The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Bible Does Not Teach Christians Must Keep the Seventh-day Weekly Sabbath

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 508 times Debate No: 60186
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)




My opponent must be a Seventh-day Adventist. Please do not accept this debate if you are not a Seventh-day Adventist. My opponent must not argue in any way which is contrary to the official teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Here is my opening argument:

Colossians 2:16-17 says the Sabbath was a shadow that pointed to Christ, and since he fulfilled the meaning of this shadow it is no longer necessary to keep it.

"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival (heortes) or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17 New King James Version)

"Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival (heortes), a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17 New International Version)

""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. * * * Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (Colossians 2:14, 16-17 King James Version)

The Greek word translated "holy day" at Colossians 2:15 in the King James Version is "heortes," which means "festival, feast" or "feast day." (W.E. Vine"s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words) This is the word used in the Bible for annual feasts such as the Passover (Luke 2:41; 22:1) and the feast of tabernacles (John 7:2). All annual Sabbaths were part and parcel of the annual feasts, and could not exist apart from them. For example, the feast (heortes) of unleavened bread included the Sabbaths which fell on the first and seventh days of this weeklong festival. (Leviticus 23:6-8) Heortes is the Greek term in the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament embracing all such annual Sabbaths. The "feasts [heortes] of the Lord" (Leviticus 23:4) include the Passover (Leviticus 23:5), the feast of unleavened bread (Leviticus 23:6-8), Pentecost (Leviticus 23:15-16, 21), the memorial of trumpets (Leviticus 23:24-25), the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27-32), the feast of tabernacles (Leviticus 23:34-44), and so on. Thus, when Paul mentioned the annual "holydays" or "festivals" (heortes), and the monthly "new moons" at Colossians 2:16, he already included all yearly and monthly Sabbaths. There was nothing left for Paul to mean by "the Sabbath days" except the weekly Sabbath, because all the other Sabbaths were already mentioned as heortes (yearly sabbaths) and new moons (monthly Sabbaths).

The implication is that the Sabbath being described in Colossians 2:16 is the weekly Sabbath. When Paul here says "Sabbath days," if he meant annual Sabbaths he was needlessly repeating himself. In that case he would be saying, "Let no one judge you regarding"an annual Sabbath, a new moon, or an annual Sabbath," a statement neither logical nor likely!

At Colossians 2:16 the expression "the Sabbath days" has the word "days" in italics because it was not there in the original Greek, but was added or supplied by the translator. Without the added word, the original King James reading would be, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of THE Sabbath." This reading removes any doubt that Paul meant the seventh day, and is supported by the fact the very same word Paul used for the Sabbath at Colossians 2:16 is translated "THE Sabbath" at Matthew 28:1; John 5:9, 10, 16 and other places.

The expression "Sabbath days" at Colossians 2:16 is used 8 other times in the King James Version an in all eight it means the weekly Sabbath. (Matthew 12:5, 10, 12; Mark 3:4; Luke 4:31; 6:2, 9; Acts 17:2) In fact, the term "Sabbath days" is never used for any other day except the seventh day! In every case, not almost every case, but every case without exception, "Sabbath says" means the weekly Sabbath.

Sabbaton, the Greek word for Sabbath at Colossians 2:16, is translated "Sabbath" 60 times in the New Testament. The first 59 times it means the weekly Sabbath. (Matthew 12:1-2, 5, 8, 10-12; 24:20; 28:1; Mark 1:21; 2:23, 24, 27-28; 3:2, 4; 6:2; 15:42; 16:1; Luke 4:16, 31; 6:1-2, 5-7, 9; 13:10, 14-16; 14:1, 3, 5; 23:54, 56; John 5:9-10, 16, 18; 7:22-23; 9:14, 16; 19:31; Acts 1:12; 13:14, 27, 42, 44: 15:21; 16:13; Acts 17:2; 18:4) How strange that for Sabbath-keepers the word "Sabbath (sabbaton)" means the Sabbath 59 times but the 60th time it don"t! Such an interpretation goes contrary to the consistent linguistic use of the word in the Gospels as a reference to the weekly Sabbath, but this is the only way they can save the Sabbath from Paul"s list. Obviously, Sabbath means the same thing in Colossians 2:16 as it means in the other 59 places were the word occurs. In fact, the New Testament never uses sabbaton for any yearly or monthly holydays! All Gospel writers used sabbaton EXCLUSIVELY for the weekly Sabbath!

Textually and contextually Paul is talking about 3 categories of Sabbaths: Heortes/feasts (yearly Sabbaths), new moons (monthly Sabbaths), and Sabbath days (weekly Sabbaths). This sequential grouping is consistently found in the Scriptures where the holy days are listed categorically. Paul follows the Scriptural listing that gives an orderly reference to the holy days in logical and progressive sequence, as well as an exhaustive enumeration of sacred times. This is validated in the following summary of the scriptures: 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 8:13; 31:3; Nehemiah 10:33; Ezekiel 45:17 and Hosea 2:11

Take these examples from the list:
2 Chron. 31:3: "The morning and evening burnt offerings [daily], and the burnt offerings for the Sabbaths [weekly], and for the new moons [monthly], and for the set feasts [yearly], as it is written in the law of the Lord." The same list again, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly offerings, just in the order they would naturally come, and just as given "in the law of the Lord." (Numbers 28 and 29) But if the Sabbaths are not the weekly Sabbaths, then the Lord names the daily, monthly and yearly offerings, but skips the weekly offerings. Every thinking man knows that such an interpretation is false. But it is the only way the Sabbath can be saved from Paul's list at Colossians 2:16, for that is the same as all these: "in meat or in drink [daily meat and drink offering, Numbers 28:3-8], a festival [yearly] or a new moon [monthly], or Sabbaths [weekly]." As the object in these passages is to mention the service of God which must be performed on each of the holy days, it would be absurd to suppose that all the other sacred days in the whole year would be carefully mentioned time and again, while no reference whatever it made to the weekly Sabbaths, the most important and the most numerous of all the sacred days.

2 Chron. 2:4: "Behold, I build an house to the name of the Lord my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual shew bread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening [daily], on the sabbaths [weekly], and on the new moons, [monthly], and on the solemn feasts [yearly] of the Lord." Precisely the same list again, and in the same order, hence the weekly Sabbaths are the ones named. Besides, it would be absurd to suppose that Solomon would name all the other and minor holy days, but say nothing about the chiefest of all days, the weekly Sabbaths. Any thinking person knows such an interpretation is false.

My second argument is that the Ten Commandment Covenant was abolished. Note the evidence that the Ten Commandments themselves are the covenant which God made with Israel when he took them out of Egypt:

"He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets." (Deu 4;13, NIV)

"Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant"the Ten Commandments." (Exod 34:27-28)

Note these two passages directly refer to the Ten Commandments as the covenant God made with Israel.

"There was nothing in the ark except the two stone tablets that Moses had placed in it at Horeb, where the Lord made a covenant with the Israelites after they came out of Egypt." (1 Kings 8:9)

"I have provided a place there for the ark, in which is the covenant of the Lord that he made with our ancestors when he brought them out of Egypt." (1 Kings 8:21)

There was nothing in the ark but the Ten Commandments written on two tables of stone, yet in that ark was the covenant, so the covenant has to be the Ten Commandments.

"For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." (Heb 8:7, 13)

Here we see that first covenant which God made with Israel is obsolete, outdated, and will soon disappear. That ends the old covenant with its Sabbath law. In Gal 4:21-30 that old covenant is represented by a slave girl, Hagar, and it says we must get rid of the slave girl. Strong language for removing the law covenant given to Israel.

Romans 14:5 says "One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind." We could not be free to consider every day alike if one of them was more sacred than the others, showing the Sabbath day isn't any more sacred than other days.


Thanks for a very very interesting debate topic. I am a devout Christian ( I do not belong to any specific sect) and I practice the Holy Sabbath of Saturday, the law given to us by God delivered by Moses.
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." (Colossians 2:14, 16-17 King James Version)
We must remember that everything in the Bible can be looked at differently and almost all quotes from either Jesus or Paul of Tarsus must be with correct context.
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink... Paul is trying to convey to us Christians do not be bothered by what others say to you about practicing what you eat or drink. Jesus changed many laws of Moses and in the sermon on the mount He says...
"25 Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?"
Paul is trying to tell the new Christians to not worry about the Jews and them condemning you that you eat shellfish or pork or etc.

Or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ... Paul is trying to tell people that persecution does not matter so do not be ashamed because you DO practice the holy days or the Sabbath or the new moon festival. Paul is promoting these things not saying we do not have to practice them.

Jesus himself told us to practice the Sabbath only after His departure from earth.
1 At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day.
3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?
6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.
9 And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
10 And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days.
13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. Matthew 12 KJV

Your quote Colossians 2:16 - 17 is not supporting anything you say, even more so it insists we practice new moon festivals and yearly Sabbaths and maybe even years of Jubilee. Which is not a bad thought but we cannot practice Jubilee because not all 12 tribes of Israel are around anymore. I look forward for future arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent is not a Seventh-day Adventist, and as such is in violation of the rules of this debate. I specifically called for a Seventh-day Adventist because they believe the feasts days such as the Passover, Pentecost, and the new moons were abolished, but still hold onto the weekly sabbath. I wanted to challenge them on this. My opponent, by arguing for all of these feast days is going against the teaching of Seventh-day Adventists, so keep this in mind when you judge.

He claims the Sabbath is Saturday, he doesn't give us any proof of this. How does he know which day it was? Then he argues that Paul wasn't saying anything was abolished in Colossians 2:16-17, but was only saying don't let anyone judge you for observing them. This is not what Paul says. Paul doen't say "don't let anyone judge you FOR OBSERVING," rather, he says "let no one judge you IN RESPECT OF (or REGARDING)" these days. In other words, we are not to be judge for not keeping, or for keeping them, or for how we keep them. We simply are not to be judged REGARDING these days. This shows the days themselves were not binding, because if they were binding, we could rightly be judged for not observing them, or for observing them the wrong way. As a reason why we are not to be judged regarding these days, Paul says, "having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross." (Col 2:14) That this charge against us was the law of Moses is clear from Ephesians 2:15 "by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations." Deuteronomy 31:26 says the law covenant was a witness against the sons of Israel. Paul said that "the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death." (Rom 7:10) No doubt, it was against him.

Paul illustrates us leaving the law of Moses with a divorce. Just as a husband has to die so his wife can marry another, we too have become dead to the law, so we can be married to Christ. (Rom 7:1-6) We have "died to the law" (Rom 7:4), "we have been released from the law" (Rom 7:6), "not under the law." (Rom 6;14) How much plainer could he say we don't have to keep this law? We are dead to it, we are free from it, we are not under it!

My opponent then gives examples of what Jesus did on the Sabbath, but these actually show that Jesus didn't believe in Sabbath-keeping. Matt 12;5 tells us that the priests in the temple profaned (treat as not sacred, desecrate, broke) the sabbath and yet are blameless. Therefore, its not wrong to work on the Sabbath. For, as my opponent quoted, what man who has a sheep that falls into a pit on the Sabbath won't go get him out? But the Sabbath law says "Be careful not to carry a load on the Sabbath day or bring it through the gates of Jerusalem. Do not bring a load out of your houses or do any work on the Sabbath." (Jer 17;21-22) A sheep is certainly a load, so if the Sabbath was binding, Jesus would have told us to leave the sheep there because its better to obey God's law than to transgress his command for material gain. The sheep may mean income for the household, but God is able to provide if we are obedient. Isn't that what churches tell their flock when asking them to give financially into the church? That God will bless them for it, and will provide for them? Jesus never makes an excuse for us to commit adultery, or rape, or stealing, or fornicating, or robbery or taking bribes, but he does make an excuse for breaking the Sabbath, and he himself broke it.

" For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." (John 5:18) Here the Bible says three things about Jesus. One, God was his Father, and surely my opponent won't deny this. Two, he was equal with God, which is clear from passages like Isaiah 9:6, John 20:28; Matthew 28:18 and Hebrews 1:6-10. I trust, as a Christian, my opponent knows Jesus is God. And three, he had broken the Sabbath. I accept all that this verse says, but it seems my opponent only accepts the first two parts. This is John writing under inspiration, and he says that Jesus broke the Sabbath. Yet Con argues that Jesus set the example.

Now that I have deal with Con's arguments, let me go back to Colossians 2:16-17 where the Sabbath and feast days are called a shadow of Christ. "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming"not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered?...He sets aside the first to establish the second." (Heb 10:1-2, 9) The law which commanded sacrifices also commanded Sabbath keeping. These laws were shadows that pointed to realities, but were not the realities themselves. Now that we have Christ, the reality, do we still need to offer animal sacrifices? No! Why keep the shadow, when we can have the reality? A man does not make love to his wife's shadow when he can have the woman herself, so now that we have Christ, we don't need to go back to these shadows such as the Sabbath and feast days. He has set aside that which was first to establish what is second.

Pro never replied to Hebrews 8;7, 13 which shows that the first covenant was abolished. I gave verses showing that that covenant was the law which God wrote on stone, which includes the weekly Sabbath. So that ends the Sabbath requirement. These facts still stand in this debate unrefuted.

Nor did he respond to Galatians 4:21- 30 which tells us "Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?" (vs. 21) Paul is saying that these particular people wanted to be "under the law," which means they were NOT under the law. This only makes sense if "under the law" means to be "obligated to keep, or be within the jurisdiction of, the law." They wanted to show the law of Moses was till binding, but Paul knew it wasn't and thus he addresses them as wanting to be under the law. Some people argue that being "under the law" mean to be "condemned by the law as a lawbreaker," but then why would anyone want to be condemned?

Paul goes on to say, "The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar." (vs. 24) So Hagar, the slave woman, is the covenant made at Sinai which commanded the Jews to keep the Sabbath. Paul says about that covenant: "But what does Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman"s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman"s son." Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman." (vss. 30-31) Paul says we should GET RID OF the salve woman, that is, get rid of the law, the covenant. He says we are not children of that slave woman. That ends the law with its Sabbath requirement.

Con didn't respond to Romans 14:5 either. This verse gives us the freedom to keep the Sabbath if we so choose, that is, exalt one day above another, or to treat them as all the same. Yet, we couldn't rightly treat them all the same if one is sacred and the others are not. So this again shows the Sabbath isn't binding on us.

"For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect." (Heb 7:18-19 NKJV) I would like to ask my opponent what was disannuled (cancelled) in these verses if not the law? It refers here to "the...commandment" and "the law." You can't say any plainer that the law of Moses was abolished.

"Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances." (Eph 2;15 NJKV) It was the LAW OF COMMANDMENTS that was ABOLISHED according to this verse. That ends the feasts, sabbath, new moons, all of it. Of course, we can still keep them by personal choice if we want, but its simply wrong to tell others that God expects them to keep it, because that isn't true.

Con, please tell us, are you "UNDER THE LAW"? The answer to that will be quite revealing.

I look forward to Con's rebuttal.


Forfeit, so sorry.
Debate Round No. 2


This is what happens when people enter debates without reading the rules first


No seriously, lets go on for knowledge sakes, why shouldn't I celebrate the Sabbath? I do not believe Sunday is the Sabbath, it is Saturday. But why?
Debate Round No. 3


My point is not that you shouldn't keep the Sabbath. In fact, if you already keep it, and its a blessing in your life, I see no reason to stop. But I think its wrong to force the Sabbath on people by teaching them its required by God, and he will be displeased with them if they don't keep it. As I have shown in my opening argument, the Sabbath was abolished, just like animal sacrifices. While its not WRONG of SINFUL to practice sabbath-keeping and animal sacrifice, it is simply UNNECESSARY. And its wrong to teach people that they are obligated to do thing the Bible doesn't say they have to do.

Let me ask you this. A man is a published author. He writes books for a living. He works five hours, three days week, writing. Those days are Saturday from 8am till 1pm, Sunday after church is over, from 5pm till 10pm, and Monday from 10am till 3pm. Notice this man works on both Saturday and Sunday, but it doesn't stop him from going to church, nor does it stop him from making other time for God, because he also has Tues - Friday, four days for other spiritual activities. He can go out preaching, make time for prayer, Bible Study and so forth. What is wrong with that?

Even more important, what will you get from worshiping God on Saturday that he won't get from worshiping God any other day of the week? Will God not hear his prayers? So its simply not necessary to keep a Sabbath. And even if it were, you still couldn't prove which day it is. The Bible doesn't say the seventh day is Saturday and the first day is Sunday, it was historians of the world that came up with that.

The customary teaching that Jesus died and was buried on Friday evening, laid dead the Saturday Sabbath, and was resurrected on Sunday, is not Biblical nor provable. Jesus said, "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale"s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Matthew 12:40) These three days and nights begin not from the moment he hung on the cross, but from the moment he was placed in the tomb ("in the heart of the earth"). His enemies recalled he said "After three days I will rise again." (Matthew 27:63) That"s three complete days. Jesus taught the disciples that he would rise again "AFTER three days." (Mark 8:31) The word "after" showing these are three complete days. The Bible says that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus in the tomb late on the evening just before the Sabbath began (Luke 23:50-56; Matthew 27:57-61), so we know he was in the heart of the earth just before sunset. The Jews counted their days from sunset to sunset (Leviticus 23:32), so even if we assume that Jesus died on Friday, counting three days and three nights from here using today"s calendar would give us Friday sunset to Saturday sunset (= 1 day and one night), Saturday sunset to Sunday sunset (= 2 days and 2 nights), Sunday sunset to Monday sunset (= 3 days and 3 nights). Now, we are already past Sunday, so the first day of the week when the women went to the tomb simply cannot be Sunday at all. Notice that the women came to the tomb, not at sunset, but somewhere around sunrise (Mark 16:2), "very early in the morning" (Luke 24:1). So this brings us to Tuesday morning according to our current calendar. The only way to get around this is to argue that Jesus didn"t really mean three days, that he only meant one day and parts of two days and so forth, which is not allowing Scripture to speak for itself but forcing ones interpretation into the text.

Further, notice that when the women came to the tomb at sunrise on the first day of the week they found it empty, Jesus had already been resurrected. (Mark 16:2-7) The resurrection therefore occurred before sunrise, which means it would have occurred during the night portion of the Jewish first day.

We use the Roman calender, but not even the original one, because the Roman calender in the time of Jesus was the nundinal calendar which had 8 days, so the weekly Sabbath would fall on a different day every week on that calendar. There is just so much more that shows we can't even know for sure which day is the seventh day, it makes no sense arguing over the point. But since Scripture is clear that these days are no longer binding, we should not tell people they have to do it. At best, we should just encourage them to make time for God, and let them know that setting aside a day free of distraction to commune with him is a helpful tool, but not a law!


You say in your first sentence, don't stop. So you say that it is not a sin to do so. But the force.
People can choose to think whatever and do whatever. Free will some call it. We have infinite rights to God.
Not man however.
If men were angels they would not need government. - Thomas Jefferson
We must follow man and God. But according to Ruth and other chapters you choose God. And Jesus said
"Give what is to Caesars to Caesars, and give what is to God to God."

I would also like to wonder your views on the 3rd temple. And what is has to do with Revelation.
So you are suggesting to abandon the Ark of the Covenant? The Ten Commandments?
Jesus did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
Even by Jesus' time the Pharisees stop killing boys for cursing, for of too many and so inhumane. Laws have been hard to accomplish.
You must be totally pro-gay, are you pro-choice?
3 Temple thoughts?
Christ on Sabbath?
Thanks a lot, God Bless.
Debate Round No. 4


The Third Temple has nothing to do with this Sabbath discussion, so I'll treat it very briefly. The Jews have already submitted blueprints for a third temple to the US government, and they are seeking permission to resume animal sacrifice. It is prophesied in Daniel 9 that this third temple will be destroyed in the final (7th) week of the 70 weeks. The entire 70 weeks obviously don't run strait without any breaks in them, because in that case the 70 weeks would end before 70 CE and would not include the destruction of the city that is prophesied as part of the 70 weeks. Also Daniel 9:24 says ""Seventy "sevens"[c] are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish[d] transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.[e]" (NIV) By the end of the 70 weeks there will be "an end to sin" and "everlasting righteousness" among Daniel's people (the Jews) and in the holy city. Sin is still there, and they have not yet accepted the Messiah. Therefore, the 70 weeks are not complete. I'm not sure if Revelation mentions the 70 weeks, I would have to do some research on that; although I'm sure it does allude to the final week somewhere in there.

Am I suggesting to abandon the Ark of the Covenant? The Ten Commandments? It is God, not me, who says: "In those days, when your numbers have increased greatly in the land," declares the Lord, "people will no longer say, "The ark of the covenant of the Lord." It will never enter their minds or be remembered; it will not be missed, nor will another one be made." (Jer 3:16) Deuteronomy 4:13, Exodus 34:27-28; 1 Kings 8:9, 21 and many other verses show the 10 Commandments were the covenant God made with Israel, and Hebrews 8:7, 13 says that covenant was abolished.

Does that mean its now ok to steal, murder, and covet? No. Why not? Is it because 9 of the Ten Commandments are still in force? No. None of them are in force today. So why is it still wrong to murder and commit adultery? Because we have new laws against those things that are better than the Ten Commandments. Below is a quote from my book, Sabbath versus Sunday Error:

"But this doesn"t make sense!" You could say. "If the Ten Commandments are abolished, wouldn"t it be now alright to steal, murder, covet, and commit adultery?" First of all, it"s not proper or logical to reject what Scripture says just because it doesn"t make sense to us. I used to reject the doctrine of the Trinity because it didn"t make sense to me. How could 3 = 1? How could the Father be God, the Son be God, and the Holy Spirit be God, and yet not be three Gods? How could the Father be greater than the Son if he is God? (John 14:28) If Jesus is God, to whom was he praying? Was God praying to himself? And how could God, who is immortal, die on the cross? These questions used to perplex me, but when the Holy Spirit revealed himself to me I had to accept the revelation of God even in the face of my seemingly impressive human logic. Human logic, I found out as I studied deeper, is fallible, but God"s word is not. When Scripture says something, like "Christ is the end of the law" (Romans 10:4), we shouldn"t say "that can"t be true" just because it doesn"t make sense to us and challenges our cherished beliefs. Rather, we need to humble ourselves and realize that we are not infallible, and it"s possible we misunderstood some things.

The idea that the removal of the Ten Commandments would mean we no longer have any laws, and are free to murder and steal etc, is based on a lack of knowledge. It ignores the fact that Jesus gave us new laws which not only replaced the Ten Commandments, but these new laws are better than the Ten Commandments. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus shows that the new laws given in the New Covenant that he was bringing are superior to the Old Covenant Decalogue. He says:

Matthew 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery." [Old Covenant]"

Note how Jesus contrasts this law with a higher principle:

Matthew 5:28-29 "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. [New Covenant]"

Here, Jesus" contrasted the seventh commandment against adultery, to a much higher principle which says, guard your thoughts against sexual immorality. Under the old law, you had to commit the physical act of adultery to be wrong, but under the new law, you could just look at a married woman and be wrong. In fact, the penalty for breaking the seventh commandment was death (Leviticus 20:10), but people were not put to death for merely looking lustfully upon a woman. If a person were to look upon another man"s wife and proclaim out loud that he wanted her, he still was not guilty to adultery under the Ten Commandments. He could not be put to death for this. We all know what it means to look lustfully at a woman, and surely, giving a woman such a look was not enough to condemn a person to death in Israel. So adultery, under the Ten Commandments, did not include lusting after the woman. The seventh commandment was limited in contrast to the new law Jesus was giving. In fact, many of the holy men in the Old Testament were polygamists, and while I believe this was a sin, it was not considered to be adultery. If for example King David and Solomon were guilty of adultery when they married more than one woman, they would have to be stoned to death! Clearly, adultery did not embrace polygamy back then, but under the New Covenant, adultery does embrace polygamy. Any man taking a second wife is committing adultery. So the Christian law against adultery isn"t the same thing as the seventh commandment; it"s higher, and better, it has a deeper reach.

But I find Adventists tend to think what Jesus was doing was, not contrasting the Ten Commandments with new laws, but was trying to explain the deeper meaning of those Ten Commandments. So that Jesus was explaining adultery as including lust. But there is good evidence that in Matthew 5 Jesus was not explaining the meaning of Old Testament laws, but was contrasting them with new laws. For example, notice how Jesus continued to contrast the old laws with the new in all the verses which followed:

Matthew 5:31 "It has been said, "Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce." [Old Covenant]" This certificate of divorce was granted for simply displeasing her husband. (Matthew 19:7-8) That old law said: "If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house." (Deuteronomy 24:1)

This law allows for divorce on many grounds in which a woman may be found to displease her husband, but Jesus gives a new law stating that you should not divorce your wife at all, except on the single ground of fornication:

Matthew 5:32 "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. [New Covenant]" Jesus also said: "Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:9)

The Old Covenant allowed divorce, the New Covenant does not. This isn"t an explanation of the old law, but a contrast with the new.

Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth." [Old Covenant]"

Contrasted with:

Matthew 5:39 "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. [New Covenant]"

Here is not an explanation of eye for an eye, but rather, a complete contrast. One says to retaliate against your enemy, the other says don"t retaliate. Even in Matthew 5:33-37 Jesus said that the old law allowed men to swear oaths, but now Jesus was saying that we shouldn"t swear at all. Further evidence that Matthew 5 isn"t an explanation of Old Testament laws, but a contrast between them and the new." (Sabbath Versus Sunday Error: 2000 Years of Error, Daley Reece, pp. 153-157) I suggest you get this book

Jesus did not come to destroy but to fulfill. Yes, and when he fulfilled prophecies, the prophecies became a thing of the past no longer applicable or requiring further fulfillment. We don't need another virgin birth, do we. And when Jesus fulfilled the law, it too became a thing of the past. For example, the law commanded a passover lamb to be sacrificed. Jesus fulfilled this law by becoming our Passover who was sacrificed on the cross. "For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed." (1 Cor 5;7) So because he fulfilled it, we no longer need to offer up a passover lamb. Similarly, Jesus also fulfilled all the other laws of Moses, including the Ten Commandments. He became our true rest (Matt 11:28), so we no longer need to keep the Sabbath. He did come to destroy the law, which means to make the law useless, but to make it serve its purpose by fulfilling its significance.

Homosexuality is a sin according to Romans 1:26-28 and many other places, and abortion is also a sin and should not be committed unless its a choice between the mother's life and the child. They are exceptions to rules, but the few exceptions don't change the rules.


Thank you so much for the wisdom.
God bless, vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by daley 2 years ago
Hey, check this out, you might like it. I could use the support. It will be available in paperback in two-three days

I also have two others in paperback here
Posted by CountCheechula 2 years ago
I shall forfeit for stupidity, sorry for the time.
Posted by CountCheechula 2 years ago
Which Sabbath day are you speaking of Saturday, Sunday?
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Full concession.
Vote Placed by AdamKG 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were a very interesting read, although I ultimately have no opinion on the matter. Pro forfeits in round 2 losing points in conduct. Pro has an excellent and thorough case. Pro used sources directly from the Holy Bible in NIV and KJV with seemingly valid interpretation.