is circumcision...and not the decalogue. Of course Christ even says HImself, "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath."...no Jew mentioned there. The Sabbath being part of the decalogue. Which part of the decalogue do you believe is for the Jew only?

How did they know Gentiles from Jews? Circumcision. That's the dividing line.

edwardamo wrote:This is what I (along with Paul--see Gal. 2:18-20) urge Christians to consider destroyed (in the sense that those who are crucified with Christ are dead to it) and refuse to rebuild.

Destroyed is the curse...not the law. The law never brought justification. The law simply serves to show sin. You/we are still sinful even though we are clothed with Christ's righteousness. Sin has not left us. Don't rebuild the curse as it has no hold on us.
.
.