brakelite

So what will mark the week?

Why not? Is not the sense of taste and smell one of the wonders and pleasures and gifts of God? Why would He take these away? Eden had them, is not the new earth a reconstruction of Eden, along with the innocent sensual pleasures that went with it? I think we are all very adept at spiritualizing away those things which do not agree with our preconceived theology, and taking literal, that which does.

So the 'marriage supper of the Lamb' is not real? What a pity, I was really looking forward to sharing that glass of wine with my Husband. So Isaiah 66:22 is speaking of a different epoch altogether from verse 23? Interesting way of interpreting scripture. Similar to the insertion of 2000 years of non-history between the 69th and the 70th weeks of Daniel 9:24. 3.5 degrees of difficulty for both, but it seems many Christians are very good at spiritual and prophetic gymnastics.

So where are you getting your meat from if there is no more death, pain, or sorrow? You going to eat them alive? Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

Interesting that in the new earth followers of God will be keeping the Sabbath, and be vegetarian, both obviously being a blessing for all. But for the Christian in this "dispensation of grace" both the above are considered yolks of bondage, a curse of the law, and a burden. I suppose this "dispensation of grace" therefore doesn't extend to the next world...will it again be a time of "law" and bondage?

Even if those words were a direct quote and not a commentary, they still don't stipulate that pork, shellfish etc is okay to eat. The bolded portion above says, "declared all foods clean"....just because you eat something, that does not mean its food. I have witnessed idiots eating glass in a circus, but does that make it food? Show me one scripture, from anywhere in the OT or the NT, that says "unclean food". There are many, yes, that say "unclean animals", but nowhere does that equate them with food, regardless of how tasty, or popular, those animals may have been with other nations. I could eat the pillow I'm leaning against, claiming all food is now clean if I were to use the advice of people on this thread as a standard for my Christian walk.

Right there you reveal your true nature. You actually believe that my desire that Christians eat healthy is binding them under something that God has freed them from!!!!!! That my friend, and please forgive my straightforwardness, but that attitude reveals how little you understand God's motives in giving us His instructions, and to call me arrogant and judgmental in encouraging people to abstain from flesh foods that do more harm than good is just ludicrous. But not surprising. If you are willing to make God into some sort of tyrant if He should recommend healthy living, then calling me arrogant and judgemental in agreeing with Him is a compliment. Although a silly one.

Show me one verse in scripture that declares unclean animals equated with food. Never in history was an animal described as unclean, categorized as food. The fact that is was not clean, meant it was never to be accepted as food. Your wishful thinking doesn't make the pig fit for food. Its carcinogenic dangerous flesh good only for burning. Anything, such as pigs, shark, eagle, that eats carrion or is a predator, was never classed as food in scripture. Why is it so difficult to believe that the Manufacturer knows best? But nah. After 1000s of years eating healthy, along comes Christian who searches scripture to find one obscure text to justify his disobedience.

How aware are you all of the current entire education system in America and its roots? In the mid 19th century, most children in America were taught at home, or at schools by voluntary teachers from the local community. These young students grew to be highly educated people whose reading or literacy levels by the age of 12 far exceeded those levels now being achieved at your universities. It is no different here in NZ and in Australia. That older system of free, and high quality education was hijacked. By whom? By the very same powers who today are in the throws of establishing the NWO. Back in the late to early 20th century, the main man was Rockefeller. The system he financed and supported, was implemented by others also, was actually opposed by congress for a long time. But money talks. And where did this system originate? Prussia. Introduced after losing their latest war, they desired such a loss would never reoccur so they determined to create a society which was disciplined and totally obedient to their masters plans. And where did they get it from? The Jesuits. And for what purpose? To dumb down society, remove religion from education, destroy the family, and create a social serfdom. To create ready made workers for the corporate factories. To create people who were uneducated, uninformed, ignorant, believing they were highly educated but in fact were merely slaves to those who now controlled their minds. And they would be so indoctrinated that they would in fact be completely content to remain that way, not even knowing they were in such a deceived state. Perfectly Jesuit in every manner. Have you watched the videos of Mark Dice in the beaches of California asking simple questions on current affairs? There's your proof.

I sense, correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense that you, among many others, believe the Sabbath to be some kind of burden, a yoke if you will, that you are unwilling to bear. If you had to, then perhaps you would consider it. Same as the dietary "requirements". That you view them as "requirements" says a great deal. As if they were bad for Israel, and even worse for the church. That taking a day off work to spend with God was terribly hard for Israel, so "thank God He doesn't want Christians to do it!" No doubt you see and understand why God would 'impose' restrictions on murder and robbery, that is not only a good thing that Christians aren't killing anyone or stealing from their neighbors, but it's good for society too right? So God's love and care for His people, and even for mankind in general, is recognized in the other 9 commandments, but the Sabbath? Oh no, God commanded Israel to observe Sabbath because he wanted to be mean. He wanted Israel to be weighed under a burden they couldn't bear. That God gave the Sabbath as a gift for their benefit is unthinkable. And for the church? Never! Heresy!!! Shiloh, it frankly astonishes me that Christians actively seek and search out reasons for not keeping the Sabbath, irregardless of the countless testimonies of Christians throughout all ages of the immense blessings to be received if observed as scripture recommends. I will tell you why SDAs, as a rule, do not observe the other sabbaths. The sanctuary service of the OT. For what was its purpose? It was the gospel for Israel. Its services, its sacrifices, its laws, the priesthood, the sanctuary itself with all its furniture, from the outer court to the Most Holy Place, every feast day, throughout the religious year, was the gospel. It was God's means by which Israel would find forgiveness, peace, and mercy. It was established for one reason, and one reason only. It was an answer to the problem of sin. All the accompanying laws and requirements were given to Israel because of sin, not to be confused with the Ten Commandments which were to point out sin. The Ten Commandments were not given as a result of sin, but to reveal the righteousness of the Lawgiver. Those ceremonial sabbaths were an integral part of that gospel message. Each particular sabbath a prophecy regarding the coming ministry of the Messiah. And so all but two of those prophecies have been precisely fulfilled by our Lord and Savior. Passover/Calvary..... Unleavened bread/....Firstfruits/resurrection..... Pentecost/Annointing by Holy Spirit.... Feast of Trumpets/warning of second coming.....Day of Atonement/second advent....feast of tabernacles/celebration in heaven. How Jesus fulfilled those last 3 autumn feasts is another thread, and is uniquely Seventh Day Adventist teaching. Probably not allowed on this forum. Suffice to say, we do not celebrate these sabbaths because Jesus has met every requirement, or is in the process of doing so through His ministry in the heavenly tabernacle. The weekly Sabbath however is vastly different. Why? Because that Sabbath was never a prophecy of the future ministry of Messiah. It was given to Adam before he sinned. It was never a part of the gospel to Israel, it was never a part of the means by which God used to bring Israel to repentance. The weekly Sabbath was not, never was nor ever intended to be, a remedial activity that was a shadow of things to come, or a portent of the ministry of Christ. The other laws to Israel all had a specific purpose. Some were civil requirements for a nation under theocratic rule. That cannot be said of the church. Some were specific to the ministry of Christ, and therefore were shadows no longer to be observed as the body has come. Others were specific to Israel's health and well-being. Even you observe those laws because you recognize in them common sense and medical truth. An example, You wash your hands after handling a dead animal. SDAs believe eating healthy is only common sense, and medical truth. If you aren't aware of the advantages of a vegan or vegetarian diet, then you need educating. If you aren't aware of the communities of peoples on the planet who live longer on average, more healthily than most, and are more productive at much older ages than all others, then you haven't been watching. Loma Linda community in California is one such community. Predominantly Adventist. And predominantly the diet of set out in the OT, as close as is possible in this day and age to that given by the Manufacturer to His first creation.

1 Thess. 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. The above passage refers to none other event than the second coming. Two distinct things occur at this time. One, Jesus calls forth the dead of all ages whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life and they en-masse rise from their graves in the first of two major resurrections pertaining to the last days. At the same time, they which are yet alive are changed, as we read in 1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.... These two scriptures are describing the same event...the Lord returning to take His bride home. Any other rapture prior to this event is a misreading and misunderstanding of scripture.

As I have said previously, it is not up to Sabbath keepers to "prove" an obligation which has stood for 4000 years and never once been abrogated. It is for you to show a "thus saith the Lord" as proof of the removal of that obligation. To be clearer, perhaps I could use the term "obedient". Once it was essential for children of God to be obedient. Just as it was for us to obey our natural parents, how much more for us to obey our spiritual Father in heaven? So just as it was essential for God's children to obey all His commandments, it is incumbent upon you to show why it is no longer essential to obey all of them. The absence of that commandment being repeated is insufficient evidence. Once commanded ought to have been enough. It wasn't for Israel, God had to repeat it several times, even stressing that they should "remember the Sabbath to keep it holy". But how often should God repeat something so obvious? You have said yourself the Sabbath itself has not been done away with, that being the case what do you do with a day that is still holy, sanctified, and sacred?

That there is a strong perception within the Christian world that the SDA church teaches that by the keeping of the 'law', one can be saved, there can be no doubt.Whether this is because of members ignorant of the truth, or because of poor PR I do not know. Not only do I disagree that we can be justified by keeping the law, but to my understanding of SDA teaching, they do not teach that either. What I do believe however is this. I am justified by faith in the shed blood of Jesus. His death paid in full the price I owed God for my sin. His resurrection ensured that I may have hope of eternal life when He returns and I am raised to meet the Lord in the air and so shall I ever be with Him. In the meantime, I have a battle to fight. It is against the flesh and carnal nature with which I was born. Against 'self'. Christ's death and resurrection however gives me huge advantage in this battle, because God included me in the death of His Son. A wonderful transaction has occurred. His life for mine. His righteousness for my sinfulness. Not only is my name now recorded in the books of heaven, but God has sent me His Holy Spirit that my life in the here and now may be so drastically changed, that it is actually transformed into the very image of the character of my Savior. This takes time however. Some changes came overnight, (like the drugs and alcohol) but other things have taken somewhat longer. After 40 years a Christian (22 as an SDA) the battle is still being fought. But praise God, He is winning. This new character, or new birth, is a daily fight. I must daily submit my self to the cross and die. To surrender daily is my only hope of continuing to overcome sin in all it's hideous and myriad forms. The new character that is being formed within, being the very character of Christ's, is in harmony with the law. How could the character of Christ not be in harmony with a law that He came to obey and make honorable? If whatever character being formed within is not in harmony with God's commandments, then the flesh or carnal nature is gaining ground, and I must once again humble myself, repent, and allow God to get me back on track. Because if I persist, whether intentionally or through neglect, or perhaps through allowing the love of the things of the world to distract or overcome, in allowing the carnal nature to overcome the work God has done, sooner or later all will be lost. I have ceased to abide in the vine, and will be cast forth as a fruitless branch and be lost. Yet while lawkeeping does not merit salvation, sin, or lawlessness, certainly causes one to lose his salvation. This is not a works based salvation, all is of faith. I can of myself do nothing. It is all Christ formed within. By His grace, His power, His Spirit. It is not I that lives, but Christ that lives in me. Christ in me, the hope of glory. I cannot any more keep the 6th or 7th commandment by my own strength than I can the 4th. But I have not seen, in my years of study and prayer, any reason why the 4th commandment should be excluded from the 10. Regardless of the absence of any specific instruction in the NT to observe the Sabbath, neither is there any specific instruction that the Sabbath has been done away. I repeat what I have said previously, excluding Sabbath keeping from the walk of any Christian life is based purely on subjective reasoning, nothing more. To rest in Christ is to believe and have faith in the work that Christ did, and still is accomplishing of behalf of the Christian. Our salvation is not based solely on being justified, but also sanctified, which is an ongoing life-long process. It is not the ten commandment law that was nailed to the cross on Calvary. It was me. The law still lives, in all it's entirety. Romans 7 shows this. The husband represents the flesh. He died. The law that the wife was bound to because she was bound to her husband, still lives. She is free however from the condemnation of that law, but because she is married to another (Christ) , and He now gives us the grace and power to overcome sin, and walk as He walked, in harmony with the law. As a child now of the Father, I delight to obey Him. And allow Him to mold me into the person He needs me to be in order to advance His kingdom. and glorify Him. The question, are SDA's saved? Yes. If they trust in the shed blood of Christ, if they abide in Him, if they repent of sin, if they daily surrender their lives to Him in order that Jesus may be Lord and no other, if they allow the character of Christ to be formed within, and not in their keeping of the law. So does that mean our salvation is conditional on certain things? Absolutely! But law-keeping is not one of them. Our law-keeping is a result or fruit of being saved, even a sign that we are saved, but certainly not the reason we are saved.

Fine, but let's be honest. That "rapture" which Jesus and Paul spoke of is not the same "rapture" expected and hoped for by so many within Christendom. The rapture you mention above takes place at just one event. The second coming in glory, and takes place at the same time as the resurrection of the saints. The false"rapture" that many expect is not the 'escape clause' of Christianity in order that God's people do not have to endure a hard time before Christ comes.

Allow me to inform you of what the Bible says is our blessed hope. Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: 15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. Jesus was the one to give those who believed in Him hope. The hope of the early church and the church throughout the last 1800 years, was the resurrection. Until the theory of the rapture appeared only a relatively short time ago. Please read the following very very carefully, then answer the following question.... Matthew 24:37-41 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. As in the days of Noah, so also shall it be at the second coming....Who was taken away by the flood, and who was left behind?

Yes, a total of over 50 times, and in all instances positively. Not once could it be said that it was no longer part and parcel of the Christian walk. Yes, the other commandments were indeed being observed. But wasn't the law nailed to the cross? If those Christians were obeying the other 9 commandments, did they suddenly all come "under the law"? Did they "fall from grace" because they obeyed those 9 commandments, as is suggested repeatedly by so many when it comes to Sabbath keeping? And if "keep yourselves from idols" wasn't mentioned by the apostle John, would that then make idolatry okay? Though there may be no specific instruction to observe Sabbath (although many would suggest "there remaineth therefore a Sabbath " in Hebrews as evidence of the continuation of Sabbathkeeping for the church, as well as Jesus admonition for the church to pray that their "flight not be on the Sabbath"), is the absence of such sufficiient reason to cast it aside? As to early Christians observing the first day, yes, sad that the 'falling away' spoken of by the apostles should have begun so soon after their death. I don't know shiloh. I am not God, so I cannot nor will I be tempted or cajoled into condemning anyone for not observing the Sabbath. Only God knows your heart. But God is calling for His bride to prepare herself. That does mean obedience, holiness, and repentance from all sin. It is up to us to search our own hearts and the word of God to discern what is truth...what is sin...what is righteousness. Our lives depend on it. I searched for the truth many years ago, and discovered the Sabbath. Since then it has never ceased to be a delight and a pleasure to take time out of a busy week and spend 24 hours with my Savior at the time of His choosing, keeping the appointment He made for me at creation. I do not see in scripture anything intimating that our rest in Christ replaces the observance of the Sabbath. To my mind, such a decision is purely speculative and subjective reasoning, and without any real tangible and clear explicit teaching.

I am bemused by a common argument used against the observance of Sabbath; that is that " Jesus is now my Sabbath rest" because this or that one has ceased from his own works. The insinuation is that those who do observe the Sabbath as a day of rest according to the commandment, have not ceased from their own works. My question is this, though it seems obvious to me: how can anyone observe the day as a Sabbath, without ceasing from his/her own works? As a corollary to this, can we observe any commandment without ceasing from our own works? Does not death to self and the infilling of the Holy Spirit create in us the image of Christ? Is this not called sanctification? And because we are transformed into the image of Christ, would it also not be in conformity to the law that Christ wrote on the tables of stone, and which He now writes on the tables of our hearts? We can't accomplish this without surrender ; without ceasing from our own works. Sanctification is simply that. The changing of the life to make it conformable to God's standards of righteousness. And Ezekiel tells us that by observing the Sabbath, the day, we are acknowledging that it is God Who is doing the sanctifying, and not we ourselves. So by keeping the Sabbath, it is actually a sign we have indeed ceased from our own works, and trusting in Christ's working in us His righteousness. 2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: Further to this, no Christian I know of whatever denomination, would suggest that because Jesus fulfilled the law, it is now legitimate for Christians to commit murder, because they are no longer under the law. That would surely be quite preposterous. Yet we constantly witness claims by many that because we are not under the law, we are no longer obliged to honor it. This is so incredibly inconsistent. The reason I am not under the law is not because the law has been done away with, but because the blood of Jesus has released me from it's condemnation. That however does not release me from it's power to convict me again of sin should I choose to disobey it. This also applies to the 4th commandment. Just because Jesus fulfilled the law by keeping the Sabbath, , (that is He kept the law, obeyed it and thus magnified the law making it honorable) that does not release me from my obligation to keep the Sabbath, magnifying it and making it honorable. If obligation makes anyone feel uncomfortable, sorry, but I would use that same word for every one of the ten commandments. We are obliged to love our neighbor and thus not commit adultery, not covet, not steal, not get angry and kill, and respect and honor our parents. We are also obliged to love God by confessing Him as the One and Only true God, Maker of heaven and earth, and all things therein. Because He is our Creator, He has sole rights to our worship, our fidelity and service. That is why we shun idols. It is also why we would not dare to use His name disrespectfully. It is also why we choose to honor that day which recognises Him as our Creator, and brings to our remembrance why He deserves our worship, and why the whole law and our keeping it is a recognition of His authority in our lives. I mentioned previously in another post that the only arguments against the observance of Sabbath are ones of subjective interpretation, an example of which is the aforementioned "Jesus is my Sabbath rest" argument. By so doing we are placing our own authority above God's

Is the Sabbath an obligation, that Christians should observe...is it a sin therefore if they don't? The Sabbath IS different from all the other commandments. However, being different, does not make it any less a commandment. Let me explain. In any society, even without contact with missionaries or the western world or perhaps no contact with anyone in the outside world, would over a period of time develop a code of ethics by which to live under. These will eventually develop into laws, and may very well get to a stage where they actually loosely resemble the ten commandments. Except for the Sabbath of the 4th. There is simply no way any society anywhere could come up with such an idea. For one, it marks the week. The week is a time period which is a unique witness to creation. Every other time period known to man is based on natural cycles of either the moon or the sun or the stars. That is in fact why they were created: that they may be for signs and seasons etc. But the weekly cycle is based on nothing other than the word of God. And yet it has endured. There have been attempts over the centuries to change it; someone one time tried to implement a 10 day week, but failed. The Sabbath is the same. It is not based upon any moral principle as such, but purely and simply on the word of God. Period. It is a commandment that comes by no other authority except by revelation. Therefore, our acceptance or rejection of it ultimately comes down to our attitude to God's authority. Another reason why it would not be a part of any such community's law is the fact that it is a memorial. A memorial of a specific event. Again, only revelation would induce anyone to include such a commandment in any law. But does that make the commandment any less important? Any less 'moral' to obey? As scripture says, to him who knows to do good but does it not, to him it is sin. Clearly, many Christians do not yet recognize the Sabbath, so for them it is not sin when they so disregard it. But maybe ones sin in such a case lies not in the fact that one may not be observing the Sabbath, but perhaps, and please I do stress perhaps, it lies in an unwillingness to accept something that may prove awkward or inconvenient or disturbing? Therefore one may not so diligently search for that truth or consider it so seriously? Therefore the sin lies more in the person's deliberate self inflicted ignorance. We shall be held accountable if we neglect opportunities to learn truth, when we have the Bible so readily available to us, and a far greater understanding of history. Also, I would suggest that not observing or recognizing the Sabbath may be but a symptom of a greater problem; an unwillingness to accept God's authority over man's. Check out your concordance and count the number of times the word Sabbath appears in scripture. In both old and new testaments it echoes across the pages of the Bible from one end to the other. It is a day that is clearly very very important to God. It was a day that was instituted at creation, was intended to be continued throughout history (as the episode with the gathering of manna before Sinai shows) and was reinforced with much grandeur and fanfare from Mt Sinai. What a awesome display of God's glory and power that must have been. Lightning, thunder, earthquakes,fire and smoke, black clouds, trumpets and booming voice, no wonder Israel feared and ran away. Yet we are led to believe that one of those commandments, the very one that God placed deliberately in the heart of the ten, one that comes by no other source but from His own lips, and written by His own hand in stone, has been done away without as much as a whimper? If the early church suddenly began ignoring the Sabbath as is supposed, where was the debate? Where was the controversy with the Jewish legalists who were all looking for the slightest excuse to malign the new movement? Why was it not an issue like circumcision? Why did not the Jews persecute the early church for defiling the Sabbath? Why is it that persecution against Christians in the first 500 years arose not from those opposed to their Sunday keeping, but to their Sabbath keeping! And that persecution came from Sunday keeping Christians. Think about that. Those Sabbath keepers, at one time a vast majority, were by the 6th century being labelled as heretics. I hear that word being echoed around these forums from time t time, aimed at Sabbath keepers, aimed at the churches they identify with....are you aware of whose history you are repeating? Whose words and accusations you are copying? At least the Roman Catholics of those days were honest. They admitted there was no evidence in scripture of a change to the day, they know who changed it...they did. But today, what do we have? We have some who observe Sunday, and claim the first day is made sacred by scripture. Some say no, we can observe any day, so long as we have one day in seven. Then others, they say no, we needn't observe any day, Jesus "is our Sabbath rest". No wonder the church of the final days is called Babylon...confusion. I would strongly suggest to you that the reason it never came up for any debate in those earlier years was that the early church kept the Sabbath faithfully , both Jew and gentile, and it was not an issue. And why is it an issue today? Because Jesus is coming soon. And He is calling His bride to be holy, pure, faithful, honest, obedient, and committed. That righteousness that His bride is to be adorned with is the wedding garment. It is supplied by the Groom. Sadly, many today want to wear their own garments, walking and trusting in their own righteousness, much as the Jews did in Jesus time....and we all know what happened to the one who showed up to attend the wedding but wasn't dressed appropriately.

What are to be the consequences of Christians who murder, lie, steal, and commit adultery, knowing those things to be wrong?

Israel, as a nation came into covenant with God. God's promises within that covenant were conditional on Israel's faithfulness. They were not faithful. God did not break His side of the bargain, Israel broke theirs. God did not promise Israel everything regardless of their spiritual condition. He tried many times of course to get them back onto the right track, but they stubbornly refused to heed the warnings, killing the prophets sent to them. Matt. 23:30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Matt 21:33 ¶ Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. The prophets sent to Israel gave messages that were in content and meaning, judicial presentations. They would recite history...lay the charges....present evidence....warn the hearers of the consequences of not hearing and obeying the warning. All the prophets of the OT in some form or another presented their pleas to the nations in this form, right up to John the Baptist, who many believe or claim to be the last prophet sent to Israel as a nation. Not so. There was more. Jesus Himself said there would be more. Notice continuing from Matt 23:33 above.... 34 ¶ Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. This took pace in the manner described as the apostles and disciples of Jesus continued the ministry of reconciliation and pleading for the repentance of Israel after Jesus' ascension. However, there was one particular man who appeared before the rulers who came with the same message of the O prophets who had gone before. Stephen. Read his testimony in Acts 6 and his presentation before the council in Acts 7. We have there all the elements of a covenant law-suit against the house of Israel Listen to the words of Hosea... Hosea 4:1 Hear (obey) the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel: for the Lord hath a controversy (covenant law-suit...I YHWH am laying charges against you for breaking my covenant)....for there is no truth, nor mercy (covenant love) , nor knowledge (experiential knowledge...relational knowledge) in the land. 2. By swearing, and lying, and killing and stealig and committing adultery, they break out and blood touches blood.... Hosea however, as all the other prophets, offers hope. If Israel should repent, God shall have mercy, forgive them, and fulfill His promises to them. Hosea 6:1 Come, and let us return unto the Lord, for He hath torn, and He will heal us. Let us go back to Stephen's call to the rulers of Israel. Read Acts 7. Stephen lays out the history of Israel before the council. He repeats the covenant, stresses God's faithfulness throughout Israel's history, reveals without compromise where Israel failed to live up to the covenant, yet God was patient, sent His prophets, pleaded day and night with them, essentially repeating what Jesus had said in his parable in Matt. 21:33-44. In verse 51 however the tone of his address changes markedly. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost (the unpardonable sin) as your fathers did, so do ye. 52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. You Israel have broken my covenant! 54 ¶ When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Above is the classic prophetic covenant law-suit being brought against the nation of Israel as in times previous, but with one very important difference. No where is there a suggestion that this time is room for repentance. The time for Israel to respond positively to God's covenant with thme is now finished. 57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, 58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him. "Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" On previous occasions Jesus had visited the temple, twice having to clear out the merchants and money-changers. The first time He said "unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise." The second time doing the same, He quoted Isaiah 56:7, My house shall be a house of prayer. Now however, after 3 and 1/2 years giving the nation many signs and showing many wonders, and pleading with them to repent and return to their God, Jesus presents to them another covenant lawsuit (Matt. 23) at the end of which there is no further plea to repent. What does He say? Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. Notice, it is no longer God's house. This does not exclude individual Jews from receiving Christ. The nation itself however was no longer to be God's servant in delivering His gospel of love to the world. That responsibility now lies with the church. What formerly applied to the nation of Israel now applies to the church which chooses to keep covenant with Him. 1 Peter 2:9 But ye (the church) are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. (Exodus 9:16) Both with Jesus' and Stephen's messages were the nation's last indictment laid out against them by God's messenger. They had been weighed in the balances, and found wanting. Now the promises, the responsibility for bearing fruit, was now given to another. And the same conditions apply. Obedience to God's laws. Faithfulness to His covenant. But by the grace of God we now have the Spirit of God Himself abiding in our hearts and lives, the very love of God which empowers and enables us to keep that law. We are crucified with Christ, yet we live, but not we ourselves, but Christ lives in us, and the life which we live we live by the faith of the Son of God, who who loves us and gave Himself for us. "Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Revelation 14:12.

It may come as a surprise for you to know that Sabbath keepers have also. They choose to observe the Sabbath as a sign of that rest they have in Christ. Even to demonstrating it physically by abstaining from work that day, demonstrating their faith and rest in God as Provider and Sanctifier. Ezekiel 20:12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them. Ezekiel 20:20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God. Jesus did not come to replace the Sabbath. He came to give it deeper meaning. Isaiah 58:13 ¶ If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: 14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it Isaiah 58 has long been considered a message to the church of the NT, and not solely to the Jewish people. There is a blessing in embracing it all.

How will your prayer go, and to whom will you pray? The Lord of the Sabbath who established it, or the lord of the Sunday who changed it?

Excellent post. I also grew up under the teachings and education system of the RCC til Jesus in His grace and mercy opened my eyes to His truth. When He says "come out of her My people", He means just that...and to come all the way out. Did you know that it was the RCC who established Sunday as a doctrine and dogma of the Christian faith and persecuted Christians who continued to observe Sabbath, following Jesus' and the apostle's example?

Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. I agree that those who focus constantly on the law can be among the most miserable people of the planet. As Christian we all I think, or at least most of us agree, that no amount of "law-keeping" can justify us, and much of their misery arises as they realize their utmost inability to accomplish their purpose, but are unwilling to believe or they cannot recognize that we are saved by grace alone. Period. Saturday is not the only 'right' day to worship. We ought to worship every day, including both the 1st and the 7th days, and every day in between. That said however, the 7th day, the only true Sabbath of the Bible, is a day still blessed, made holy, and sanctified by the word of God. The question is, what do we as Christians do with that day. Ignore it? Change it? Substitute it with a day of our own devising? Pretend it doesn't matter? Or shall we, because we love God, keep His commandment and "remember"?

Why? I am not the one proposing that there has been a change in the law, it is Sunday observers. The onus is on Sunday observers to show that the commandments of God are not to be obeyed by those under the new covenant. The onus is on Sunday observers to explain why they have chosen to alter the original custom of the early church to observe Sabbath as Jesus did. The onus is on Sunday observers to explain why Jesus example is not good enough for them that they have established an alternative day to what God's people had observed and were told to remember for thousands of years. My contention is that once God declares a day holy, sacred, sanctified, then that day stays holy, sacred, and sanctified until such time He decides to declare it otherwise. Rather than being the exception to the rule, Christians ought to be demonstrating their allegiance to the authority of God, as opposed to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.