How did Jesus keep the Sabbath?

[HAZARD]

"The Galatians were told that they had to be circumcised and convert to the Jewish religion in addition to accepting Jesus as Savior in order to make it into the Kingdom. THAT is what Paul was addressing. He was not complaining that they were keeping the Sabbath or whatever, but that they were attempting to pevert the law into legalistic system. He was against them converting to the Jewish religion. His point was that if they have themselvse circumcised and live according the Jewishh relgion, they are debtors to all of it"

.

Oh yeah? Where are the Scriptures supporting this theory of yours?

I will give you several which show that Paul never suggested anyone be circumcised, in fact he taught the exact opposite.

"Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:" (Acts 15:24).

"Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." (1 Cor. 7:18-19).

"But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:" And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:" Gal. 2:3-4).

"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:2-4).

"Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand. As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh" (Gal. 6:11-13).

Anyone who wants to keep the law of Moses is indebted to the entire law. I wish them luck in attempting the entire law. Jesus Christ was the only man ever to be able to kee it. He came to "fulfill" the law and He did. It was only then after fulfilling the law that He ushered in the New Covenant by His death, by shedding His Blood.

We are now covered by His Blood and not the blood of animals, rites, rituuals, ceremonial laws, sabbaths, holy days, and feasts.

JESUS CHRIST . . . "Having ABOLISHED in His flesh the emnity [the law of bondage and death], EVEN THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS contained in ordinances . . . BLOTTING OUT [making void] the handwritings of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and TOOK IT OUT OF THE WAY NAILING IT TO HIS CROSS. . . . let no man judge you in MEAT, or in DRINK, or in the respect of AN HOLYDAY or of THE NEW MOON, or if THE SABBATH DAYS: WHICH NOW ARE A SHADOW OF THINGS TO COME; but the body [or reality of which those things were made shadows] is of Christ" (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14-17).

Now if anyone chooses to be covered by, be indebted to the Old Covenant laws of Moses they are free to do so. I prefer to be covered by the Blood of Jesus, through "faith."

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature" (Gal. 6:14-15).

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

"The Galatians were told that they had to be circumcised and convert to the Jewish religion in addition to accepting Jesus as Savior in order to make it into the Kingdom. THAT is what Paul was addressing. He was not complaining that they were keeping the Sabbath or whatever, but that they were attempting to pevert the law into legalistic system. He was against them converting to the Jewish religion. His point was that if they have themselves circumcised and live according the Jewishh relgion, they are debtors to all of it"

Oh yeah? Where are the Scriptures supporting this theory of yours?

I will give you several which show that Paul never suggested anyone be circumcised, in fact he taught the exact opposite.

I never said that Paul suggested that they should be circumcised. Read what I wrote. I said that he was complaining that they were being circumcised and being led astray by a Judaizing cult. Evidently, you are letting your emotions get ahead of you.

Anyone who wants to keep the law of Moses is indebted to the entire law.

So loving God with all my heart, soul and strength, loving my neighbor as myself means I am indebted to the entire law???

It was only then after fulfilling the law that He ushered in the New Covenant by His death, by shedding His Blood.

He is fulfilling the law right now, inside me. He is fullfilling the righteousness of the law in me (Rom. 8:4) "Fulfill" in reference to the law does not mean "terminate" or "abrogate." It means "to bring to full expression."

Now if anyone chooses to be covered by, be indebted to the Old Covenant laws of Moses they are free to do so.

If someone chooses to keep the Sabbath, how exactly does that qualify as being "indebted to the law?"

[Guest yod]

and anyone wishing to be lawless also can be....

God's Word...every bit of it...is for our blessing. We can ignore it and the penalty is paid by Yeshua's blood but why would a blood-bought saint want to heap more on His back?

We can choose to be blessed or cursed. Those who refuse His instruction will receive the curses of being out from under God's protection

[HAZARD]

"If someone chooses to keep the Sabbath, how exactly does that qualify as being "indebted to the law?"

.

The old covenant was made between God and israel, and keeping the sabbath was a particular sign or token between God and Israel to commemorated their deliverance from Egypt. There would be no purpose in making this sabbath a part of the new covenant, which concerns all nations who never were delivered from Egypt. Hence the sabbath would not have the same meaning to other nations as it would to israel, hence it was left out of the new covenant entirely. Another reason it was fortold that the sabbath would be abolished because it had become something to be abhored by God. The reason God hated it was because of the sins and hypocrisy of Israel in keeping the sabbath which was a "sing" between Him and Israel.

"I will cause her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solomn feasts" (Hosea 2:11). "Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, aI CANNOT AWAY WITH; it is iniquity, even the solomn meetingunto me; I AM WEARY TO BEAR THEM" (Isa. 1:10-15).

Start reading Liviticus from chapter 1 through to chapter 27 ending in verse 34 where it states, "These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai."

If one chooses to keep the old covenant and its sabbaths then one must keep all the Levitical laws, statutes, feasts, wave offerings, burnt offerings, sacraficial sin offerings, feast days, holy days, and sabbaths, and one will be held accountable and judged accordingly. If one chooses salvation through the law and the sabbaths, one will be "indebted" to the law and sabbaths. In other words one will be charged with a debt if it is not correctly fulfilled or observed by the one keeping it.

Indebted means: being in debt; having incurred a debt; legally obliged to repay for someting recieved, obliged by something recieved for which gratitude is due.

Israel with Moses, Aron, and the priesthood, did not, could not keep the law correctly as God commanded them. "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?" (John 7:19). They failed. Jesus said; " And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me" (Luke 24:44). All the things written concerning Jesus contained in the law was to be fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled the law. Something no other man could do. No one is now under the law and no one needs to do all the things written in the law.

By Jesus Christ, "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:39). We are no longer "under the law." "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Romans 3:28).

[Guest shiloh357]

The old covenant was made between God and israel, and keeping the sabbath was a particular sign or token between God and Israel to commemorated their deliverance from Egypt. There would be no purpose in making this sabbath a part of the new covenant, which concerns all nations who never were delivered from Egypt. Hence the sabbath would not have the same meaning to other nations as it would to israel, hence it was left out of the new covenant entirely. Another reason it was fortold that the sabbath would be abolished because it had become something to be abhored by God. The reason God hated it was because of the sins and hypocrisy of Israel in keeping the sabbath which was a "sing" between Him and Israel.

"I will cause her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solomn feasts" (Hosea 2:11). "Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, aI CANNOT AWAY WITH; it is iniquity, even the solomn meetingunto me; I AM WEARY TO BEAR THEM" (Isa. 1:10-15).

God never hated the Sabbath. God hated what the nation of Israel had perverted into. Notice what God says. I hate HER feast days, HER new moons, and HER sabbaths.

Your problem is that you are trying to make the law the problem. The Bible is never critical of the law. It is critical of those who pervert into a works-based system of righteousness.

The Sabbath is God's. He does not hate His Sabbath. What Israel had done is that they had allowed paganism into the temple, and pagan customs were mixed with the sacrifices and the festivals, and this is what angered the Lord.

Later on in the same book the prophet Isaiah calls Israel back to to the true Sabbath and defines how the Sabbath must be kept to be be pleasing to God.

Your apporach to this issue is very one-dimensional, in that you only look at one side of the issue and you are not looking at EVERYTHING the Bible says.

If one chooses to keep the old covenant and its sabbaths then one must keep all the Levitical laws, statutes, feasts, wave offerings, burnt offerings, sacraficial sin offerings, feast days, holy days, and sabbaths, and one will be held accountable and judged accordingly. If one chooses salvation through the law and the sabbaths, one will be "indebted" to the law and sabbaths. In other words one will be charged with a debt if it is not correctly fulfilled or observed by the one keeping it.

That is a personal value you are assiging and not a biblical truth.

If a person chooses to keep the Sabbath, they are not required to do sacrifices. You are making an wholly absurd and irrational theoloical jump which is entirely indefensible from a biblical standpoint.

Observing the Sabbath does not equate with choosing salvation through the law. For one thing, salvation cannot be gained through the law, never has been.

By Jesus Christ, "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses" (Acts 13:39). We are no longer "under the law." "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Romans 3:28).

"Under the law" does not mean, "living within the framework of the law."

Under the law refers to an unsaved person. You need to study Romans 6. "Under grace" refers to a person who is born again. "under the law" refers to a person's spiritual condition before God. All sinners will be judged by the law and are thus under it. When a person is saved, they are no longer under the law but are now under grace and will stand before God under grace.

[Guest Honolulu-Dad]

I've enjoyed reading your posts Hazard. I am thankful that Jesus purchased me with His blood and that I no longer am obligated to keep the Law, which, no man has been able to do except for Jesus as you said.

The purpose of the Law was to show man how desperately he needed a Savior.

When one chooses to keep a law, because it's a law, then I agree, he is then bound to keep the whole Law.

H-Dad

[Guest shiloh357]

By that logic, if one keeps the commandment not to murder because it is a commandment from God, such person is bound to keep the whole law???

Funny how such ridiculous assertions are only applied to the commandments that appear "Jewish." The Bible never says that a person who keeps one commanmdment is bound to the whole law. That is just absurd.

What Paul said was that if the Galatians had themselves circumcised (converted to the Jewish religion), then they were bound to the whole law as prescribed the Pharisees. Ritual circumcision is a rite that puts one under the yoke of rabbinic law and one is bound to the whole law as it is taught and prescribed by the Rabbis, which is what Paul was talking about. (Gal. 5:3)

[HAZARD]

By that logic, if one keeps the commandment not to murder because it is a commandment from God, such person is bound to keep the whole law???

Funny how such ridiculous assertions are only applied to the commandments that appear "Jewish." The Bible never says that a person who keeps one commanmdment is bound to the whole law. That is just absurd.

What Paul said was that if the Galatians had themselves circumcised (converted to the Jewish religion), then they were bound to the whole law as prescribed the Pharisees. Ritual circumcision is a rite that puts one under the yoke of rabbinic law and one is bound to the whole law as it is taught and prescribed by the Rabbis, which is what Paul was talking about. (Gal. 5:3)

I do not profess to know any more than anyone else can know by just reading and checking all the Scriptures on a doctrin. Did you take the time to read these?

The New covenant Scriptures on the ten commandments are these:

1. Ex. 20:3 with Rom. 5:8; 1 Cor. 13; 1 John 3:1-4:21.

2. Ex. 20:4-6 with Rom. 2:22; 1 Cor. 5:10; 6:9-11; 8:1-10; 10:7, 19-28; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:5; 1 John 5:21; Acts 15.

3. Ex. 20:7 with Acts 26:11; Rom. 2:24; Col. 3:8; Tit. 3.

NOTICE THE NEXT POINT 4,

4. Ex. 20:8-10 (not commanded in the new covenant). "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks" (Rom. 14:5-6).

5: Ex. 20:12 with Eph. 6:2-3; Col. 3:20; 2 Tim. 3:2.

6. Ex. 20:13 with Rom. 13:9; 1 Pet. 4:15; 1 John 3:15.

7. Ex. 20:14 with Rom. 2:22; 13:9; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21; Heb. 13:4.

8. Ex. 20:15 with Rom. 2:21; 13:9; Eph. 4:28.

9. Ex. 10:16 with Rom. 13:9.

10. Ex. 20:17 with Rom. 13:9; 1 Cor. 5:10, 11; 6:9-11.

Its so clear and simple to understand any fifth grader can get it? But like Paul said, if you wish to remain in "bondage" and a "debtor"to the old law then go ahead, but make sure you can keep it all. Jesus requires us to rely on His sacrifice and shed blood to cover our sins and not the blood of animals.

Haz.

[Guest shiloh357]

NOTICE THE NEXT POINT 4,

4. Ex. 20:8-10 (not commanded in the new covenant).

The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

(Leviticus 18:9)

The commandment is not repeated in the New Covenant either. Does it suddenly become okay for a man to have sex with his sister???

Its so clear and simple to understand any fifth grader can get it? But like Paul said, if you wish to remain in "bondage" and a "debtor"to the old law then go ahead, but make sure you can keep it all. Jesus requires us to rely on His sacrifice and shed blood to cover our sins and not the blood of animals.

1. I don't keep the Sabbath; I simpy defend the rights of others do so without have the kind condemnation and judgmenality that "Christians" like you want to heap upon them.

2. You still have yet to establish how keeping the Sabbath means that a person is indebted to the law or is depending on the blood of animals or goats.

The truth is you can't draw that connection which is why you have drone on and on making the same empty assertions post after post. It shows you have good copying and pasting skills, but it also shows you don't really have a case you can defend. Instead of actually addressing the points raised you just keep parrotting the same condemnation over and over again.

[HAZARD]

NOTICE THE NEXT POINT 4,

4. Ex. 20:8-10 (not commanded in the new covenant).

The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.

(Leviticus 18:9)

The commandment is not repeated in the New Covenant either. Does it suddenly become okay for a man to have sex with his sister???

Its so clear and simple to understand any fifth grader can get it? But like Paul said, if you wish to remain in "bondage" and a "debtor"to the old law then go ahead, but make sure you can keep it all. Jesus requires us to rely on His sacrifice and shed blood to cover our sins and not the blood of animals.

1. I don't keep the Sabbath; I simpy defend the rights of others do so without have the kind condemnation and judgmenality that "Christians" like you want to heap upon them.

2. You still have yet to establish how keeping the Sabbath means that a person is indebted to the law or is depending on the blood of animals or goats.

The truth is you can't draw that connection which is why you have drone on and on making the same empty assertions post after post. It shows you have good copying and pasting skills, but it also shows you don't really have a case you can defend. Instead of actually addressing the points raised you just keep parrotting the same condemnation over and over again.

"The commandment is not repeated in the New Covenant either. Does it suddenly become okay for a man to have sex with his sister???"

.

No, and you know this without me even saying it. A follower of Christ does not have sex with his sister. This sin and others sins is covered by the commandments which are included in the new covenant which I have posted (post 38), and if you had read them. Its only the fourth which is not required or commanded in the New testament.

Have you not ever came across this Scripture? "

What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid" (Romans 6:15). Back up what you are saying. Being removed from the bondage of the law is not a licence to sin? What follower of Christ, who has free us from the old covenant would go directly into sin and have sex with his sister, or steal, or commit any sin willfully? Do you not kown what is wrong and what is right without haveing to read the answer set in stone? Is your abhorence for sin not written in your heart?

There is no need to defend the right of anyone to keep the sabbath day holy. I have never once said one must not keep it if one wants to keep it. All I have been trying to get through is that if one strictly keeps the old covenant sabbath and holy days then one is obliged to keep all the old covenant laws and sabbaths and feast days rites and sacifices which is impossible for men to keep. God said Israel did not keep them as required, I gave the Scriptures earlier, and Jesus came to fulfill the old law and usher in the new.

I keep any day as the New Testament teaches and am not judged in meat and drinks and holy days and new moons and sabbaths. Some weeks I keep Thursday, others Tuesday, occasionally I get saturday off and keep it, but I do not keep the old covenant laws, sabbaths, feasts, ritualistic sacrifices, washings, new moons, holy day etc,.

I originally studied this doctrin for many years and was once a sabbath keeper, (I should say, tried to be) a holy day keeper, feast day keeper but realised I could not keep the entire Mosaic law and found out that it was handed down to Israel through moses by God as a sign between Him and Israel. I eventually found the Scriptures Romans 14:5-6, and the many dozens I have posted and the penny dropped. I have given you every answer I searched for and covered your questions regarding the commandments, the fact that the old covenant was prophisied to be done away and a new covenaant was to be ushered in by Christ. I do not copy and past. I copy my own posts and past the revelant Scriptures which back up what I have found on this doctrin, to save re- typing them over and over as you fail to actually see what they say and mean. You have so far given nothing except you own pet theories and ideas and have not backed up much at all. As I said earlier, if I am in error, and the many dozens of Scriptures I have posted are not inligne with what I am saying, then you should be able, in fact must be able to give many dozens more Scriptures to show this. You reask questions which i have answere so I just copy my original answers.

Show me just one scripture which refutes these two alone? Which of these following Scriptures are as you put it "empty assertions?"

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks" (Romans 14:5-6).

Or these?

"you don't really have a case you can defend"

.

Well show me Scriptures which shows me God did not mean what He said when He said these words?

""I will cause her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solomn feasts" (Hosea 2:11). "Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, aI CANNOT AWAY WITH; it is iniquity, even the solomn meetingunto me; I AM WEARY TO BEAR THEM" (Isa. 1:10-15).

" Instead of actually addressing the points raised you just keep parrotting the same condemnation over and over again"

Lets get to the bottom of this doctrin. How about you try address this? Do these scriptures mean what they say or are they lies? Can you show even one which states Jesus did NOT abolish the law of bondage in His flesh, even the law of commandments? Blotting them out and nailing them to the cross. That they were a shadow of things to come?

"Having ABOLISHED in His flesh the emnity [the law of bondage and death], EVEN THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS contained in ordinances . . . BLOTTING OUT [making void] the handwritings of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and TOOK IT OUT OF THE WAY NAILING IT TO HIS CROSS. . . . let no man judge you in MEAT, or in DRINK, or in the respect of AN HOLYDAY or of THE NEW MOON, or if THE SABBATH DAYS: WHICH NOW ARE A SHADOW OF THINGS TO COME; but the body [or reality of which those things were made shadows] is of Christ" (Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14-17).

Can you show these Scriptures are lies, or is it you who is full of wind? Lol.

Haz.