Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Refuting The Arguments

By J. Dean


Christian ArgumentsConcerning Sunday Observances


I was reading a popular Christian Forums several months back, and several articles were posted to back up Sunday Observance over Seventh Day observance (commanded by YHWH in the fourth commandment). I found these articles so typical of Christian thinking, I decided to refute one of them point by point. The following is the article in it's entirety, followed by my responses to each major point.

THE FIRST DAY VS. THE SABBATH
http://www.newtestamentchurch.org/OPA/Articles/1991/07/OPA19910702.htm

July 1, 1991 Issue
by Irvin Barnes

The first day of the week is a special and distinguished day because Jesus was resurrected on the first day, the church was established on the first day and Christians are taught to assemble to break bread and give of their means on the first day of the week.

Mark 16:9, says "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week." This is proof enough that Christ came forth from the tomb on the first day, However, those who observe the Sabbath claim that Christ "was risen" (past tense) and point that the tomb was empty when the women arrived on the first day of the week, therefore, they say Christ was risen in the afternoon of the 7th day or on the Sabbath.

Jesus said he would be raised on the third day (Luke 24:46). While walking on the road to Emmaus, Cleopas told Christ "today is the third day," since Jesus was delivered, condemned to death, and crucified (Lk 24:13-21). Verse 13 declares that the journey to Emmaus was on the same day the women went to the tomb. So Jesus was raised on the day the women went to the tomb, the same day Cleopas went to Emmaus which was the third day since Jesus had died. What day was it? Luke 24:1 says the women went to the tomb on the first day of the week. The women did not go to the tomb on the Sabbath day nor was the Sabbath the third day following the death of Jesus. Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week.

The church of Christ had its beginning on the first Pentecost day following the resurrection of Christ. Please see Acts chapter 2. Pentecost was one of five Jewish celebrations commanded in Lev. 23. Beginning at a specific Sabbath, the Jews were to number 7 Sabbaths complete. Seven times 7 equals 49 days. The day following the 7th Sabbath was the "fiftieth" day which is the exact meaning of the word Pentecost. Since Pentecost or the "fiftieth day" followed a Sabbath or 7th day, the day of Pentecost fell on the first day of the week. The church had its beginning on the first day of the week (Acts 2:1).

Christians are taught by command (Heb 10:25) and by example (Acts 20:7) to commune on the first day of the week. The first day is distinguished from all the other days of the week because of worship performed on this day that must not be performed on any other day.

Paul commanded a collection to be taken on the first day of the week (1st Cor 16:1-3). Those who practice Sabbath keeping claim this was a special collection and would not be continued after Paul came to take it to Jerusalem. Please note that the passage does not say "that there be no more collections ever again, after I come," but says simply that they were to take a collection each first day so the funds would be ready when Paul or others arrived. Nothing is said to prove that they would not continue the first day collection every first day of the wee after Paul departed Corinth for Jerusalem. The first day is distinguished by this act of giving in the assembly on each first day of the week.

THE SABBATH IS GONE

The first day of the week is not a Christian Sabbath. There is no Sabbath in God's plan for the New Testament age of the world. Because of greed the people of old asked, "When will the Sabbath be gone?" After rebuking them for their covetousness, the prophet Amos answered, "And it shall come to pass in the day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day," Amos 8:4-9. This was fulfilled when Jesus died on the cross. "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour," Matthew 27:45. Paul explains that Jesus took away the law contained in ordinances, blotting out the ordinances by nailing them to the cross (Eph 2:14-15 & Col 2:14-16).

Hosea 2:11 tells of a time when Israel's feast days (yearly festivals), her new moons (monthly observances), and her Sabbaths (weekly observances), would cease. Paul explains that since Jesus has died, "Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days," Col 2:14-16. The holyday refers to the yearly feasts, the new moon to the monthly feasts and the Sabbath refers to the weekly observances. Hosea said these observances, including the Sabbath, would cease. Paul says at the death of Christ they did cease.

When Christ died on the cross, did he take away the ten commandments or only the book of the law? He took away both! In Romans 7, Paul points out that Christians are loosed from the law, dead to the law, free from the law, and delivered from the law. He illustrates our freedom from the law by quoting one of the ten commandments in verse 7, "Thou shalt not covet." Second Corinthians 3, also proves that the ten commandments written on stone were done away by, and had no glory in comparison to, the more glorious law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Nine of the 10 commandments are taught again in the New Testament in the following places: James 2:11, Rom 13:9, Eph 4:25, 1st. Thes 4:6, Eph 6:1-2, 1st. Cor 10:7 and Eph 4:29. The command to observe the 7th day cannot be found in the New Testament. The Sabbath is gone. It was taken away in the cross of Christ.

The following are my answers to each of Irivin Barnes' major points of argument:

THEIR ARGUMENT:
The first day of the week is a special and distinguished day because Jesus was resurrected on the first day, the church was established on the first day and Christians are taught to assemble to break bread and give of their means on the first day of the week.

Response:

I'm always surprised when Protestants use Catholic teachings like this one to support their beliefs, because the average protestant religion also teaches that the Catholic religion has never been "true" Christianity. Messiah was already risen when they arrived at the tomb at dawn on Sunday, this is one of the few facts upon which all four gospel accounts agree. They also outline how Messiah said clearly he'd be in the tomb three days and three nights, and if he died on Friday like Christianity teaches and rose sunday morning like they say, then he was only in the tomb 2 nights!

THEIR ARGUMENT:
Mark 16:9, says "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week." [ This is proof enough that Christ came forth from the tomb on the first day,

Response:

Notice what Irvin does to this verse. Let's read the actual verse:

"Now when Yahoshua was risen early the first of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils."

Notice in the version above it says "first of the week," this is because the word DAY was inserted by the King James translators and does not appear in other versions. The word "day" is in italics in the authorized King James.

Yet, even if it did say "day" this verse in no wise proves that Messiah rose at dawn, nor does it prove he rose on the first day of the week. You have to ignore all the other scriptural accounts in the gospels to come away with this idea (which is what Irvin conveniently does in his research). You see, Irvin fails to understand that the first day of the week for the Hebrew begins at sundown on saturday. Actually, I think he conveniently ignores this. "Early on the first day" is most definately Saturday Sundown, ask any Hebrew who keeps sabbath. It's been this way for thousands of years! This verse Irvin quotes actually proves that Messiah arose "early on the first of the week" which is Saturday sundown!

THEIR ARGUMENT:
However, those who observe the Sabbath claim that Christ "was risen" (past tense) and point that the tomb was empty when the women arrived on the first day of the week, therefore, they say Christ was risen in the afternoon of the 7th day or on the Sabbath.

Response:

What Irvin fails to do here is tell his readers that the gospel accounts all agree on one fact, and that is, when the women arrived at the tomb, it was already empty, and an angel told them "he's risen" (past tense). He also grossly misrepresents the teachings of Sabbath keepers, by saying they teach Messiah was risen on the afternoon of the seventh day. This is just not so. Sabbath keepers (most) traditionally understand that Messiah arose at the END of the 7th day, when the first of the week was beginning. He had to stay in the tomb to fulfill the 3 days and 3 nights prophecy (and since he actually died on wednesday afternoon, the preparation day for the "High" sabbath, (or yearly sabbath), he stayed in the tomb until the Sabbath day was ending and the first day was beginning.

THEIR ARGUMENT:
Jesus said he would be raised on the third day (Luke 24:46).

My Response:

Interestingly enough, this is true, however Yahoshua also said he would be raised "after" 3 days, and he further expounded by saying he'd be in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights.

Mark 8: 31
"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again."

Let common sense rule for just a moment. If Messiah died on Friday afternoon, and rose on Sunday morning, is that three days? That's only a day and a half people. A day and a half! Catholics created "inclusive reconning" whereby they count Friday as one day, and Saturday as one day, and Sunday as one day, yet, they claim he rose at the beginning of the day on Sunday, so how can they possibly count it as a day? If your travel agent promised you three days and three nights vacation and booked you from Friday afternoon, to return on Sunday, you'd sue! Yet, you accept without question the Catholic's doctrine, which is designed to make the worship of Messiah align with the worship of the Sun God (on "Sun" day).

So, was Messiah contradicting himself and scripture by saying both, "on the third day" and "after three days?" Not if you understand that he arose at the end of the third day, when it was a "grey" area whether you say "on the third day" or "after 3 days." If he rose at the tail end of the third day, when the first day of the week was beginning, then BOTH statements "on the third day" and "after three days" can be true. However, if he rose at dawn of the third day, the phrase "after" three days can NEVER be true!

This is only one contradiction that arises when you believe the "inclusive reconning" and that Messiah died Friday afternoon and rose on Sunday at dawn.

Messiah clearly said he would be in the tomb for "three days and three nights."

Matthew 12: 40
"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

If Messiah died on Friday, and rose on Sunday dawn, even if you count friday as the first day, and Sunday as the third, he was still only in the tomb 2 nights, (Friday night, and Saturday night). Scripture cannot be broken. The teaching of "the Lord's Day" doctrine cannot possibly be true without ignoring almost everything that Messiah said about his own resurrection.

THEIR ARGUMENT:
While walking on the road to Emmaus, Cleopas told Christ "today is the third day," since Jesus was delivered, condemned to death, and crucified (Lk 24:13-21).

Response: Even if this conversation took place on the same day Yahoshua supposedly arose (Sunday) it does not prove anything. Why? Because if Messiah died on Wednesday afternoon, near the end of the day, when the passover lamb was being prepared for the High Sabbath, the disciples would not count Wednesday as a day. So, Wednesday sundown to Thursday sundown is one day, Thursday Sundown to Friday Sundown is two days, and Friday Sundown to Saturday sundown is three days. If Cleophus was speaking sometime Sunday morning, or early afternoon, indeed 4 days had not yet passed. He would not say "this is the fourth day since Messiah was crucified," because only 3 days had passed. He would not have said "it's been 4 days" until after Sunday sundown, until the sun went down on Sunday it was still only three whole days.

THEIR ARGUMENT:
Verse 13 declares that the journey to Emmaus was on the same day the women went to the tomb. So Jesus was raised on the day the women went to the tomb, the same day Cleopas went to Emmaus which was the third day since Jesus had died.

Response: If Messiah died on Friday afternoon like they say, and rose at Sunday dawn, would Cleophus have said "this is the third day since the crucifixion? Let's count the days. Friday sundown to Saturday Sundown (1 day), Saturday Sundown to Sunday Sundown (2 days). How could Cleophus have said "this is three days since crucifixion" if he was speaking on the day of the ressurection (Sunday)like Irvin maintains, and Messiah died on Friday like Christians maintain? Cleophus wouldn't have said "this is the third day since" seeing that only 1 full day had passed (friday sundown to saturday sundown) and they were still working on the second day. (Saturday sundown to Sunday sundown) As you can see, when you take into account that Hebrews count the beginning of days at Sundown, there is no way the scriptural accounts can line up with the Roman teachings concerning the crucifixion and the Resurrection. No wonder for over a thousand years Rome tried to exterminate the Jews, the Hebrew ways expose the lies of Catholic Dogma, right down to their every day living!

THEIR ARGUMENT:
What day was it? Luke 24:1 says the women went to the tomb on the first day of the week. The women did not go to the tomb on the Sabbath day nor was the Sabbath the third day following the death of Jesus. Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week.

Response:

Now, this is a very interesting statement indeed. Notice how emphatically Irvin says these women wouldn't have gone to the tomb on the Sabbath. Shouldn't we be asking him why not? He's already maintained that the sabbath day was done away in Messiah, and claimed that the followers of Messiah didn't keep the Sabbath. So what would stop them from going to the tomb on the Sabbath? This is the most comical of all the Christian arguments, they claim the followers of Messiah did not keep Sabbath, and do not keep Sabbath, then when speaking of Messiah's followers visiting the tomb they always say "and of course they wouldn't go to the tomb on Sabbath!" Thus the completely contradict themselves.

Yet, he's right, they wouldn't go to the tomb on the Sabbath for two reasons. Reason number one, it was the Sabbath, and they kept the Sabbath. Reason number two, Messiah said he'd rise "after" three days "and" three nights, and the Sabbath day was the third day. They knew he wouldn't rise until at least the end of the Sabbath day. So why didn't they go there right at dusk on Saturday? Decent Israeli women did not venture out after dark (only ladies of the evening did this, which is why they are called ladies of the evening).

THEIR ARGUMENT:
The church of Christ had its beginning on the first Pentecost day following the resurrection of Christ. Please see Acts chapter 2. Pentecost was one of five Jewish celebrations commanded in Lev. 23. Beginning at a specific Sabbath, the Jews were to number 7 Sabbaths complete.

Response:

Here Irvin goes again, completely contradicting himself. The entire thrust of this article is to prove that the "law of Moses" is done away, and that the first Christians didn't follow the law of Moses, now, here he admits openly that the first Christians "were all gathered together in one place" to observe the "Pentecost" which is an observance found in the law of Moses! It never dawns on Irvin (or other Christians who make this particular argument) how this contradicts everything they assert, for here we have scriptural evidence that not only did the early followers of Messiah KEEP sabbath, they kept Pentecost as well. As far as his counting of the days, well, it's nonsense I'm not even going to go into it.

THEIR ARGUMENT:
Christians are taught by command (Heb 10:25) and by example (Acts 20:7) to commune on the first day of the week.

Response:

Here is the most astounding contradiction of all! In the beginning of the article Irvin asserts that Christians are no longer under "laws of observances" to observe one day above another, and that "Christ has set us free of law" now, he backpedals and establishes a new law of observance that, as he puts it, is "commanded." The law of "Sunday observance." He can't seem to make up his mind whether we must observe one day above another or not, nor can he make up his mind as to whether we are "free from law" or not. He says we are free from "Moses' law," then says you are in bondage to a "Sunday observance law." (Which is actually Catholic law). Therein lies the crux of the sin, they take away YHWH's law and put in it's place the Roman law of Sunday observance. When protestants make this argument they reveal themselves as the "closet" Catholics that they really are.

Let's look at the scriptures he uses to assert this bogus claim:

Hebrews 10:25
"Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some; but exhorting and so much the more, as you see the day approaching."

Nowhere does this text even remotely mention "first day" observance at all! Irvin simply has no scripture to back up his claim that we are "commanded" to observe first day observances.

Let's look at the other quote he gives:

Acts 20: 7
"And upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached to them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."

Yes, this does mention the first day of the week, but what does it say they gathered for? To break bread which is a phrase meaning to "eat dinner together." Are we then commanded to "eat dinner" when we assemble on Sunday to our church meetings? Then why did Paul say not to do this, but to eat in your own houses?

1 Corinthians 11: 20-22
"20 When you come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
21 For in eating every one takes before his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22 What? Have you not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise you the congregation of YHWH, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not."

Clearly, the "assembling" of yourselves together is not to "break bread." So, in Acts, they weren't assembling to honor a new Sabbath observance, the disciples of which this chapter speaks merely had a habit of eating dinner together on the first day! This shows how desperate the "Lord's Day" advocates are to find scriptures that back up their teachings.

They find one verse in acts that shows the disciples getting together on the first day to "break bread" and turn this into a so called rock solid proof that they changed the Sabbath to the first day. Yet, they ignore all the other verses in Acts that show the disciples honoring the Sabbath!

ACTS 2: 12-14
"12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
13 and when they were come in, the went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and thomas, Bartholomew, and Mattew, James the son of Alphaeus, and simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Yahshua, and with his brethren."

ACTS 13:14
"14 but when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and sat down."

ACTS 16:13
"13 And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down and spoke to the women which resorted there."

ACTS 17: 1- 2
"1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in to them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,"

THEIR ARGUMENT:
first day is distinguished from all the other days of the week because of worship performed on this day that must not be performed on any other day.

Response:

In the two scriptures here quoted, the first doesn't even mention the first day, and in the second the "worship performed" on that day according to the verse was "breaking of bread," and breaking of bread is not worship according to scripture. Never was, never will be. It's only classified as worship in Catholicism, because they have established the Holy Eucharist, which Protestants claim to reject as worship, yet, here's a protestant defending the notion that "breaking of bread" is worship! Me thinks the Catholics have pulled a funny trick on the silly Protestants by getting them to accept the "Lord's Day" Dogma.

THEIR ARGUMENT:
Paul commanded a collection to be taken on the first day of the week (1st Cor 16:1-3).

Response:

What does this verse actually say?

"Upon the first of the week let every one of you lay by him in store."

Again, here is another place where the KJV translators insert the word "day" in an attempt to make it appear as though the early church thought Sunday was some special day. In all actuality, these verses do not demonstrate the importance of Sunday, but instead prove beyond doubt that the early church observed Seventh Day Sabbath. In these verses, Paul is not ordering a "collection" but a "storage." It's telling them to begin storing food at the beginning of the week, to be collected on Sabbath to give to the poor (which is in fact a custom that goes back to Moses' law). I almost laughed at this argument, really.

The reason he instructed them to begin storing on the first day is because the collection was taken on the seventh day, then the storage began all over again the very next day.

THEIR ARGUMENT:
Those who practice Sabbath keeping claim this was a special collection and would not be continued after Paul came to take it to Jerusalem.

Response:

Not so. This is a very old trick of "Christian Apologists," in which they create an argument supposedly put forth by the opposition, an argument which is easy to refute and that has never been offered once by those with whom the Christian is debating. I'm a Sabbath keeper, and I can tell you Irvin is not qualified to speak for me, or for any other Sabbath keeper. He puts an argument in the mouth of Sabbath keepers everywhere then refutes the argument.

I, a Sabbath keeper, have never said this "storage and collection" ordered by Paul is a "special collection on the first day of the week," I say the collection doesn't take place on the first day of the week. On the first day of the week there is no collection at all. The first day is the day in which Paul said to begin "gathering in store by the individual," to be collected later (on the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath day). The "gathering in store" only "begins" on the first day, it's not limited "to" the first day! Why does it begin on the first day? Because on the Seventh day is when the food that has been "stored" all week is collected, and on the first day the "storage" begins all over again. Irvin's entire argument is just nonsense, and it's based on a purely religious view, coming from someone steeped in Christian religious teaching, (Roman teaching).

THEIR ARGUMENT:
Please note that the passage does not say "that there be no more collections ever again, after I come," but says simply that they were to take a collection each first day so the funds would be ready...

Response:

No actually what it says is that they should store it up, so that the person collecting doesn't have to sit around and wait while they go scrambling to find food to give to the poor. This is almost humorous.

THEIR ARGUMENT:
Nothing is said to prove that they would not continue the first day collection every first day of the week after Paul departed...

Response:

Yes, and nothing is said about a collection on the first day, it says the "storage" begins on the first day, and the collection is later. Furthermore, nothing is said here about the storage being only on the "first day" it says "upon" the first day let everyone begin to store up for the poor."

THEIR ARGUMENT:
The first day is distinguished by this act of giving in the assembly on each first day of the week.

Response:

No, actually the seventh day is distinguished by when the storage begins, for common sense dictates that this storage would begin the very next day after the collection, and indeed that's the first day, since the collection takes place on the seventh day. Well did Yahoshua say of these, "they have eyes to see but they cannot see." Well did the Apostles write of them, "ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

THEIR ARGUMENT:
THE SABBATH IS GONE
The first day of the week is not a Christian Sabbath. There is no Sabbath in God's plan for the New Testament age of the world. Because of greed the people of old asked, "When will the Sabbath be gone?"

Response:

Notice the spin Irvin puts on this scripture. He fails to see that the Israelites were rebuked for wanting the Sabbath GONE, and yet, that is exactly what Irvin has attempted to do, make the Sabbath go away. Yet, it will never go away. YHWH said it is a "perpetual sign" meaning it never ends! Unless YHWH is a liar!

My bet on who's lying should be obvious, and I'll give you a hint, it's not YHWH!

THEIR ARGUMENT:
After rebuking them for their covetousness,

Response:

Again, they were rebuked not for covetousness, but for wanting the Sabbath to be gone!

THEIR ARGUMENT:
the prophet Amos answered, "And it shall come to pass in the day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day," Amos 8:4-9. This was fulfilled when Jesus died on the cross. "Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour," Matthew 27:45. Paul explains that Jesus took away the law contained in ordinances, blotting out the ordinances by nailing them to the cross (Eph 2:14-15 & Col 2:14-16).

Response:

Here Irvin misses the entire significance of the prophecy and it's fulfillment. The people of Israel wanted the Sabbath Day to go away, and Amos told them, "not only is it never going away, one day it will become perpetual, and they will keep the Sabbath every day, there's coming a Sabbath day that never ends."

That was the significance of "the day." Messiah ushered in a day when we keep the Sabbath, not just once a week, but every single day, and we all press into that rest, in which we cease from our own works and our own doings, and do the will of the Father!

My answer to Irivin's statement "The Sabbath is gone," is the same as Amos' answer to Israelites. Not only is the Sabbath NOT gone, we are coming to a MILLENIAL Sabbath, that will last one thousand years, and after that, on into eternity. Notice that when Israel asked "when will Sabbath end" Amos never once says "after Messiah comes." You would think if Messiah was going to do away with Sabbath, Amos would certainly have answered by telling them of Messiah.

THEIR ARGUMENT:
Hosea 2:11 tells of a time when Israel's feast days (yearly festivals), her new moons (monthly observances), and her Sabbaths (weekly observances), would cease.

Response:

Yes, so does Daniel, when speaking of the BEAST!

"He shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abomination he shall make it desolate."

"He shall take away the daily sacrifice, and place the abomination that makes desolate."

THEIR ARGUMENT:
Paul explains that since Jesus has died, "Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days," Col 2:14-16. The holyday refers to the yearly feasts, the new moon to the monthly feasts and the Sabbath refers to the weekly sabbath.

Response:

Not so! Irvin took this entirely out of context, for the author of Col 2 was not talking about the Holy Sabbath that was instituted by YHWH, but was instead talking about the observances instituted by man, how do I know? Because the author said so.

Colossians 2: 22
"(which all are to perish with the using:) after the commandments and doctrines of men?"

In fact, this exhortation to not let others judge you according to sabbath days is more aptly applied to the "Sunday obervance" doctrine, for Sunday observance commands were instituted by men, whereas the Sabbath by YHWH! In other words, the author of Colossians was saying, don't let them make new Sabbaths, and observances and rules and put them on you! Which is precisely what the Christian Religion has done. You might say, but Christianity doesn't judge you for keeping the Sabbath!

Yes they do, and all one has to do is discuss this issue with most Christians and they will offer the proof of this judgment. Most Christians will say that those who abondon Christ's Law to try to follow the rules and regulations of Moses' Law are "fallen from grace," and they will quote to you Galatians 5:1-6; 2:16.

The rest of the arguments offered by Irvin can easily be refuted by saying this:

Truly, if you keep the law by having it written in your heart and in your mind, you, indeed are free from the law, for you no longer have to observe it by observation, but can observe it in your daily lives. We no longer keep the law by reading, memorizing, and attempting to apply law, for the Holy Spirit moves in and we surrender to him, and we keep that same Moses law by the power of Love. In other words, we, like Yahoshua fulfill the law.

Only the transgressors are under the law. Yet, if I throw out the law, and say that I don't have to obey it, then I thwart the ministry of the Holy Spirit who was sent to lead and guide us into perfect obedience. Indeed I destroy the very ministry of Messiah, who died to send us the Holy Spirit, so that this law they say has been done away could be written in our hearts and minds and live forever, we becoming a living example and testimony of the righteousness of the law!

All who teach that we can live as we want to live, and that the ten commandments are not for today, are of their father the devil, for he sinned from the beginning and they desire only to use the grace of YHWH as an occasion to the flesh, to continue in their sin, and to never please YHWH.


Yahweh bless and keep you, IN HIS LOVE.


Shalom

J. Dean



Click The Back To ome PageTo Go To Home Page