You are on page 1of 25

Refuting The

Christian Arguments
Concerning Sunday
Observances

I was reading a popular Christian Forums several years


back, and several articles were posted to back up Sunday
Observance over Seventh Day observance (commanded by
God 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.h
tm

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. 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 Yahshua 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 Yahshua 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 Yahshua 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 they 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 God'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 God, 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:
The first of the two scriptures here quoted (to support the
above statement) doesn't even mention the first day
observance, and in second quote 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. He puts an argument in the mouth of Sabbath
keepers everywhere then refutes the argument.
I have not noticed Sabbath keepers saying this "storage and
collection" ordered by Paul is a "special collection on the
first day of the week," The simple fact is, this 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 Yahshua 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.
God said it is a "perpetual sign" meaning it never ends!
Unless God is a liar!
My bet on who's lying should be obvious, and I'll give you
a hint, it's not God!
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." He also repeats the same contradiction as
I mentioned before. Earlier he has stated that Sunday (first
day) worship is now COMMANDED by scripture, now
here he is saying that Christ nailed the ordinances regarding
upon which day we are to worship. Christians, when they
say the Sabbath law is done away, really mean that God's
Sabbath law was done away with and the Roman Catholic
Sabbath Law was INSTITUTED! It's a changing of God's
law to man's law (and guess what that is exactly what the
prophets said the antichrist would do "think to change times
and laws).
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 God, 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
God! 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 abandon
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 Yahshua 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 God as an occasion to the flesh, to
continue in their sin, and to never please God.