Angels

[bobinfaith]

Hello Michael;

In God's Word Cherub is a high ranking angelic servant and Ram was the sacrifice God provided to Abraham instead of Isaac, thus CherubRam.

CherubRam is an interesting name. Are you a disciple of Judaism Christian belief?

Please review our Biblical Debate Board and forum rules.

I don't personally debate, however, I do share my apologetic beliefs that are supported by sola scriptura.

My wife and I reside and serve the Lord in the SF Bay Area and are supporters of Jews for Jesus and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.

God bless you, Michael, and your entire family.

Bob

 

[David]

Hello, my name is Michael. I am a non-trin Christian. I believe in keeping the commanded Sabbath and the moral commands of God.

Does this forum allow doctrinal debate?

Yes, doctrinal discussion is allowed here. What is not allowed is the promotion of teaching that contradicts clear Scripture, especially when it alters or denies core biblical doctrine.

Biblical Truth Forum exists for discussion under the authority of Scripture, not debate that treats settled biblical truths as negotiable opinions.

Members are free to ask questions, examine passages, compare interpretations, and test ideas openly. Acts 17:11 commends believers who “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Honest examination is welcome.

However, the forum does not allow teaching that:

Denies or rewrites doctrines plainly taught in Scripture.
Reframes Christ’s warnings about judgment, salvation, or sin in ways that contradict His own words.
Presents doctrinal error as biblical truth after correction has been given from Scripture.

Titus 3:10 instructs, “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.” The purpose is protection of readers, not suppression of discussion.

So the answer is simple:

Yes, doctrinal discussion is allowed.
No, doctrinal contradiction of clear Scripture is not permitted to stand as teaching.

Discussion seeks understanding under God’s Word. The forum is not a platform for redefining what Scripture plainly says.

 

[Rose]

Did God create the angels? When were they created?

 

[David]

The angels did not always exist. Only God has existed from everlasting to everlasting. It is obvious from Scripture that angels are created. Colossians clearly reveals where they came from: “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” ~Colossians 1:16. Notice that “principalities” and “powers” are referencing the spiritual realm unseen by the physical eye. Angels were spoken into existence by Christ.

Psalm 148 declares the same truth. “Praise ye him, all his angels… Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created” ~Psalm 148:2,5. Angels did not evolve. Angels did not just randomly happen into existence. God spoke and they were there.

Here is where Scripture reveals what may have happened. God formed the foundation of the earth and angels were already in existence watching His masterpiece being formed. When God asked Job where he was during creation, he said, “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” ~Job 38:4,7.

Imagine creation for a moment. Imagine that moment when God had just finished speaking the universe into existence. Imagine the angels watching as He spoke the earth into form by His word. They were there rejoicing like a heavenly choir at the mighty power and wisdom of their Maker. Angels were present because they had already been created by their Maker.

Scripture never tells us when they were created. Genesis never states on what day of creation they were made. All Scripture says is that angels already existed when God laid the foundation of the earth. Once Scripture stops telling us what happened, we need to stop guessing at what happened.

But Scripture does reveal why they exist. “Hebrews 1:14 says, “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” Angels are servants of God. Angels work hard to achieve the will of God. They serve in His kingdom.

But here is why it really matters. The angels that caused heaven and earth to shake with their worship are servants to the same King that sent His only Son to save sinners from their hell-deserving sins. The Creator of angels became man to dwell among us to reconcile us back to Himself. God created angels to worship Him, and because they cannot redeem us from our sins, God sent His Son to do that. Let that put your puzzle into perspective. The Creator of angels laid down His life to redeem you and me.

 

[CherubRam]

Hello Michael;

In God's Word Cherub is a high ranking angelic servant and Ram was the sacrifice God provided to Abraham instead of Isaac, thus CherubRam.

CherubRam is an interesting name. Are you a disciple of Judaism Christian belief?

Please review our Biblical Debate Board and forum rules.

I don't personally debate, however, I do share my apologetic beliefs that are supported by sola scriptura.

My wife and I reside and serve the Lord in the SF Bay Area and are supporters of Jews for Jesus and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.

God bless you, Michael, and your entire family.

Bob

A ram is a leader of the sheep. CherubRam means Highest Spiritual Ram. Years ago I needed a User Name and made up names at random until the computer program finally accepted this one. CherubRam
I am a (Judaeo / Judaic) Christian.
I live in the state of Oregon.

 

[CherubRam]

Hello Michael;

In God's Word Cherub is a high ranking angelic servant and Ram was the sacrifice God provided to Abraham instead of Isaac, thus CherubRam.

CherubRam is an interesting name. Are you a disciple of Judaism Christian belief?

Please review our Biblical Debate Board and forum rules.

I don't personally debate, however, I do share my apologetic beliefs that are supported by sola scriptura.

My wife and I reside and serve the Lord in the SF Bay Area and are supporters of Jews for Jesus and the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.

God bless you, Michael, and your entire family.

Bob

Quote: "Opinion, tradition, and personal experience are never treated as equal to Scripture."

Trinitarianism and Sunday Sabbath were established by the Catholic Church, that is, according to history.

In History
Originally the Judaizing Christians were the ones who had the letters of the Disciples. The Catholics got their scriptures from the Judaizing Christians and proceeded to alter them to make them acceptable to the Pagans.

I have noticed that this place does not even accept biblical foot notes of Study Bibles.

 

[David]

I have noticed that this place does not even accept biblical foot notes of Study Bibles.

One small clarification about the forum rules.

When the guideline says that opinion, tradition, and personal experience are not treated as equal to Scripture, that does not mean study helps are automatically rejected. Study Bible footnotes, cross references, language notes, and similar tools can be useful if they are pointing back to what the text of Scripture actually says.

What we do not allow is elevating human commentary to the level of authority, or using notes and traditions to make Scripture say something that is not written in the passage itself.

The standard is simple. Everything must stand or fall by the Word of God.

The Bereans were called noble because they “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” ~Acts 17:11. Even the apostle Paul’s teaching was examined against the Scriptures.

So if a study note helps explain a passage and it can be supported by the text itself and the whole counsel of Scripture, it is welcome. If it contradicts or replaces what Scripture plainly says, then it will be challenged.

That is the approach we try to keep here. Scripture first, everything else tested by it.

 

[David]

Quote: "Opinion, tradition, and personal experience are never treated as equal to Scripture."

Trinitarianism and Sunday Sabbath were established by the Catholic Church, that is, according to history.

In History
Originally the Judaizing Christians were the ones who had the letters of the Disciples. The Catholics got their scriptures from the Judaizing Christians and proceeded to alter them to make them acceptable to the Pagans.

Just to be clear, this forum is not connected with Catholicism, and Catholic doctrine is not the authority here. The standard for discussion on this forum is Scripture alone.

When the rules state that opinion, tradition, and personal experience are not treated as equal to Scripture, that includes Catholic tradition as well as anyone else’s tradition. Everything must be tested by what is written in the Word of God.

Claims about doctrines being invented by a church institution do not determine truth. What matters is whether the teaching is found in Scripture.

For example, Scripture clearly speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together: Jesus commanded baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” ~Matthew 28:19. At the baptism of Christ, “Jesus… went up straightway out of the water… the Spirit of God descending like a dove… and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son” ~Matthew 3:16-17.

Likewise, the New Testament records believers gathering on the first day of the week: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them” ~Acts 20:7.

So the issue here is not what the Catholic Church claims, or what any other institution claims. The question is simply this: What do the Scriptures say?

That is the authority we operate under here. Any doctrine presented in discussion should be supported directly from Scripture and examined in its context.

 

[Capbook]

Just to be clear, this forum is not connected with Catholicism, and Catholic doctrine is not the authority here. The standard for discussion on this forum is Scripture alone.

When the rules state that opinion, tradition, and personal experience are not treated as equal to Scripture, that includes Catholic tradition as well as anyone else’s tradition. Everything must be tested by what is written in the Word of God.

Claims about doctrines being invented by a church institution do not determine truth. What matters is whether the teaching is found in Scripture.

For example, Scripture clearly speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together: Jesus commanded baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” ~Matthew 28:19. At the baptism of Christ, “Jesus… went up straightway out of the water… the Spirit of God descending like a dove… and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son” ~Matthew 3:16-17.

Likewise, the New Testament records believers gathering on the first day of the week: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them” ~Acts 20:7.

So the issue here is not what the Catholic Church claims, or what any other institution claims. The question is simply this: What do the Scriptures say?

That is the authority we operate under here. Any doctrine presented in discussion should be supported directly from Scripture and examined in its context.

I just would like to follow CherubRam point about the Sabbath.
Is keeping the Sabbath included as good work the result of faith in Ephesians 2:10?
As the early believers whom visited Jesus at His tomb on a Friday then returned home and rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment. (Luke 23:54-56)

 

[OceanLilly]

A ram is a leader of the sheep. CherubRam means Highest Spiritual Ram. Years ago I needed a User Name and made up names at random until the computer program finally accepted this one. CherubRam
I am a (Judaeo / Judaic) Christian.
I live in the state of Oregon.

You're a Messianic Jew.
That is a blessing indeed.

 

[David]

I just would like to follow CherubRam point about the Sabbath.
Is keeping the Sabbath included as good work the result of faith in Ephesians 2:10?
As the early believers whom visited Jesus at His tomb on a Friday then returned home and rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment. (Luke 23:54-56)

Ephesians 2:10 says believers walk in good works prepared by God. But it does not redefine the Sabbath as a required work for the church. It has to be read with the rest of Scripture.

Luke 23:54–56 shows those women resting on the Sabbath before the resurrection, still under the old covenant pattern. That’s important context. It’s describing what they did at that time, not commanding how believers must live after Christ fulfilled the law.

Now look at what Scripture says after the cross. “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17. The Sabbath is called a shadow, pointing forward to Christ.

And Romans 14:5 says, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” That removes it as a binding requirement.

So no, keeping the Sabbath is not presented in the New Testament as a required “good work” flowing from faith.

The good works of Ephesians 2:10 come from walking in obedience to Christ, not returning to shadows He has already fulfilled.

The issue isn’t whether the Sabbath existed. It did.

The issue is whether Scripture commands it for believers after Christ.

And the answer, from the text, is no.

 

[Capbook]

Ephesians 2:10 says believers walk in good works prepared by God. But it does not redefine the Sabbath as a required work for the church. It has to be read with the rest of Scripture.

Aren't we believers are to be called "the people of God?"

Heb 4:9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

Luke 23:54–56 shows those women resting on the Sabbath before the resurrection, still under the old covenant pattern. That’s important context. It’s describing what they did at that time, not commanding how believers must live after Christ fulfilled the law.

Now look at what Scripture says after the cross. “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17. The Sabbath is called a shadow, pointing forward to Christ.

Aren't verses 16, & 17, also the content of handwriting of ordinances in verse 14

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

And Romans 14:5 says, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” That removes it as a binding requirement.

Isn't the context speak about one who fast and one who eat?

Rom 14:3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

So no, keeping the Sabbath is not presented in the New Testament as a required “good work” flowing from faith.

The good works of Ephesians 2:10 come from walking in obedience to Christ, not returning to shadows He has already fulfilled.

The issue isn’t whether the Sabbath existed. It did.

The issue is whether Scripture commands it for believers after Christ.

And the answer, from the text, is no.

I'm quite confused why Hebrews 4:9 states it so for the "people of God."
As the word "Sabbath rest" with Strong#G4520, in Greek "σαββατισμός sabbatismos" Bible lexicon defined it as means - 1) sabbath keeping and 2) future rest to come.

Likewise, sabbatismos as derivative of G4521 (Sabbaton), the weekly Sabbath.
Thus, per Bible lexicon one definition as “Sabbath keeping” I believe means the weekly Sabbath in verse 4 and 10.

(NAS95+) Heb 4:9 SoG686 there remainsG620 a SabbathG4520 restG4520 for the peopleG2992 of GodG2316.

G4520
σαββατισμός sabbatismos
Thayer Definition:
1) a keeping sabbath
2) the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a derivative of G4521

 

[David]

Aren't we believers are to be called "the people of God?"

Heb 4:9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.

Aren't verses 16, & 17, also the content of handwriting of ordinances in verse 14

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Isn't the context speak about one who fast and one who eat?

Rom 14:3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

I'm quite confused why Hebrews 4:9 states it so for the "people of God."
As the word "Sabbath rest" with Strong#G4520, in Greek "σαββατισμός sabbatismos" Bible lexicon defined it as means - 1) sabbath keeping and 2) future rest to come.

Likewise, sabbatismos as derivative of G4521 (Sabbaton), the weekly Sabbath.
Thus, per Bible lexicon one definition as “Sabbath keeping” I believe means the weekly Sabbath in verse 4 and 10.

(NAS95+) Heb 4:9 SoG686 there remainsG620 a SabbathG4520 restG4520 for the peopleG2992 of GodG2316.

G4520
σαββατισμός sabbatismos
Thayer Definition:
1) a keeping sabbath
2) the blessed rest from toils and troubles looked for in the age to come by the true worshippers of God and true Christians
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a derivative of G4521

What you’re looking at there is a lexicon entry, not Scripture itself. It’s a man-made attempt to describe how a Greek word is used. The word in Hebrews 4:9 is σαββατισμός (sabbatismos), and yes, it comes from the word for Sabbath, so it naturally carries the idea of a “Sabbath-like rest.” But the definition in a lexicon does not control the meaning. Scripture does.

Hebrews 4 explains exactly what that word means in its own context. Earlier in the chapter, it says, “For we which have believed do enter into rest” ~Hebrews 4:3. That is present tense. This is not just something future. It is something believers enter now by faith. Then the passage reaches back to God resting on the seventh day, not to command a pattern, but to show a picture of a completed work.

By the time you reach verse 9, “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God,” the meaning is already being built. Then verse 10 defines it plainly: “For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.” That is the key. The rest being described is not about observing a day. It is about ceasing from your own works and resting in what God has done.

Now look back at the lexicon definition you quoted. It gives two possible meanings, one being “a keeping sabbath” and the other being a future or blessed rest. Only one of those fits what Hebrews 4 is actually saying. The chapter already made it clear that Israel had the Sabbath and still did not enter God’s rest. Hebrews 4:8 says, “For if Jesus [Joshua] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” That shows the weekly Sabbath was never the final rest.

So the word “sabbatismos” is being used to describe the true rest that the Sabbath pointed toward all along. It is the fulfillment, not a return to the shadow. This lines up with what the rest of Scripture says. “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17. The shadow pointed forward, but the substance is Christ.

So when you see that lexicon entry, understand it this way. It gives you a range of possible meanings, but the passage itself tells you which one is correct. In Hebrews 4, the Holy Spirit defines that word as the rest that comes from trusting God’s finished work, not as a command to keep a weekly Sabbath.

 

[Capbook]

What you’re looking at there is a lexicon entry, not Scripture itself. It’s a man-made attempt to describe how a Greek word is used. The word in Hebrews 4:9 is σαββατισμός (sabbatismos), and yes, it comes from the word for Sabbath, so it naturally carries the idea of a “Sabbath-like rest.”

I am used to consult Bible Lexicons as they I believe are credentialed lexicographers that define Bible words from original languages and render what it means at the time such word was used.
And if Bible lexicographers are unreliable as man-made, Bible translators are also human.
Some based their translation from original Bible words but some based from the translators thoughts.

In this case, the English "Sabbath rest" in Greek "σαββατισμός (sabbatismos)" is used only in this verse.
Which I believe Bible lexicons can help, and that the Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God, refer to the weekly Sabbath, as the Greek word (Sabbatismos) a derivative of Sabbaton, the weekly Sabbath.

But the definition in a lexicon does not control the meaning. Scripture does.

And if we let the Scriptures interpret itself, the context I believe still refer to the weekly Sabbath.
As when the people of God kept that remained Sabbath rest (Sabbatismos), also entered God's rest, as God rested on the seventh day from all His works. (Heb 4:4, Gen 2:2, Ex 20:11)
And that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord our God. (Ex 20:10)

Heb 4:9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

Hebrews 4 explains exactly what that word means in its own context. Earlier in the chapter, it says, “For we which have believed do enter into rest” ~Hebrews 4:3. That is present tense. This is not just something future. It is something believers enter now by faith. Then the passage reaches back to God resting on the seventh day, not to command a pattern, but to show a picture of a completed work.

By the time you reach verse 9, “There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God,” the meaning is already being built. Then verse 10 defines it plainly: “For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.” That is the key. The rest being described is not about observing a day. It is about ceasing from your own works and resting in what God has done.

I believe verse 4, interpret what God's rest people of God entered into.
As the phrase, "for he (believer) entered into God's rest, also ceased from all his own work," this made clear in "as God did from His."(v.10)
And when did God ceased or rest from His work?
Verse 4 state, "And God did rest the seventh day from all his works."

Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Now look back at the lexicon definition you quoted. It gives two possible meanings, one being “a keeping sabbath” and the other being a future or blessed rest. Only one of those fits what Hebrews 4 is actually saying. The chapter already made it clear that Israel had the Sabbath and still did not enter God’s rest. Hebrews 4:8 says, “For if Jesus [Joshua] had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” That shows the weekly Sabbath was never the final rest.

Even if we avoid the meaning of "Sabbath rest (Sabbatismos) as not the weekly Sabbath.
Scriptures states clearly to us that in the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells, I understand as no more sin and sinners. All mankind will worship God weekly.
As the word "new moon" with Strong#H2320, in Hebrew "חדשׁ chôdesh" Bible lexicon defined it as means - the first day of the month.

That I understand from the first day of the month as Sabbath, and the next seventh day as Sabbath and so on, from the stated "Sabbath to Sabbath."

2Pe 3:13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

Isa 66:22 "For just as the new heavens and the new earth Which I make will endure before Me," declares the LORD, "So your offspring and your name will endure.

Isa 66:23 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.

Isa 66:23 "And it shall be from R1newH2320 moonH2320 to newH2320 moonH2320 And from sabbathH7676 to sabbathH7676, AllH3605 N1mankindH1320 will comeH935 to R2bowH7812 downH7812 beforeH6440 Me," saysH559 the LORDH3068.

H2320
חדשׁ chôdesh
BDB Definition:
1) the new moon, month, monthly
1a) the first day of the month
1b) the lunar month

So the word “sabbatismos” is being used to describe the true rest that the Sabbath pointed toward all along. It is the fulfillment, not a return to the shadow. This lines up with what the rest of Scripture says. “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17. The shadow pointed forward, but the substance is Christ.

So when you see that lexicon entry, understand it this way. It gives you a range of possible meanings, but the passage itself tells you which one is correct. In Hebrews 4, the Holy Spirit defines that word as the rest that comes from trusting God’s finished work, not as a command to keep a weekly Sabbath.

Whichever of the two Bible lexicon definition we'll use, as I've tried to explain above would ultimately led us to worship God weekly from new moon to another, and from Sabbath to another, in where God planned to make the new heavens and new earth which righteousness dwells, as I understand prepared for the over comers.

 

[David]

I am used to consult Bible Lexicons as they I believe are credentialed lexicographers that define Bible words from original languages and render what it means at the time such word was used.
And if Bible lexicographers are unreliable as man-made, Bible translators are also human.
Some based their translation from original Bible words but some based from the translators thoughts.

In this case, the English "Sabbath rest" in Greek "σαββατισμός (sabbatismos)" is used only in this verse.
Which I believe Bible lexicons can help, and that the Sabbath rest that remains for the people of God, refer to the weekly Sabbath, as the Greek word (Sabbatismos) a derivative of Sabbaton, the weekly Sabbath.

And if we let the Scriptures interpret itself, the context I believe still refer to the weekly Sabbath.
As when the people of God kept that remained Sabbath rest (Sabbatismos), also entered God's rest, as God rested on the seventh day from all His works. (Heb 4:4, Gen 2:2, Ex 20:11)
And that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord our God. (Ex 20:10)

Heb 4:9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

I believe verse 4, interpret what God's rest people of God entered into.
As the phrase, "for he (believer) entered into God's rest, also ceased from all his own work," this made clear in "as God did from His."(v.10)
And when did God ceased or rest from His work?
Verse 4 state, "And God did rest the seventh day from all his works."

Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

Even if we avoid the meaning of "Sabbath rest (Sabbatismos) as not the weekly Sabbath.
Scriptures states clearly to us that in the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells, I understand as no more sin and sinners. All mankind will worship God weekly.
As the word "new moon" with Strong#H2320, in Hebrew "חדשׁ chôdesh" Bible lexicon defined it as means - the first day of the month.

That I understand from the first day of the month as Sabbath, and the next seventh day as Sabbath and so on, from the stated "Sabbath to Sabbath."

2Pe 3:13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

Isa 66:22 "For just as the new heavens and the new earth Which I make will endure before Me," declares the LORD, "So your offspring and your name will endure.

Isa 66:23 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.

Isa 66:23 "And it shall be from R1newH2320 moonH2320 to newH2320 moonH2320 And from sabbathH7676 to sabbathH7676, AllH3605 N1mankindH1320 will comeH935 to R2bowH7812 downH7812 beforeH6440 Me," saysH559 the LORDH3068.

H2320
חדשׁ chôdesh
BDB Definition:
1) the new moon, month, monthly
1a) the first day of the month
1b) the lunar month

Whichever of the two Bible lexicon definition we'll use, as I've tried to explain above would ultimately led us to worship God weekly from new moon to another, and from Sabbath to another, in where God planned to make the new heavens and new earth which righteousness dwells, as I understand prepared for the over comers.

You’re forcing Isaiah 66 to override the clear teaching of the New Testament, and that’s where the error is.

Isaiah uses language Israel understood, but you’re turning that language into a binding command instead of recognizing what it’s pointing to. The New Testament already settled the role of Sabbaths: “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17.

So when you read “from sabbath to sabbath,” you’re taking a shadow and rebuilding it as if Christ never fulfilled it. That’s backwards.

Scripture does not point forward to a return to shadows. It points forward to full, continual worship of God in His presence. The language is familiar, but the fulfillment is greater.

You’re reading it as a calendar requirement. Scripture presents it as fulfilled reality in Christ.

 

[Yesua888]

You’re forcing Isaiah 66 to override the clear teaching of the New Testament, and that’s where the error is.

Isaiah uses language Israel understood, but you’re turning that language into a binding command instead of recognizing what it’s pointing to. The New Testament already settled the role of Sabbaths: “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17.

So when you read “from sabbath to sabbath,” you’re taking a shadow and rebuilding it as if Christ never fulfilled it. That’s backwards.

Scripture does not point forward to a return to shadows. It points forward to full, continual worship of God in His presence. The language is familiar, but the fulfillment is greater.

You’re reading it as a calendar requirement. Scripture presents it as fulfilled reality in Christ.

Hi David,
I have asked a similar question before about "shadows' ...
Perhaps we need a dedecated post on SHADOWS because I am still battling to understand this.
In the Old Testament for eg. God said not to eat pork or shellfish (because they are scavengers and unclean). To me that is a clear command.
Could you try to explain again how the OT command is a "shadow" of what Jesus said in the NT?
Perhaps you could also explain your point above.
Sorry, I am truly battling to digest this : )
Thanks

 

[Yesua888]

Quote: "Opinion, tradition, and personal experience are never treated as equal to Scripture."

Trinitarianism and Sunday Sabbath were established by the Catholic Church, that is, according to history.

In History
Originally the Judaizing Christians were the ones who had the letters of the Disciples. The Catholics got their scriptures from the Judaizing Christians and proceeded to alter them to make them acceptable to the Pagans.

I have noticed that this place does not even accept biblical foot notes of Study Bibles. some reasons why, below

• Use a Bible without study notes for regular reading to maintain focus on the text itself.
• Cross-reference multiple study Bibles or commentaries to gain a broader understanding of differing scholarly views.
• Examine the primary text and context before consulting footnotes to ensure a balanced interpretation.
• Be aware of the translation's editorial stance, as footnotes often reflect the specific scholarly methodology of the translation committee.

The footnotes in major study Bibles are typically written by prominent biblical scholars, theologians, and editorial teams associated with specific denominations or academic institutions. Key figures and groups include:

1. Cyrus I. Scofield: The most influential early figure, he single-handedly authored the notes for the Scofield Reference Bible (1909), which popularized dispensationalist theology. While later editions had revisions, the core notes are his work.
2. Large Scholarly Teams: Modern comprehensive study Bibles are collaborative efforts by dozens of scholars.
   
   • The ESV Study Bible was created by a team of 95 scholars from various evangelical institutions and countries, including notable figures like J. I. Packer, D. A. Carson, and Tim Keller.
   • The NIV Zondervan Study Bible (formerly NIV Study Bible) features contributions from over 60 scholars, including D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Kevin DeYoung.
3. Individual Theologians: Some study Bibles are the work of a single prominent teacher.
   
   • The footnotes, outlines, and cross-references for the Recovery Version were written by Witness Lee, founder of the Local Churches movement.
4. Denominational Committees: Catholic study Bibles, like the New American Bible or Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition, have footnotes written by committees of Catholic scholars and clergy, often under the auspices of a bishops' conference.

 

[Capbook]

You’re forcing Isaiah 66 to override the clear teaching of the New Testament, and that’s where the error is.

The Old Testament is the one mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16,17 as stated, inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction for training in righteousness. So that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

I just follow what the Scriptures said and not forcing to override any teaching, and as stated also for correction.
And besides, it looks forward and pointing to the future, God would make the new heavens and new earth where God's righteous people dwells, and will worship Him every week, from new moon to another and Sabbath to another.
And also nothing in the context that said it is a shadow.

Isaiah uses language Israel understood, but you’re turning that language into a binding command instead of recognizing what it’s pointing to. The New Testament already settled the role of Sabbaths: “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17.

Yes, I believe the prior verse 14 mentioned those handwriting ordinances, the shadows that was nailed to the cross, but never was the fingerwritten Law of God.

So when you read “from sabbath to sabbath,” you’re taking a shadow and rebuilding it as if Christ never fulfilled it. That’s backwards.

Isaiah 66:22.23, as the author states is pointing forward to the future, when God will make the new heavens and new earth, where righteousness dwells.
It does not go backwards as new heavens and new earth are not yet existing today.

Scripture does not point forward to a return to shadows. It points forward to full, continual worship of God in His presence. The language is familiar, but the fulfillment is greater.

You’re reading it as a calendar requirement. Scripture presents it as fulfilled reality in Christ.

I'm reading it based on what 2 Timothy 3:16 states.
And what the author of Isaiah wants us to see, are for the overcomers where all righteous dwells.
Also, the new heavens and new earth was shown to John in Revelation, where the holy city new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, inside were the righteous overcomers whose name are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.
Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

 

[David]

The Old Testament is the one mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16,17 as stated, inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction for training in righteousness. So that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

I just follow what the Scriptures said and not forcing to override any teaching, and as stated also for correction.
And besides, it looks forward and pointing to the future, God would make the new heavens and new earth where God's righteous people dwells, and will worship Him every week, from new moon to another and Sabbath to another.
And also nothing in the context that said it is a shadow.

Yes, I believe the prior verse 14 mentioned those handwriting ordinances, the shadows that was nailed to the cross, but never was the fingerwritten Law of God.

Isaiah 66:22.23, as the author states is pointing forward to the future, when God will make the new heavens and new earth, where righteousness dwells.
It does not go backwards as new heavens and new earth are not yet existing today.

I'm reading it based on what 2 Timothy 3:16 states.
And what the author of Isaiah wants us to see, are for the overcomers where all righteous dwells.
Also, the new heavens and new earth was shown to John in Revelation, where the holy city new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, inside were the righteous overcomers whose name are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.
Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev 21:27 and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

You’re right that all Scripture is God-breathed. But you’re missing how Scripture itself tells you to read Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16 does not mean every Old Testament command stays binding the same way after Christ. If that were true, you would still be offering sacrifices, keeping dietary laws, and observing every ordinance given to Israel. But Scripture itself says those things were fulfilled.

The issue is not whether Isaiah is true. The issue is how Isaiah is fulfilled.

You’re isolating Isaiah 66 and reading it without the light of the New Testament that explains it.

God already told you what Sabbaths were:

“Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17

That is not talking only about “handwriting ordinances.” It explicitly says sabbath days. You cannot remove that word from the text to protect your conclusion.

Hebrews makes it even clearer. The old system was temporary:

“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things…” ~Hebrews 10:1

And then it tells you what the real rest is:

“There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God… For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works” ~Hebrews 4:9–10

The rest is not a weekly day. The rest is Christ.

Now look at the new heavens and new earth you’re pointing to.

Revelation does not describe a return to weekly cycles or temple systems. It says, “I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” ~Revelation 21:22.

That matters. No temple. No system. No shadows. Just God Himself.

So when Isaiah says “from sabbath to sabbath,” he is using language they understood to describe continual, unbroken worship. Not a reinstated calendar law.

You’re taking prophetic language and turning it into a legal requirement that the New Testament already fulfilled and set in its proper place.

Scripture does not contradict itself.

If you say Sabbaths continue as binding law in the future, you are directly opposing what God already said about them being shadows fulfilled in Christ.

The future is not a return to shadows.

The future is the fullness of what the shadows pointed to.

 

[Yesua888]

You’re right that all Scripture is God-breathed. But you’re missing how Scripture itself tells you to read Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16 does not mean every Old Testament command stays binding the same way after Christ. If that were true, you would still be offering sacrifices, keeping dietary laws, and observing every ordinance given to Israel. But Scripture itself says those things were fulfilled.

The issue is not whether Isaiah is true. The issue is how Isaiah is fulfilled.

You’re isolating Isaiah 66 and reading it without the light of the New Testament that explains it.

God already told you what Sabbaths were:

“Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17

That is not talking only about “handwriting ordinances.” It explicitly says sabbath days. You cannot remove that word from the text to protect your conclusion.

Hebrews makes it even clearer. The old system was temporary:

“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things…” ~Hebrews 10:1

And then it tells you what the real rest is:

“There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God… For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works” ~Hebrews 4:9–10

The rest is not a weekly day. The rest is Christ.

Now look at the new heavens and new earth you’re pointing to.

Revelation does not describe a return to weekly cycles or temple systems. It says, “I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” ~Revelation 21:22.

That matters. No temple. No system. No shadows. Just God Himself.

So when Isaiah says “from sabbath to sabbath,” he is using language they understood to describe continual, unbroken worship. Not a reinstated calendar law.

You’re taking prophetic language and turning it into a legal requirement that the New Testament already fulfilled and set in its proper place.

Scripture does not contradict itself.

If you say Sabbaths continue as binding law in the future, you are directly opposing what God already said about them being shadows fulfilled in Christ.

The future is not a return to shadows.

The future is the fullness of what the shadows pointed to.

I think I am getting your previous posts about "shadows" and am assuming then that it would be explicitly written in the Scripture that it is a "shadow", or will be fulfilled by Christ : )

 

[Capbook]

You’re right that all Scripture is God-breathed. But you’re missing how Scripture itself tells you to read Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16 does not mean every Old Testament command stays binding the same way after Christ. If that were true, you would still be offering sacrifices, keeping dietary laws, and observing every ordinance given to Israel. But Scripture itself says those things were fulfilled.

Yes, those are what was stated in Colossians 2:14, the handwriting ordinances not the fingerwritten Law of God. The Sabbath is the fourth in God's law and was never called as against us or contrary to us.

The issue is not whether Isaiah is true. The issue is how Isaiah is fulfilled.

The fulfillment of what Isaiah state about God's plan to make new heavens and new earth was not yet done, as the LORD said, "which I will make." Where all mankind will worship God from one Sabbath to another.
And it was also shown to John where God said, "I make all things new," as he had seen the new heavens and new earth in verse 1.

Isa 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.

Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

You’re isolating Isaiah 66 and reading it without the light of the New Testament that explains it.
God already told you what Sabbaths were:

“Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17

Apostle Paul was a later convert, nothing that we can find that understanding when Jesus was still alive as the early believers were still keeping the Sabbath according to the Commandments.

As you state in your Post#11 that early believers kept still the Sabbath "before the resurrection, as still under the old covenant."

Here, this happened long after Jesus resurrection, apostle Paul and Barnabas were begged by Antioch listeners that things would be spoken to them the next Sabbath. If the understanding that the Sabbath was change to Sunday, the day after the Sabbath is Sunday, why wait for another Sabbath if Sunday is the new worship day? And verse 44, nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.
Apostle Paul wrote Colossians 2:16,17, but still do the preaching every Sabbath.
I believe apostle Paul didn't mean what you mean to what he had written.

Act 13:42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath.
Act 13:43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.
Act 13:44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.

That is not talking only about “handwriting ordinances.” It explicitly says sabbath days. You cannot remove that word from the text to protect your conclusion.

Again, I believe apostle Paul didn't mean what you mean as he still do the preaching in Acts 1:42-44 every Sabbath. If the changed was already instituted after Jesus resurrection, he should have made his preaching on Sunday, and follow what he said in Colossians like what you mean.

Hebrews makes it even clearer. The old system was temporary:

“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things…” ~Hebrews 10:1

And then it tells you what the real rest is:

“There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God… For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works” ~Hebrews 4:9–10

And when did God ceased from His work? Verse 4 made it clear.
Heb 4:4 for He spoke in a certain place concerning the seventh day thus: “And God rested in the seventh day from all His works”;

The rest is not a weekly day. The rest is Christ.

Now look at the new heavens and new earth you’re pointing to.

Revelation does not describe a return to weekly cycles or temple systems. It says, “I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” ~Revelation 21:22.

That matters. No temple. No system. No shadows. Just God Himself.

Worship can be done anywhere, besides Isaiah didn't mentioned that all mankind must worship God in a specific location.

Act 16:13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled.

So when Isaiah says “from sabbath to sabbath,” he is using language they understood to describe continual, unbroken worship. Not a reinstated calendar law.

The "from one new moon to another" phrase would be sufficient to understand as continual in a month.
But the text speak of "from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another," it implied weekly.
As from the first day of the month as Sabbath, next seventh day as Sabbath, next and next until another new moon (first day of the month Sabbath.)

Isa 66:23 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.

You’re taking prophetic language and turning it into a legal requirement that the New Testament already fulfilled and set in its proper place.

Scripture does not contradict itself.

If you say Sabbaths continue as binding law in the future, you are directly opposing what God already said about them being shadows fulfilled in Christ.

The future is not a return to shadows.

The future is the fullness of what the shadows pointed to.

If you have the same understanding with apostle Paul about the "shadows" he should have abide to what you explained, but there are many Bible verses that apostle Paul preached every Sabbath instead of Sunday long after Jesus resurrection.

 

[David]

I think I am getting your previous posts about "shadows" and am assuming then that it would be explicitly written in the Scripture that it is a "shadow", or will be fulfilled by Christ : )

If you’re asking, “Does Scripture have to say something is a shadow for it to be fulfilled in Christ?”

The answer is no. God shows fulfillment in more than one way.

Sometimes He uses the word “shadow.” Colossians 2:16–17 says, “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” That’s clear. Sabbaths were pointing to something greater.

But other times, God shows fulfillment by what He does, not just by what He calls it.

Look at sacrifices. God commanded them in the Old Testament. But later He tells you they were never the final answer: “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” ~Hebrews 10:4. Then Christ comes and offers Himself once for all. The system stops because the real sacrifice has come.

Look at the priesthood. It was real, commanded, and important. But then Scripture says, “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law” ~Hebrews 7:12. That’s fulfillment by replacement.

Look at circumcision. It was a physical sign, but then Scripture says, “Circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit” ~Romans 2:29. The outward sign pointed to an inward reality.

So here’s the key: God gives a picture first. Then Christ brings the reality. Then the New Testament explains what it meant.

Now bring that back to the Sabbath.

God doesn’t leave you guessing. He tells you directly it was a shadow ~Colossians 2:17. Then He tells you what the real rest is: “We which have believed do enter into rest” ~Hebrews 4:3.

So the rest is not a day you keep. The rest is entering into Christ by faith and ceasing from your own works ~Hebrews 4:10.

That’s why when you read something like Isaiah 66 talking about “from sabbath to sabbath,” you don’t jump back to a calendar law. You read it in light of what God already explained.

It’s describing ongoing, unbroken worship, using language they understood at the time.


Scripture doesn’t contradict itself. It builds forward.


You don’t go back to the shadow once the reality has come.

 

[David]

Yes, those are what was stated in Colossians 2:14, the handwriting ordinances not the fingerwritten Law of God. The Sabbath is the fourth in God's law and was never called as against us or contrary to us.

The fulfillment of what Isaiah state about God's plan to make new heavens and new earth was not yet done, as the LORD said, "which I will make." Where all mankind will worship God from one Sabbath to another.
And it was also shown to John where God said, "I make all things new," as he had seen the new heavens and new earth in verse 1.

Isa 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.

Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Apostle Paul was a later convert, nothing that we can find that understanding when Jesus was still alive as the early believers were still keeping the Sabbath according to the Commandments.

As you state in your Post#11 that early believers kept still the Sabbath "before the resurrection, as still under the old covenant."

Here, this happened long after Jesus resurrection, apostle Paul and Barnabas were begged by Antioch listeners that things would be spoken to them the next Sabbath. If the understanding that the Sabbath was change to Sunday, the day after the Sabbath is Sunday, why wait for another Sabbath if Sunday is the new worship day? And verse 44, nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.
Apostle Paul wrote Colossians 2:16,17, but still do the preaching every Sabbath.
I believe apostle Paul didn't mean what you mean to what he had written.

Act 13:42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath.
Act 13:43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.
Act 13:44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord.

Again, I believe apostle Paul didn't mean what you mean as he still do the preaching in Acts 1:42-44 every Sabbath. If the changed was already instituted after Jesus resurrection, he should have made his preaching on Sunday, and follow what he said in Colossians like what you mean.

And when did God ceased from His work? Verse 4 made it clear.
Heb 4:4 for He spoke in a certain place concerning the seventh day thus: “And God rested in the seventh day from all His works”;

Worship can be done anywhere, besides Isaiah didn't mentioned that all mankind must worship God in a specific location.

Act 16:13 And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled.

The "from one new moon to another" phrase would be sufficient to understand as continual in a month.
But the text speak of "from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another," it implied weekly.
As from the first day of the month as Sabbath, next seventh day as Sabbath, next and next until another new moon (first day of the month Sabbath.)

Isa 66:23 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.


If you have the same understanding with apostle Paul about the "shadows" he should have abide to what you explained, but there are many Bible verses that apostle Paul preached every Sabbath instead of Sunday long after Jesus resurrection.

You’re mixing two different things that Scripture keeps separate: when something happens versus what is binding as law.

Yes, Paul preached on the Sabbath in Acts. That’s not debated. But Scripture tells you why.

Paul himself explains his method: “unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews” ~1 Corinthians 9:20. The synagogue gathered on the Sabbath, so that’s when he went. It was strategy, not submission to the Law.

Nothing in Acts says Paul was keeping the Sabbath as a binding command. It shows he used existing gatherings to preach Christ.

Now look at what Paul actually taught about the Sabbath:

“Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17

That is direct. Sabbath days are called shadows, not the substance. You can’t turn a shadow into a continuing requirement when Scripture says its purpose was to point to Christ.

Hebrews confirms the same truth. The rest is not a day you keep, but a reality you enter: “For we which have believed do enter into rest” ~Hebrews 4:3. And again, “he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works” ~Hebrews 4:10.

That is present, not weekly. It is salvation rest, not calendar observance.

Now about Isaiah 66. You’re reading it as a legal system being reinstated, but the New Testament tells you the end state clearly: “I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” ~Revelation 21:22.

No temple. No system. No shadows.

So when Isaiah says “from sabbath to sabbath,” it is prophetic language describing continual worship, not the reimposing of the Law that Scripture already says was a shadow fulfilled in Christ.

If you insist the Sabbath remains binding law, then you have to explain why Scripture says no one can judge you regarding it, and why it is called a shadow fulfilled in Christ. You can’t override that with examples of Paul choosing when to preach.

The Bible interprets itself.

Acts shows where Paul preached.

Colossians tells you what the Sabbath is.

Hebrews tells you what the true rest is.

Revelation shows you the final reality.

Put those together, and the conclusion is clear: the Sabbath pointed forward to Christ, and in Him the reality has come.

 

[Yesua888]

The following paragraph explains a lot to me, thanks:

Paul himself explains his method: “unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews” ~1 Corinthians 9:20. The synagogue gathered on the Sabbath, so that’s when he went. It was strategy, not submission to the Law.

Nothing in Acts says Paul was keeping the Sabbath as a binding command. It shows he used existing gatherings to preach Christ.

Yes, this does explain it clearly, thank you : )

If you insist the Sabbath remains binding law, then you have to explain why Scripture says no one can judge you regarding it, and why it is called a shadow fulfilled in Christ. You can’t override that with examples of Paul choosing when to preach.

The Bible interprets itself.

Acts shows where Paul preached.

Colossians tells you what the Sabbath is.

Hebrews tells you what the true rest is.

Revelation shows you the final reality.

Put those together, and the conclusion is clear: the Sabbath pointed forward to Christ, and in Him the reality has come.

I think that the mistake that a lot of us make, is to hang onto a script that we know, and omit viewing the whole of Scripture or to "test" it.

These Qustions and Answers in our Bible Study are AMAZING!

 

[Capbook]

You’re mixing two different things that Scripture keeps separate: when something happens versus what is binding as law.

I also think that you have mixed things, notice the "shadows" you explain to Yeshua888, those were handwritten ordinances nailed to the cross when Jesus died, all those were not included in the fingerwritten Law of God.
And about the Sabbaths, there are many Sabbaths in the Bible that were not fingerwritten by God, that forbid doing any works and have a holy convocation;
1. Passover (Yom Tov) first and last days of Passover are considered high Sabbaths, (Lev 23:4-8),
2. Feast of Weeks (Shavout) (Lev 23:21),
3. Feast of the Trumpets, (Yom Teruah) (Lev 23:23-25),
4. Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) (Lev 23-27)
5. Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) (Lev 23:39)
6. Sabbath Year (Lev 25:4)

Those were the "Sabbaths" apostle Paul mentioned as "shadows" or else he wrote Colossians 2:16,17 but break it himself if he mean the seventh day Sabbath.
As you've said it is "not debated" his Sabbath preaching because he did not break what he wrote.

Yes, Paul preached on the Sabbath in Acts. That’s not debated. But Scripture tells you why.

Paul himself explains his method: “unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews” ~1 Corinthians 9:20. The synagogue gathered on the Sabbath, so that’s when he went. It was strategy, not submission to the Law.

Nothing in Acts says Paul was keeping the Sabbath as a binding command. It shows he used existing gatherings to preach Christ.

Now look at what Paul actually taught about the Sabbath:

“Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17

That is direct. Sabbath days are called shadows, not the substance. You can’t turn a shadow into a continuing requirement when Scripture says its purpose was to point to Christ.

Hebrews confirms the same truth. The rest is not a day you keep, but a reality you enter: “For we which have believed do enter into rest” ~Hebrews 4:3. And again, “he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works” ~Hebrews 4:10.

Hebrews 4:4 clearly state when did God rest from His work.

(NAS95) Heb 4:10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
(NAS95) Heb 4:4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS";

That is present, not weekly. It is salvation rest, not calendar observance.

Now about Isaiah 66. You’re reading it as a legal system being reinstated, but the New Testament tells you the end state clearly: “I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it” ~Revelation 21:22.

No temple. No system. No shadows.

Nothing also said in Isaiah that all mankind will worship God in the temple.

So when Isaiah says “from sabbath to sabbath,” it is prophetic language describing continual worship, not the reimposing of the Law that Scripture already says was a shadow fulfilled in Christ.

If you insist the Sabbath remains binding law, then you have to explain why Scripture says no one can judge you regarding it, and why it is called a shadow fulfilled in Christ. You can’t override that with examples of Paul choosing when to preach.

The "Sabbaths" plural are those I've stated above, apostle Paul labelled as "shadows," otherwise he himself breaks what he wrote.

The Bible interprets itself.

Acts shows where Paul preached.

Colossians tells you what the Sabbath is.

Hebrews tells you what the true rest is.

Revelation shows you the final reality.

Put those together, and the conclusion is clear: the Sabbath pointed forward to Christ, and in Him the reality has come.

If apostle Paul mean what you've explained, why he break it always? He would be inconsistent.
The word "holyday" with Strong#G1859, in Greek "ἑορτή heortē" Bible Lexicon defined it as means - a feast day, festival.

I've already enumerated 6 of them above, all are not included in the fingerwritten Law of God.

(NRSV Updated Edition) Col 2:16 Therefore, do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food orN1 drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or Sabbaths.

(KJV+) Col 2:16 Let noG3361 manG5100 thereforeG3767 judgeG2919 youG5209 inG1722 meat,G1035 orG2228 inG1722 drink,G4213 orG2228 inG1722 respectG3313 of an holyday,G1859 orG2228 of the new moon,G3561 orG2228 of the sabbathG4521 days:

G1859
ἑορτή heortē
Thayer Definition:
1) a feast day, festival

 

[Yesua888]

I also think that you have mixed things, notice the "shadows" you explain to Yeshua888, those were handwritten ordinances nailed to the cross when Jesus died, all those were not included in the fingerwritten Law of God.
And about the Sabbaths, there are many Sabbaths in the Bible that were not fingerwritten by God, that forbid doing any works and have a holy convocation;
1. Passover (Yom Tov) first and last days of Passover are considered high Sabbaths, (Lev 23:4-8),
2. Feast of Weeks (Shavout) (Lev 23:21),
3. Feast of the Trumpets, (Yom Teruah) (Lev 23:23-25),
4. Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) (Lev 23-27)
5. Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) (Lev 23:39)
6. Sabbath Year (Lev 25:4)

Those were the "Sabbaths" apostle Paul mentioned as "shadows" or else he wrote Colossians 2:16,17 but break it himself if he mean the seventh day Sabbath.
As you've said it is "not debated" his Sabbath preaching because he did not break what he wrote.

Hebrews 4:4 clearly state when did God rest from His work.

(NAS95) Heb 4:10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
(NAS95) Heb 4:4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS";

Nothing also said in Isaiah that all mankind will worship God in the temple.

The "Sabbaths" plural are those I've stated above, apostle Paul labelled as "shadows," otherwise he himself breaks what he wrote.

If apostle Paul mean what you've explained, why he break it always? He would be inconsistent.
The word "holyday" with Strong#G1859, in Greek "ἑορτή heortē" Bible Lexicon defined it as means - a feast day, festival.

I've already enumerated 6 of them above, all are not included in the fingerwritten Law of God.

(NRSV Updated Edition) Col 2:16 Therefore, do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food orN1 drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or Sabbaths.

(KJV+) Col 2:16 Let noG3361 manG5100 thereforeG3767 judgeG2919 youG5209 inG1722 meat,G1035 orG2228 inG1722 drink,G4213 orG2228 inG1722 respectG3313 of an holyday,G1859 orG2228 of the new moon,G3561 orG2228 of the sabbathG4521 days:

G1859
ἑορτή heortē
Thayer Definition:
1) a feast day, festival

what exactly are you differing on? things are becoming rather muddles, that I can no longer follow!

 

[Capbook]

what exactly are you differing on? things are becoming rather muddles, that I can no longer follow!

The difference between the fingerwritten Law of God and the handwritten ordinances by Moses instructed by God.

Notice nothing mentioned as “shadows” includes any in the Law of God, the Ten Commandments, except I believe the misunderstood seventh day Sabbath whom apostle Paul do his preaching.

If we follow what apostle Paul wrote in Colossians 2:16,17, why can’t we follow what he do?
Preach on every Sabbath?

I believe action speak louder than written words, as interpretation would likely vary.

Also apostle Paul’s Sabbath preaching was never mentioned in the Bible as a mistake or a violation to Colossians 2:16,17.

 

[David]

I also think that you have mixed things, notice the "shadows" you explain to Yeshua888, those were handwritten ordinances nailed to the cross when Jesus died, all those were not included in the fingerwritten Law of God.
And about the Sabbaths, there are many Sabbaths in the Bible that were not fingerwritten by God, that forbid doing any works and have a holy convocation;
1. Passover (Yom Tov) first and last days of Passover are considered high Sabbaths, (Lev 23:4-8),
2. Feast of Weeks (Shavout) (Lev 23:21),
3. Feast of the Trumpets, (Yom Teruah) (Lev 23:23-25),
4. Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) (Lev 23-27)
5. Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) (Lev 23:39)
6. Sabbath Year (Lev 25:4)

Those were the "Sabbaths" apostle Paul mentioned as "shadows" or else he wrote Colossians 2:16,17 but break it himself if he mean the seventh day Sabbath.
As you've said it is "not debated" his Sabbath preaching because he did not break what he wrote.

Hebrews 4:4 clearly state when did God rest from His work.

(NAS95) Heb 4:10 For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.
(NAS95) Heb 4:4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS";

Nothing also said in Isaiah that all mankind will worship God in the temple.

The "Sabbaths" plural are those I've stated above, apostle Paul labelled as "shadows," otherwise he himself breaks what he wrote.

If apostle Paul mean what you've explained, why he break it always? He would be inconsistent.
The word "holyday" with Strong#G1859, in Greek "ἑορτή heortē" Bible Lexicon defined it as means - a feast day, festival.

I've already enumerated 6 of them above, all are not included in the fingerwritten Law of God.

(NRSV Updated Edition) Col 2:16 Therefore, do not let anyone condemn you in matters of food orN1 drink or of observing festivals, new moons, or Sabbaths.

(KJV+) Col 2:16 Let noG3361 manG5100 thereforeG3767 judgeG2919 youG5209 inG1722 meat,G1035 orG2228 inG1722 drink,G4213 orG2228 inG1722 respectG3313 of an holyday,G1859 orG2228 of the new moon,G3561 orG2228 of the sabbathG4521 days:

G1859
ἑορτή heortē
Thayer Definition:
1) a feast day, festival

You’re building a system that the text itself never builds, and that’s the problem.

You’re dividing the Law into categories and then deciding which parts remain binding, but where does Scripture ever tell you to do that? Where does it say, “this part continues, but that part was only a shadow”? Colossians 2:16–17 doesn’t give you that option. It puts “holyday… new moon… sabbath days” together and says they are a shadow, and the substance is Christ.

You say only certain Sabbaths are shadows. The text does not say that. You say the “fingerwritten Law” stands apart as still binding in this way. The text does not say that.

This is serious. When you begin adding distinctions that are not written, you are no longer submitting to Scripture, you are correcting it.

The Word says, “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… sabbath days.” That means no man has the authority to bind another believer to it as law. And it tells you why, because it was a shadow, and Christ is the reality.

So the question is not what system makes sense to you. The question is, will you let the text speak without adding to it? “That ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written” ~1 Corinthians 4:6.

Stay with what is written. Don’t go beyond it. That’s where safety is.

 

[David]

If we follow what apostle Paul wrote in Colossians 2:16,17, why can’t we follow what he do?
Preach on every Sabbath?

I believe action speak louder than written words, as interpretation would likely vary.

“You’re walking in Paul’s footsteps.” Sorry, you’re not. You’re trying to construct doctrine off of Paul’s footsteps instead of Paul’s preaching, and that will get you led astray every time.

Paul told you exactly what he did. “unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews” ~1 Corinthians 9:20

He wasn’t submitting again to the Law, he was immersing himself into their culture to preach Christ to them. That’s what a missionary does. It doesn’t make him a slave.

Oh, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day? Of course he did. The Jews gathered there. “Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them… and reasoned with them out of the scriptures.” ~Acts 17: 2 He went there to preach the Word, not follow a commandment.

“But when ye lie down and when ye rise up and live in Christ Jesus” ~ Colossians 2: 19 (This is part of the whole verse. Read below.) He opened his mouth to teach, Paul did not waffle.

“Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17 That’s as plain as day. Shadows don’t bind when the Substance has arrived.

And then he says, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike” ~Romans 14:5. You can’t have that if the Sabbath is still a binding command. You can’t turn freedom into obligation without contradicting the Word.

So here’s the truth: Paul used the Sabbath to reach people, but he never put believers back under it. You’re trying to turn his strategy into a law, and Scripture will not let you do it.

Stay in the WORD! That’s where the rubber meets the road.

 

[Yesua888]

The difference between the fingerwritten Law of God and the handwritten ordinances by Moses instructed by God.

Notice nothing mentioned as “shadows” includes any in the Law of God, the Ten Commandments, except I believe the misunderstood seventh day Sabbath whom apostle Paul do his preaching.

If we follow what apostle Paul wrote in Colossians 2:16,17, why can’t we follow what he do?
Preach on every Sabbath?

I believe action speak louder than written words, as interpretation would likely vary.

Also apostle Paul’s Sabbath preaching was never mentioned in the Bible as a mistake or a violation to Colossians 2:16,17.

Yes, it does get muddled for me, when there are so many opinions about the text ... I lose the original point or lesson. As far as I can see, Paul used the Jewish Sabbath (Sat) to preach in their temples ... in an attempt to convert ...
I'm not sure about the Sabbath being a shadow and when it became Sunday?
So I missed the actual "argument" about Paul and Sabbath, and more it seems : )

 

[Capbook]

You’re building a system that the text itself never builds, and that’s the problem.

I just quote Bible passages to prove that there are Sabbaths written by Moses other than the fingerwritten seventh day Sabbath in the Ten Commandments.

You’re dividing the Law into categories and then deciding which parts remain binding, but where does Scripture ever tell you to do that? Where does it say, “this part continues, but that part was only a shadow”? Colossians 2:16–17 doesn’t give you that option. It puts “holyday… new moon… sabbath days” together and says they are a shadow, and the substance is Christ.

No, I am not the one that divides, the Bible does.
The Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God, doesn't that indicate some significance?
No other Law was fingerwritten by God, all the rest were handwritten by Moses including Colossians 2:14.

Notice, you have enumerated some you considered as "shadows," nothing includes any of the Ten Commandments, except the seventh day Sabbath whom Paul do his preaching.
Only if we could ask apostle Paul why he violated what he wrote, but we know that nothing in the whole Bible that records his seventh day Sabbath preaching as a mistake or a violation to Colossians 2:16,17.

You say only certain Sabbaths are shadows. The text does not say that. You say the “fingerwritten Law” stands apart as still binding in this way. The text does not say that.

Based on what Colossians 2:14 state, that those nailed to the cross were the handwritten ordinances, I understand that the fingerwritten Sabbath was not included. Only those Sabbaths handwritten by Moses.

This is serious. When you begin adding distinctions that are not written, you are no longer submitting to Scripture, you are correcting it.

I believe nothing is serious, as the distinction is made the Bible itself.

Exo 31:18 When He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God.
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

The Word says, “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… sabbath days.” That means no man has the authority to bind another believer to it as law. And it tells you why, because it was a shadow, and Christ is the reality.

So the question is not what system makes sense to you. The question is, will you let the text speak without adding to it? “That ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written” ~1 Corinthians 4:6.

Stay with what is written. Don’t go beyond it. That’s where safety is.

Yes, my argument is based on these two Bible passages below.

Exo 31:18 When He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God.
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

 

[Capbook]

“You’re walking in Paul’s footsteps.” Sorry, you’re not. You’re trying to construct doctrine off of Paul’s footsteps instead of Paul’s preaching, and that will get you led astray every time.

I just follow what the Bible recorded, about what apostle Paul wrote and what he do with it.

Paul told you exactly what he did. “unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews” ~1 Corinthians 9:20

Yes, but I believe he is more missioned to the Gentiles.

He wasn’t submitting again to the Law, he was immersing himself into their culture to preach Christ to them. That’s what a missionary does. It doesn’t make him a slave.

From Sabbath, he could have utilized the day after (Sunday) if it was interpreted as the new worship day after Jesus resurrection.
Why wait for another Sabbath?

Oh, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day? Of course he did. The Jews gathered there. “Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them… and reasoned with them out of the scriptures.” ~Acts 17: 2 He went there to preach the Word, not follow a commandment.

“But when ye lie down and when ye rise up and live in Christ Jesus” ~ Colossians 2: 19 (This is part of the whole verse. Read below.) He opened his mouth to teach, Paul did not waffle.

“Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17 That’s as plain as day. Shadows don’t bind when the Substance has arrived.

Yes, he conduct Bible study in three Sabbath days, but why not on the interpreted new worship day.

Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

And then he says, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike” ~Romans 14:5. You can’t have that if the Sabbath is still a binding command. You can’t turn freedom into obligation without contradicting the Word.

As I've mentioned before, I believe the context speak about one who fast and one who eat.

Rom 14:3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

So here’s the truth: Paul used the Sabbath to reach people, but he never put believers back under it. You’re trying to turn his strategy into a law, and Scripture will not let you do it.

In the new covenant, apostle Paul wrote, to God's people, God will put His Laws into their mind and write them in their hearts. (Hebrews 8:10,13)

Before, the Ten Commandments was fingerwritten by God into tablets of stone, but due to His people's disobedience, God put His Laws into their mind and write them into their heart.
Could apostle Paul's Colossians 2:16,17 override what God had done, by taking out the seventh day Sabbath from the hearts and minds of God's people ?

2Co 3:3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

Stay in the WORD! That’s where the rubber meets the road.

Yes, I always tried to quote the Word of God.

 

[David]

I just quote Bible passages to prove that there are Sabbaths written by Moses other than the fingerwritten seventh day Sabbath in the Ten Commandments.

No, I am not the one that divides, the Bible does.
The Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God, doesn't that indicate some significance?
No other Law was fingerwritten by God, all the rest were handwritten by Moses including Colossians 2:14.

Notice, you have enumerated some you considered as "shadows," nothing includes any of the Ten Commandments, except the seventh day Sabbath whom Paul do his preaching.
Only if we could ask apostle Paul why he violated what he wrote, but we know that nothing in the whole Bible that records his seventh day Sabbath preaching as a mistake or a violation to Colossians 2:16,17.

Based on what Colossians 2:14 state, that those nailed to the cross were the handwritten ordinances, I understand that the fingerwritten Sabbath was not included. Only those Sabbaths handwritten by Moses.

I believe nothing is serious, as the distinction is made the Bible itself.

Exo 31:18 When He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God.
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Yes, my argument is based on these two Bible passages below.

Exo 31:18 When He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God.
Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

You keep returning to the same two verses as though they say more than they actually say, and the question is not whether those verses are true. The question is whether you are allowing them to say only what God has said, or whether you are pressing them into a system that protects what you already want to hold.

You point to Exodus 31:18 and say the law written by the finger of God must stand in a different category. But where does God ever tell you that the method of writing determines whether something is temporary or fulfilled? Where does the text say, “this is permanent because of how it was written”? It does not say it. You are supplying that.

Then you go to Colossians 2:14 and say the handwritten ordinances were nailed to the cross. But Paul does not say what you are saying. He does not say only the laws written by Moses were removed. He does not say the Ten Commandments stand apart as a binding covenant in that same way. Instead, he moves directly into application and says, “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16-17.

Now you have to answer honestly. Why do you feel the need to protect one part of that text from what Paul just said? Why do you separate what he grouped together? He did not hesitate. He did not qualify it. He said sabbath days are a shadow. So what are you defending when you insist one sabbath must be exempt?

Is it possible that the issue is not confusion in the text, but resistance in the heart?

Because the Word is not unclear. The sabbath command itself says, “the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God” ~Exodus 20:10. That is the very day you are trying to remove from Paul’s statement. Yet Paul says sabbath days are a shadow and Christ is the substance. So either the Word stands as written, or you must reshape it to preserve your conclusion.

And then consider this. If the sabbath is still binding in the way you claim, why does the Spirit say, “Let no man therefore judge you” concerning it? Why would God forbid judgment on something that remains a binding law for all believers? Does God remove the authority to judge and then expect men to enforce it anyway?

What is really at stake here? Is it obedience to Scripture, or is it the desire to maintain a system that gives you a sense of standing before God?

Because Scripture closes that door. “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” ~Romans 10:4. The purpose of the law was never to give you a platform to stand on. It was to bring you to Christ. And once Christ has come, you do not go back to shadows to complete what He has already fulfilled.

So the issue is not whether you can build a distinction. The issue is whether you will submit to what is written without adding to it. Will you let God define His own Word, or will you continue adjusting it to preserve what feels right to you?

That is where this is settled. Not in systems. Not in categories. But in whether you will bow to the plain meaning of the text and give God the right to say exactly what He has said.

 

[David]

I just follow what the Bible recorded, about what apostle Paul wrote and what he do with it.

Yes, but I believe he is more missioned to the Gentiles.

From Sabbath, he could have utilized the day after (Sunday) if it was interpreted as the new worship day after Jesus resurrection.
Why wait for another Sabbath?

Yes, he conduct Bible study in three Sabbath days, but why not on the interpreted new worship day.

Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

As I've mentioned before, I believe the context speak about one who fast and one who eat.

Rom 14:3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

In the new covenant, apostle Paul wrote, to God's people, God will put His Laws into their mind and write them in their hearts. (Hebrews 8:10,13)

Before, the Ten Commandments was fingerwritten by God into tablets of stone, but due to His people's disobedience, God put His Laws into their mind and write them into their heart.
Could apostle Paul's Colossians 2:16,17 override what God had done, by taking out the seventh day Sabbath from the hearts and minds of God's people ?

2Co 3:3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

Yes, I always tried to quote the Word of God.

You say you are just following what is written, but look closely at what you are actually doing with the text.

You ask, why didn’t Paul just switch to Sunday if that was the new day? That question assumes the very thing you are trying to prove, that there must be a required day. Where does the New Covenant ever command a replacement day? Where does Scripture say, “the Sabbath is now Sunday”? It does not say it. So why are you demanding that Paul follow something God never commanded?

Paul tells you exactly why he went on the Sabbath. “Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews” ~1 Corinthians 9:20. That is not law. That is mission. Acts 17:2 says he went in “as his manner was” and reasoned with them. Why there? Because that is where they were. He was not keeping a commandment. He was reaching people.

Now ask yourself honestly. Are you reading Paul’s actions, or are you assigning your meaning to his actions?

Then you go to Hebrews 8:10 and say God writes His law on the heart. That is true. But what law is that? Is it the entire Mosaic system carried forward unchanged, or is it the law fulfilled in Christ? The same passage says, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old” ~Hebrews 8:13. So if the covenant is new, why are you trying to reinsert part of the old as binding in the same way?

And then you bring in 2 Corinthians 3:3 about the law written on the heart. But keep reading the context. It says in verse 7 that the ministry written on stones was “to be done away,” and verse 11 says “that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.” So the very passage you are appealing to tells you that what was written on stone is not continuing in the same covenant form.

Now come back to the plain statement you keep trying to move around. “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16-17.

If the Sabbath is still binding in the way you claim, why does God forbid anyone from judging another man regarding it? Why would the Spirit remove judgment from something that remains a required command?

You say you are following the Word, but are you letting it speak, or are you protecting a conclusion? Because the text does not carve out your exception. It does not separate “fingerwritten” from “handwritten” the way you are doing. It does not command a new day to replace the old. It does not place believers back under the Sabbath as law.

So what is driving this? A submission to what is written, or a need to preserve a system that gives structure and certainty?

Because Scripture points you somewhere else. “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” ~Romans 10:4. Not the adjustment of the law. Not the partial continuation of it. The end of it for righteousness.

So the question is simple, and you cannot avoid it. Will you let the Word define the New Covenant on its own terms, or will you continue to read the old back into it to hold onto something God has already fulfilled in Christ?

 

[Yesua888]

I just follow what the Bible recorded, about what apostle Paul wrote and what he do with it.

Yes, but I believe he is more missioned to the Gentiles.

From Sabbath, he could have utilized the day after (Sunday) if it was interpreted as the new worship day after Jesus resurrection.
Why wait for another Sabbath?

Yes, he conduct Bible study in three Sabbath days, but why not on the interpreted new worship day.

Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

As I've mentioned before, I believe the context speak about one who fast and one who eat.

Rom 14:3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

In the new covenant, apostle Paul wrote, to God's people, God will put His Laws into their mind and write them in their hearts. (Hebrews 8:10,13)

Before, the Ten Commandments was fingerwritten by God into tablets of stone, but due to His people's disobedience, God put His Laws into their mind and write them into their heart.
Could apostle Paul's Colossians 2:16,17 override what God had done, by taking out the seventh day Sabbath from the hearts and minds of God's people ?

2Co 3:3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

Yes, I always tried to quote the Word of God.

The statement that there is no biblical passage instituting a "new Sabbath" is accurate.

The Bible never explicitly replaces Saturday (the seventh-day Sabbath) with Sunday. The Sabbath is defined in Exodus 20:8–11 as the seventh day, a day of rest based on God’s rest after creation.

However, the New Testament shows a shift in practice:

• Acts 20:7 records believers gathering on the first day of the week (Sunday) to break bread, likely in commemoration of Jesus’ resurrection.
• 1 Corinthians 16:2 instructs believers to set aside offerings on the first day of the week, linking it to worship.
• Revelation 1:10 refers to Sunday as the "Lord’s Day", indicating its special significance in early Christian tradition.

While these passages support Sunday worship, they do not command a transfer of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. The change was gradual, rooted in the resurrection and confirmed by early church practice, not a direct biblical mandate.

The Council of Laodicea (c. 364 A.D.) later reinforced this shift by forbidding Sabbath rest for Christians and encouraging Sunday observance, but this was a church decree, not a biblical text.

 

[Capbook]

The statement that there is no biblical passage instituting a "new Sabbath" is accurate.

The Bible never explicitly replaces Saturday (the seventh-day Sabbath) with Sunday. The Sabbath is defined in Exodus 20:8–11 as the seventh day, a day of rest based on God’s rest after creation.

However, the New Testament shows a shift in practice:

• Acts 20:7 records believers gathering on the first day of the week (Sunday) to break bread, likely in commemoration of Jesus’ resurrection.
• 1 Corinthians 16:2 instructs believers to set aside offerings on the first day of the week, linking it to worship.
• Revelation 1:10 refers to Sunday as the "Lord’s Day", indicating its special significance in early Christian tradition.

While these passages support Sunday worship, they do not command a transfer of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. The change was gradual, rooted in the resurrection and confirmed by early church practice, not a direct biblical mandate.

The Council of Laodicea (c. 364 A.D.) later reinforced this shift by forbidding Sabbath rest for Christians and encouraging Sunday observance, but this was a church decree, not a biblical text.

Yes, the gradual change from Saturday to Sunday is not direct Biblical mandate.
If I remember it right, it was stated in the Church Cathechisms that the transfer of Saturday Sabbath to Sunday was by the Catholic Church.

I based my mentioned of Sunday as David explained in Post#11, that "the women rest on the Sabbath according to the Commandment was before the resurrection as still under the old covenant."
I just fail to clarify by asking, what should be the rest after the resurrection?
Is it still the seventh day Sabbath or another day?

"Post#11 Luke 23:54–56 shows those women resting on the Sabbath before the resurrection, still under the old covenant pattern. That’s important context. It’s describing what they did at that time, not commanding how believers must live after Christ fulfilled the law."

 

[Capbook]

You keep returning to the same two verses as though they say more than they actually say, and the question is not whether those verses are true. The question is whether you are allowing them to say only what God has said, or whether you are pressing them into a system that protects what you already want to hold.

I may keep repeating those verses to emphasize an important point, why God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments and not just let Moses handwritten it the way all other laws, statutes, ordinances and etc. As I also noticed the repetition of Colossians 2:16,17. of which seventh day Sabbath was not explicitly stated as "shadows." But utilized by apostle Paul to spread the Word of God.
Also as I've said if we follow what apostle Paul wrote, why can't we follow what he do by preaching every Sabbath.
The fact that apostle's Paul Sabbath preaching was never recorded as a violation to Colossians 2:16,17.
If ever there is, I will rest my case defending the exclusion of the seventh day Sabbath as "shadows."

You point to Exodus 31:18 and say the law written by the finger of God must stand in a different category. But where does God ever tell you that the method of writing determines whether something is temporary or fulfilled? Where does the text say, “this is permanent because of how it was written”? It does not say it. You are supplying that.

My point quoting Ex 31:18, is to clear the inclusion of the seventh day Sabbath as "shadows," as you even enumerated those "shadows" all were those handwritten by Moses stated in verse 4.

Then you go to Colossians 2:14 and say the handwritten ordinances were nailed to the cross. But Paul does not say what you are saying. He does not say only the laws written by Moses were removed. He does not say the Ten Commandments stand apart as a binding covenant in that same way. Instead, he moves directly into application and says, “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16-17.

I bolded and colored blue my point above. Did God handwritten His laws to confuse us whether Moses or God did it. The Scriptures made it clear that the Ten Commandments was written by the finger of God, and others were handwritten mostly by Moses upon God's instruction.

Now you have to answer honestly. Why do you feel the need to protect one part of that text from what Paul just said? Why do you separate what he grouped together? He did not hesitate. He did not qualify it. He said sabbath days are a shadow. So what are you defending when you insist one sabbath must be exempt?

I may also interpret, apostle Paul did not hesitate to break what he wrote.
If he mean it should be stopped, why he continue keeping it?

Is it possible that the issue is not confusion in the text, but resistance in the heart?

I believe apostle Paul was not confused as by heart he kept preaching every seventh day Sabbath.
And I might agree that the best argument against your interpretation of Colossians 2:16,17 is apostle Paul himself.

Because the Word is not unclear. The sabbath command itself says, “the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God” ~Exodus 20:10. That is the very day you are trying to remove from Paul’s statement. Yet Paul says sabbath days are a shadow and Christ is the substance. So either the Word stands as written, or you must reshape it to preserve your conclusion.

Yes, because apostle Paul himself kept that seventh day Sabbath in Ex 20:10.
You already had sufficiently enumerated the "shadows" in your previous posts and apostle Paul is consistent with all except the seventh day Sabbath.
If we include the day he kept on preaching to what he wrote, he will then be inconsistent.

And then consider this. If the sabbath is still binding in the way you claim, why does the Spirit say, “Let no man therefore judge you” concerning it? Why would God forbid judgment on something that remains a binding law for all believers? Does God remove the authority to judge and then expect men to enforce it anyway?

Are you referring to Colossians 2 or Romans 14?
The one who wrote Col 2, 16,17 was also the one enforcing the presence of listeners to gather to hear the Word of God every seventh day Sabbath.
Why didn't God forbid apostle Paul doing that if it meant to be stopped.

What is really at stake here? Is it obedience to Scripture, or is it the desire to maintain a system that gives you a sense of standing before God?

Obedience is doing, apostle Paul do the opposite to what he wrote if we mean to your interpretation.
Yes, obedience to Scripture, and not to interpretation, can't we see why apostle Paul do the opposite?
Because the text did not explicitly mentioned the fingerwritten seventh day Sabbath, and there are other Sabbath, like Sabbath year, Day of Atonement and many other.
Are those being kept by Christians today? No, as they are the "shadows."

Because Scripture closes that door. “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” ~Romans 10:4. The purpose of the law was never to give you a platform to stand on. It was to bring you to Christ. And once Christ has come, you do not go back to shadows to complete what He has already fulfilled.

Yes, keeping God's Law will not make us righteous as all sinned and fall short to the glory of God, faith is.
But faith should result to good works. (Eph 2:8-10)

Gen 15:6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

So the issue is not whether you can build a distinction. The issue is whether you will submit to what is written without adding to it. Will you let God define His own Word, or will you continue adjusting it to preserve what feels right to you?

Distinction helps clear our understanding, besides it is the Bible that record the distinction.
We should always be aware that what was written are God breathed.

That is where this is settled. Not in systems. Not in categories. But in whether you will bow to the plain meaning of the text and give God the right to say exactly what He has said.

The system that was presented are Bible passages, God breathed.

 

[Yesua888]

There is no direct statement in the Bible that explicitly excludes the seventh-day Sabbath from being a "shadow" in the way Colossians 2:16-17 describes the ceremonial festivals. Instead, the exclusion of the weekly Sabbath from the "shadow" category is a theological interpretation derived from the timing of its institution and the nature of the laws mentioned in Colossians.

The primary biblical basis for this distinction relies on the following points found in the search context:

• Pre-Ceremonial Origin: The seventh-day Sabbath was instituted in Eden before the fall and before the ceremonial sacrifices of the Mosaic Law were adopted (Genesis 2:2-3; Exodus 20:8-11). Because it predates the ceremonial system, proponents argue it was not a "shadow" pointing to the cross but a memorial of Creation.
• Distinction in Colossians 2:16: The text lists "sabbaths" (plural) alongside "meat," "drink," "new moons," and "festivals," which are identified as a "shadow of things to come" (Colossians 2:16-17). Scholars note that the Greek term sabbaton in this context often refers to the yearly holy days (High Sabbaths) described in Leviticus 23, which were temporary and foreshadowed Christ's sacrifice.
• Perpetual Nature: Ellen G. White and other Seventh-day Sabbatarian writers argue that since the weekly Sabbath will never end and is to be observed in the New Earth (Isaiah 66:22-23), it cannot be a shadow that ceases when the substance (Christ) arrives. They contrast this with the ceremonial laws, which were "nailed to the cross" (Colossians 2:14) because they were temporary ordinances against humanity.

 

[Capbook]

You say you are just following what is written, but look closely at what you are actually doing with the text.

What I mean is to understand what apostle Paul wrote and what he do with it.
It can be read in the Bible.

You ask, why didn’t Paul just switch to Sunday if that was the new day? That question assumes the very thing you are trying to prove, that there must be a required day. Where does the New Covenant ever command a replacement day? Where does Scripture say, “the Sabbath is now Sunday”? It does not say it. So why are you demanding that Paul follow something God never commanded?

May we know what you mean in your Post#11?
And what is the rest day after Jesus resurrection?
Is it still seventh day Sabbath or is it implying another day?

"Post#11 Luke 23:54–56 shows those women resting on the Sabbath before the resurrection, still under the old covenant pattern. That’s important context. It’s describing what they did at that time, not commanding how believers must live after Christ fulfilled the law."

Paul tells you exactly why he went on the Sabbath. “Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews” ~1 Corinthians 9:20. That is not law. That is mission. Acts 17:2 says he went in “as his manner was” and reasoned with them. Why there? Because that is where they were. He was not keeping a commandment. He was reaching people.

Not only to the Jews but also to Gentiles(God fearing Greeks) to proclaim Christ in Antioch.
He was then more missioned to the Gentiles.

Rom 11:13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,

Act 17:2 And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Act 17:3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."
Act 17:4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.

Now ask yourself honestly. Are you reading Paul’s actions, or are you assigning your meaning to his actions?

To his preaching he always proclaimed Christ and nothing about Colossians 2:16,17.
I believe we should honestly take the core context of the verses, his messages every Sabbath.

Then you go to Hebrews 8:10 and say God writes His law on the heart. That is true. But what law is that? Is it the entire Mosaic system carried forward unchanged, or is it the law fulfilled in Christ? The same passage says, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old” ~Hebrews 8:13. So if the covenant is new, why are you trying to reinsert part of the old as binding in the same way?

I reinsert nothing, as nothing in the Law was changed, only the placement.
From the tablets of stone to the tablets of heart.

And then you bring in 2 Corinthians 3:3 about the law written on the heart. But keep reading the context. It says in verse 7 that the ministry written on stones was “to be done away,” and verse 11 says “that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.” So the very passage you are appealing to tells you that what was written on stone is not continuing in the same covenant form.

I believe there is a misinterpretation, it does not refer to what is written in stones that fade away.
It was the glory of his face (Moses) fading as it was. And verse 11, both mentioned was with glory.


(NAS95) 2Co 3:7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was,

(NAS95+) 2Co 3:7 But ifG1487 the R1ministryG1248 of deathG2288, R2in lettersG1121 engravedG1795 on stonesG3037, cameG1096 N1with gloryG1391, R3soG5620 that the sonsG5207 of IsraelG2474 couldG1410 not lookG816 intentlyG816 at the faceG4383 of MosesG3475 becauseG1223 of the gloryG1391 of his faceG4383, fadingG2673 as it was,

(Greek NT Westcott & Hort+) 2Co 3:7 ειG1487 COND δεG1161 CONJ ηG3588 T-NSF διακονιαG1248 N-NSF τουG3588 T-GSM θανατουG2288 N-GSM ενG1722 PREP γραμμασινG1121 N-DPN
εντετυπωμενηG1795 V-RPP-NSF λιθοιςG3037 N-DPM εγενηθηG1096 V-AOI-3S ενG1722 PREP δοξηG1391 N-DSF ωστεG5620 CONJ μηG3361 PRT-N δυνασθαιG1410 V-PNN ατενισαιG816 V-AAN τουςG3588 T-APM υιουςG5207 N-APM ισραηλG2474 N-PRI ειςG1519 PREP τοG3588 T-ASN προσωπονG4383 N-ASN μωυσεωςG3475 N-GSM διαG1223 PREP τηνG3588 T-ASF δοξανG1391 N-ASF τουG3588 T-GSN προσωπουG4383 N-GSN αυτουG846 P-GSM τηνG3588 T-ASF καταργουμενηνG2673 V-PPP-ASF
(NAS95) 2Co 3:11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
(NAS95+) 2Co 3:11 For ifG1487 that which fadesG2673 awayG2673 was N1with gloryG1391, muchG4183 moreG3123 that which remainsG3306 is in gloryG1391.
(Greek NT Westcott & Hort+) 2Co 3:11 ειG1487 COND γαρG1063 CONJ τοG3588 T-NSN καταργουμενονG2673 V-PPP-NSN διαG1223 PREP δοξηςG1391 N-GSF πολλωG4183 A-DSN μαλλονG3123 ADV τοG3588 T-NSN μενονG3306 V-PAP-NSN ενG1722 PREP δοξηG1391 N-DSF

Now come back to the plain statement you keep trying to move around. “Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16-17.

This was not preached by apostle Paul every Sabbath, he always preached Christ but not Colossians 2:16,17. He do the preaching on the day supposed to be stopped as per your interpretation.
It would appear that what the author wrote is always quoted but the author did not support the explanation.

If the Sabbath is still binding in the way you claim, why does God forbid anyone from judging another man regarding it? Why would the Spirit remove judgment from something that remains a required command?

You say you are following the Word, but are you letting it speak, or are you protecting a conclusion? Because the text does not carve out your exception. It does not separate “fingerwritten” from “handwritten” the way you are doing. It does not command a new day to replace the old. It does not place believers back under the Sabbath as law.

Remember, the Scripture (the writings) are God breathed.
God made the distinction, why deny?
I believe we have to learn to what was written.
When the God breathe writings state "written by the finger of God," is doesn't mean handwritten as no man can do fingerwriting. Even the second one was again fingerwritten by God, why not allow Moses to handwritten it the same as all other laws, statutes, ordinances and etc.

So what is driving this? A submission to what is written, or a need to preserve a system that gives structure and certainty?

Yes, a submission to what is written. Written by finger is not a handwritten.
Again, God made that distinction, I'll take it as what is written.

Because Scripture points you somewhere else. “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth” ~Romans 10:4. Not the adjustment of the law. Not the partial continuation of it. The end of it for righteousness.

So the question is simple, and you cannot avoid it. Will you let the Word define the New Covenant on its own terms, or will you continue to read the old back into it to hold onto something God has already fulfilled in Christ?

How do you define "covenant?"
The word "covenant" with Strong#H1285, in Hebrew "בּרית berı̂yth" defined by Bible lexicon as means - agreement, between God and man, pledge, treaty etc.

To understand, "covenant" as an agreement between two parties, between God and man or etc.
Before the giving of the Ten Commandments a "covenant" agreement was made.
God said, ", if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; (Ex 19:5)
And the people answered, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do!" (Ex 19:8)
Now, that's the Old covenant (agreement).

Here, the new covenant, because of the disobedience of their fathers, God made a new covenant, by putting His Laws in their mind and write them in their heart. And God said, "I will be their God and they shall be My people. (Heb 8:8-13)
Nothing changed in God's Law, only the placement.
Apostle Paul is the author of both Colossians and Hebrews, is he consistent? Yes.
Could Colossians 2:16,17 overide what God had done, putting His Laws to their mind and write them in their hearts and take out the seventh day Sabbath from God's people minds and hearts?

As I've said, the best argument against such interpretation is apostle Paul himself.
He always preach every Sabbath as he is one of the God's people. (Hebrews 4:4,9,10)

Gen 17:7 "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.

Gen 17:7 "I will establishH6965 My covenantH1285 betweenH996 Me and you and your N1descendantsH2233 afterH310 you throughout their generationsH1755 for an R1everlastingH5769 covenantH1285, R2to be GodH430 to you and R3to your N1descendantsH2233 afterH310 you.

H1285
בּרית berı̂yth
BDB Definition:
1) covenant, alliance, pledge
1a) between men
1a1) treaty, alliance, league (man to man)
1a2) constitution, ordinance (monarch to subjects)
1a3) agreement, pledge (man to man)
1a4) alliance (of friendship)
1a5) alliance (of marriage)
1b) between God and man
1b1) alliance (of friendship)
1b2) covenant (divine ordinance with signs or pledges)
2) (phrases)
2a) covenant making
2b) covenant keeping
2c) covenant violation
Part of Speech: noun feminine

Exo 19:5 'Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine;
Exo 19:6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel."
Exo 19:7 So Moses came and called the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD had commanded him.
Exo 19:8 All the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do!" And Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD.

(NAS95) Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, He says, “BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL COMPLETE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
Heb 8:9 NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS IN THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
Heb 8:10 “FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND UPON THEIR HEARTS I WILL WRITE THEM. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
Heb 8:11 “AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, ‘KNOW THE LORD,’ FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
Heb 8:12 “FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.”
Heb 8:13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

 

[David]

I may keep repeating those verses to emphasize an important point, why God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments and not just let Moses handwritten it the way all other laws, statutes, ordinances and etc. As I also noticed the repetition of Colossians 2:16,17. of which seventh day Sabbath was not explicitly stated as "shadows." But utilized by apostle Paul to spread the Word of God.
Also as I've said if we follow what apostle Paul wrote, why can't we follow what he do by preaching every Sabbath.
The fact that apostle's Paul Sabbath preaching was never recorded as a violation to Colossians 2:16,17.
If ever there is, I will rest my case defending the exclusion of the seventh day Sabbath as "shadows."

My point quoting Ex 31:18, is to clear the inclusion of the seventh day Sabbath as "shadows," as you even enumerated those "shadows" all were those handwritten by Moses stated in verse 4.

I bolded and colored blue my point above. Did God handwritten His laws to confuse us whether Moses or God did it. The Scriptures made it clear that the Ten Commandments was written by the finger of God, and others were handwritten mostly by Moses upon God's instruction.

I may also interpret, apostle Paul did not hesitate to break what he wrote.
If he mean it should be stopped, why he continue keeping it?

I believe apostle Paul was not confused as by heart he kept preaching every seventh day Sabbath.
And I might agree that the best argument against your interpretation of Colossians 2:16,17 is apostle Paul himself.

Yes, because apostle Paul himself kept that seventh day Sabbath in Ex 20:10.
You already had sufficiently enumerated the "shadows" in your previous posts and apostle Paul is consistent with all except the seventh day Sabbath.
If we include the day he kept on preaching to what he wrote, he will then be inconsistent.

Are you referring to Colossians 2 or Romans 14?
The one who wrote Col 2, 16,17 was also the one enforcing the presence of listeners to gather to hear the Word of God every seventh day Sabbath.
Why didn't God forbid apostle Paul doing that if it meant to be stopped.

Obedience is doing, apostle Paul do the opposite to what he wrote if we mean to your interpretation.
Yes, obedience to Scripture, and not to interpretation, can't we see why apostle Paul do the opposite?
Because the text did not explicitly mentioned the fingerwritten seventh day Sabbath, and there are other Sabbath, like Sabbath year, Day of Atonement and many other.
Are those being kept by Christians today? No, as they are the "shadows."

Yes, keeping God's Law will not make us righteous as all sinned and fall short to the glory of God, faith is.
But faith should result to good works. (Eph 2:8-10)

Gen 15:6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

Distinction helps clear our understanding, besides it is the Bible that record the distinction.
We should always be aware that what was written are God breathed.


The system that was presented are Bible passages, God breathed.

You’ve already been shown what the text actually says, and repeating the same point does not change it.

“Let no man therefore judge you… in respect of… sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” ~Colossians 2:16–17. The passage does not separate one Sabbath from another, and it does not make the distinction you keep trying to introduce.

Your appeal to how the law was written is not stated anywhere as the basis for what continues or what is fulfilled. Scripture itself says the covenant “written and engraven in stones… was to be done away” ~2 Corinthians 3:7,11.

As for Paul preaching on the Sabbath, that has already been answered. He went where the people were to preach Christ. The same Scripture says he was “not under the law” ~1 Corinthians 9:20–21.

This has already been addressed from the Word. The issue is not clarity in Scripture, but whether you will let it say what it says without adding to it.

At this point, the biblical answer has been given. I’m not going to keep repeating what has already been settled by the text.