The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

The Sabbath is a commandment for all of God's people

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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 835 times Debate No: 41388
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




The seventh day is the Sabbath, and it is a commandment from God to observe. I can back this up using the bible.


"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)

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day (heortes), 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 2:16-17 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! It is far more likely that Paul was saying, "Let no one judge you regarding"an annual Sabbath, a new moon, or a weekly sabbath."

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.

Now having established that Paul was including the weekly sabbath in his list of shadows that pointed to Christ, just as he fulfilled the annual festivals such as the Passover and Christians no longer have to observe it, and he fulfilled the new moons so we no longer keep them, so too he fulfilled the sabbath so we no longer have to keep it. For the last 2000 years the church has not observed these days for this very reason.

Paul says "Let no one judge you" regarding these days. If these days were binding ordinances on us today, we Christians could rightly be judged for how we observe them, or for not observing them, for it its the duty of elders in the church to judge matters of wrongdoing in the church and correct the brothers when they err. (1Corinthians 5:11-13)

Hebrews 8:13 heralds the end of the old covenant, and we know that covenant was the Ten Commandments written on stone tablets, kept in the ark, according to 1 Kings 8:9, 21. Exodus 34:27, 28 is very explicit that the words of the covenant are the Ten Commandments, and Deuteronomy 4:13 calls the the covenant the Ten Commandments. So we have good evidence that the covenant in Hebrews 8 which God made with Israel was the Ten Commandments, and the seventh day sabbath was one of those commandments; therefore, the end of that covenant means the end of the sabbath. Unless my opponent can show me where the sabbath is instituted under the New Covenant for Christians, then he has lost this debate. He cannot use its inclusion in an abolished covenant as reason to bind it on our shoulders.

I look forward to his opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate and responding. I'm open-minded to all you have to say and hope you will be the same with me. This is my first debate, so bear with me.
I consider myself a Christian (though you may refer to my beliefs as Messianic Judaism). I believe that the ENTIRE bible is true and applicable to our lives. But the subject here is the Sabbath, and let's stay focused on that.

Today you have three kinds of Christians. You have Christians like you, who believe that the Sabbath commandment is abolished. You have Christians like me, who believe that the Sabbath commandment is intact. Lastly you have Christians who believe that:
a) Sunday has always been the Seventh Day and is the Sabbath we are to observe.
b) The Sabbath was switched to the first day of the week and we are now to observe Sunday as our day of worship.

Let me tell you that the idea of 'the Sabbath being obsolete' is a very new age idea. Fort centuries, Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, have observed Sunday as the Sabbath. I would appreciate it greatly if you did some research on this, if in doubt. Just have an open mind. It's all I ask.

Now, you quote Paul in Colossians regarding the Sabbath. Let me make it clear that I believe Paul was a man of God and what he taught was true. I believe that Paul observed God's Law, taught it and in no way undermined it.

That being said, if YOU believe that Paul taught the Sabbath was no longer necessary, and if his teachings are your only source of coming to the conclusion that the Sabbath is no longer necessary, tell me, what gives him authority to subvert the commandments of God? If you believe that Paul taught to rebel against God's commandments, then why would you obey him over God? If I truly believed that Paul taught anything against even the least of God's commandments, I would regard him as nothing more than a deceiver and a liar. As Peter said in Acts 5:29 NKJV "We ought to obey God rather than men."

A few things to be made clear:

1) Paul was a Pharisee until the day he died (Acts 23:6, Acts 26:5)
2. Paul was a Benjamite and observant of the law (Philippians 3:5-6)
3. Paul kept the Feast Days (Acts 18:21, Acts 20:16)

Does it make sense for a Pharisaic Benjamite to teach contrary to God's commandments? Why did he keep holy days if he deemed them not important?

And as I said before, if you are convinced that Paul truly does teach against the Sabbath, does it make any sense to put his authority over God's? Who is your god Daley, YHWH or Paul? If they don't agree, it should be clear who to obey.


It is not true that the abolition of the sabbath is a new age idea, it"s a very ancient idea established in the Scriptures: "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." (Hosea 2:11) It was God himself who prophesied the sabbath would be abolished and unless the terms "waxeth old," "decayeth," and "vanish away" do not mean to abolish, then clearly Hebrews 8:13 is talking about the end of the old covenant. I gave a number of verses to show that this covenant was the Ten Commandments, and you did not treat on any of them. (Deuteronomy 4:13; Exodus 34:27, 28; 1 Kings 8:9, 21) The Bible says that "Christ is the end of the law (Romans 10:4), "having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments." (Ephesians 2:15) That ends the commandments, and the sabbath is one of them. You said that you "believe Paul was a man of God and what he taught was true," so was he not true that the law had been abolished? (Hebrews 7:18)

You said that "for centuries, Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, have observed Sunday as the Sabbath. I would appreciate it greatly if you did some research on this." Well, I have done some research and what I found is that the earliest Christians going back to the period just after the apostles did not keep Sunday as the sabbath because they believed as I do that the sabbath was only for the Jews, that the sabbath was abolished, and that Sunday was another celebration separate from the sabbath. While you didn"t provide any sources for your claim, I will give you a few quotes:

Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord"s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr
"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you"namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us"I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]).
"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).

This shows they didn"t keep the sabbath at all, but rather, observed the first day most likely in honor of the resurrection. So Sunday wasn"t the sabbath to them, but a new celebration. I don"t share that belief with them, but it doesn"t support your argument to cite keeping of the first day (so-called Sunday) as the sabbath because your task in this debate is to prove the 7th day sabbath is binding, not the so-called 1st day sabbath! In any case, what Catholics and Protestants did later doesn"t prove anything; what counts is what Scripture teaches.

Paul is not my only authority for saying that the law came to an end, the entire word of God is. But you are the one who said that Paul taught the truth. In fact, Paul says he didn"t preach his own gospel, but only the revelation from God. (Galatians 1:11-12) So "what gives him authority to subvert the commandments of God?" Well I guess its God who is subverting the commandments, Paul is merely passing on the message. So it isn"t a case of obeying him over God now is it?

A few things to be made clear:

1) Paul was a Pharisee until the day he died (Acts 23:6, Acts 26:5) A Pharisee who believed that in Jesus Christ circumcision availeth nothing. (Galatians 5:6) Circumcision certainly had deep meaning to the Jews under the law, but not to him. Paul describes the covenant, the law, given at Sinai as a bondwoman, and says "cast out the bondwoman and her son," so the old law is being cast out. (Galatians 4:21-31) He tells us we are "not under the law." (Romans 6:14) Since you admit Paul was a man of God who told the truth, it must be true the law of Moses is abolished. That ends the sabbath.

2) Paul was a Benjamite and observant of the law, but in Philippians 3:5-6 which you cite, Paul is listing things he did before he became a Christian believer. Hence in verse 6 he says he persecuted the church; you don"t think we must do the same do you? Nor must we imitate his law keep in those verses. In the following verses (7-9) Paul counts all those things as loss that he may gain something better, a relationship with Christ. Keeping the law wasn"t the key; faith was.

3) Paul kept the Feast Days? The phrase "I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but" at Acts 18:21 is not found in the most ancient reliable manuscripts of the Greek Scriptures. The R.S.V. translation reads, "But on taking leave of them he said, "I will return to you if God wills," and he set sail for Ephesus." It is omitted by the fourth century C.E. manuscripts Codex Sianiticus and the Vatican MS #1209. A few more comments on this:

(a) This verse (Acts 18:21) mentions a feast that occurred "IN JERUSALEM." There were three feasts which required ALL Jewish men to go to Jerusalem, the place God chose (Deut 16:16; 1Kings 14:21). The fact that Paul LEFT THE BRETHREN to go to Jerusalem shows that the Christian brethren were NOT observing the feast.

(b) We know that the brethren would not be going to Jerusalem because Paul would have to "return" in order to meet them later. Paul"s return is described in Acts 19:1.

(c) Acts 20:6, merely shows the timing of Paul"s travel, not that he was celebrating anything, and verse 16 confines the celebration yet again confined to within the walls of Jerusalem in accord with Deuteronomy 16:16 and 1 Kings 14:21, so if you would keep this feast you need to do so in Jerusalem. Let me also put the question to you: is there any reference to Christians keeping this feast outside Jerusalem? And if so, why would Paul hasten to get to Jerusalem for a feast he could have celebrated at any local congregation in Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, etc? It is painfully obvious that it was, not the Christians, but the Jews in Jerusalem who were still observing this feast, and Paul was taking advantage of the opportunity too evangelise just like he did on the Sabbath. This does not state that Paul or the church was observing the day, only that Paul wanted to be in Jerusalem on that day. Just why Paul wished, if possible, to be in Jerusalem is not here stated.

Now that I have dealt with all my opponents objections, let me ask him to explain to us how it is that Jesus himself broke the sabbath according to John 5:18, if this commandment it still binding? I would also like him to answer my arguments on Colossians 2:16-17 and Hebrews 8:13.
Debate Round No. 2


I believe you are taking Hosea 2:11 out of context. God is saying that he will punish Israel for being 'adulterous'. They are being adulterous by forsaking his commandments and worshiping other gods. If you read the whole chapter you get a better idea of the main idea. Israel abandoning the holy days of YHWH is said as a negative thing, just as Israel worshiping Baal is said as a negative thing.

You correlate the ten commandments with a certain covenant, and I believe this to be true. I do not believe that this covenant is dead however. But let's back it up farther. The Sabbath is not part of the commandments of God given at Sinai to Israel. The Sabbath has been around long before the law; the Sabbath has been around since the dawn of creation.

Genesis 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

We see here that from the very beginning, God established the Sabbath. The seventh day was blessed and sanctified.

Now Exodus 31:16
Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.

I believe you are an educated fellow. I'm sure you know that the word perpetual means 'forever', 'everlasting', and 'continuous'. The Sabbath is a perpetual covenant between God and the Israelites.

Now you may argue that we are not Israelites, we are gentiles. To this I say that you are not Israel through blood, but through faith.

What comes next is crucial to understanding this.

Jeremiah 31:31-33
Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judahnot according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

We see here that the New Covenant applies ONLY to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Therefore, if you are not part of those houses, you are not part of the New Covenant. We also see that God says he will write his law on our hearts and put it in our minds. We see nothing about a change of law or an abolishment of law, as you are suggesting. A change of covenant does not imply a change of law. We see another example of the new covenant in Ezekiel 36:26-27

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

Once again, nothing about an abolition or change in law. Rather, an enforcement of the already given law.

Several covenants can exist at the same time as well. For example, God made a covenant with Noah, apart from the ten commandments that very well exists today.

Genesis 9:8-11
"Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying:“And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you,and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth.Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

The covenant between God and Noah applies today alongside the New Covenant.

You said that Christ 'ends the commandments'. If this is true, and the ten commandments are abolished through Christ, then is adultery, murder and stealing okay? Because those are also commandments of the Ten.

I believe that what Paul says is true because I believe that he does NOT teach that the commandments are abolished. But if YOU believe that he teaches contrary to God's commandments, then what sense is it to obey him over God? Paul says that he didn't preach the gospel, but the revelation from God. I completely agree with this because he teaches in accordance to God's Law. But if I believed that he DID NOT teach in accordance to God's Law, as you do, I would consider him a liar and false teacher.

So can you find anything that is either from the mouth of God, or from the mouth of Yeshua that teaches anything about an end to the Sabbath? I'm not compromising Paul's teachings in the least, but they do not hold authority over God's commandments.

The following is an excerpt from Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine:

Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea, (AD 336) transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday….
Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday, and the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles on a Sunday.
Q. By what authority did the Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her!
—Rev. Peter Geiermann, C.SS.R., (1946), p. 50.

Have you ever read the "Little House" series? They are childhood stories retold by Laura Ingalls Wilder, who grew up in the late 1800s. Here is an excerpt from Little House in the Big Woods. I want you to notice how 19th century protestants viewed Sunday. They were more legalistic about their Sunday 'Sabbath' then God wanted us to be about his seventh day Sabbath.

"WHEN your Grandpa was a boy, Laura, Sunday did not begin on Sunday morning, as it does now. It began at sundown on Saturday night. Then everyone stopped every kind of work or play.

"Supper was solemn. After supper, Grandpa's father read aloud a chapter of the Bible, while everyone sat straight and still in his chair. Then they all knelt down, and their father said a long prayer. When he said, "Amen," they got up from their knees and each took a candle and went to bed. They must go straight to bed, with no playing, laughing, or even talking.

"Sunday morning they ate a cold breakfast, because nothing could be cooked on Sunday. Then they all dressed in their best clothes and walked to church. They walked, because hitching up the horses was work, and no work could be done on Sunday.

"They must walk slowly and solemnly, looking straight ahead. They must not joke or laugh, or even smile. Grandpa and his two brothers walked ahead, and their father and mother walked behind them.

"In church, Grandpa and his brothers must sit perfectly still for two long hours and listen to the sermon. They dared not fidget on the hard bench. They dared not swing their feet. They dared not turn their heads to look at the windows or the walls or the ceiling of the church. They must sit perfectly motionless, and never for one instant take their eyes from the preacher.

"When church was over, they walked slowly home. They might talk on the way, but they must not talk loudly and they must never laugh or smile. At home they ate a cold dinner which had been cooked the day before. Then all the long afternoon they must sit in a row on a bench and study their catechism, until at last the sun went down and Sunday was over.

Here is the website for the Little House except I quoted.



Pro keeps arguing that if Paul teaches the abrogation of the law that he would reject Paul, as if rejecting Paul"s writings is an option. First of all, the inspiration of Paul"s letters, and the inspiration of any other holy book, does not depend on whether it agrees with my opponent"s interpretation. Pro arbitrarily makes agreement with the law of Moses the basis for acceptance in the Bible Canon of inspired books, but long before Paul, Jesus himself contradicts the law of Moses, showing that he himself intended to change the law. At Deuteronomy 24:1-4 Moses prescribed writing a divorce certificate on certain grounds, but at Matthew 19:1-9 Jesus is clearly abrogating this law, bringing back the original standard laid down in Eden. Leviticus 11 tells us that some foods were unclean to eat and one could become unclean by eating them, but in Mark 7:14-19 Jesus says: ""Don"t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him "unclean"? For it doesn"t go into his heart, but into his stomach, and then out of his body." In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean."" (NIV) So if contradicting the law would cause Pro to reject Paul"s theology, he would have to reject Jesus too. Pro didn"t even reply to John"s statement that Jesus was "breaking the sabbath" at John 5:18. Secondly, rejecting Paul isn"t really an option because Peter declares that Christians in his day accepted Paul"s letters as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), and we know Paul was accepted by the apostles and other gospel writers of his day. So if Paul is wrong, then even the apostles and the entire church were wrong, and so is the Bible Canon! What"s more, Paul"s God is the God of the Old Testament, so if what Paul preached was in error, then all the Old Testament prophets were in error because they got their doctrine from the same source as Paul. My opponent knows he can"t face all of that, so he has to maintain that Paul was right. But by doing so he shoots himself in the foot, because Paul is clearly teaching the abolition of the law of Moses.

Circumcision was one of the commandments in the law of Moses. (Leviticus 12:3) But Paul says "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God"s commandments is what counts." (1 Corinthians 7:19 NIV) "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6 NIV) Notice that Paul says circumcision is "nothing," it has no value. He couldn"t say that if it was an important command to obey. If Paul thought this was a binding commandment, he would not have mentioned circumcision separately from the commandments of God. Paul doesn"t include circumcision as one of the commands of God to Christians. Pro is yet to respond to Ephesians 2:15, "Having ABOLISHED in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments." Pro, what is being ABOLISHED in Ephesians 2:15?

Contrary to your claim, Pro, I didn"t take Hosea 2:11 out of context. I agree with you that God is punishing Israel, and what is the punishment? That he will cause her holy days to CEASE! So the time would come when the sabbath would be no more. What else could CEASE mean? You also said "If you read the whole chapter you get a better idea of the main idea. Israel abandoning the holy days of YHWH is said as a negative thing." Where in Hosea chapter 2 was their abandoning the holy days said to be a negative thing? Their abandoning the holy days isn't even mentioned in Hosea 2, so it"s you who read out of context, not me.

Pro tries to save the sabbath by arguing that it existed before the covenant made at Sinai, but animal sacrifice and circumcision also existed before Sinai (Genesis 4:4; 15:8-10; 17:10), and yet both have been abolished. Hebrews 10:1-10 shows the animal sacrifices are no longer necessary after being replaced by Christ as our ultimate sacrifice. Pro, do you make animal burnt offerings for your sins? Just like the sabbath, these too became part of the law at Sinai and were abolished with it; it matters not when they were established.

As for the word "perpetual" at Exodus 31:16, yes, I am an educated fellow, and that"s how I know that the Hebrew word "olam" translated "perpetual," or "forever" simply means a long time, or a period of unspecified duration. "Your fathers, including Terah, the father of Abraham and the father of Nahor, dwelt on the other side of the River in old times [olam]; and they served other gods." (Joshua 24:2 NKJV) They didn"t live on that side of the river forever, did they? Nor did they serve other gods for eternity. Olam here means a period with a beginning and an end. Do you believe the slave at Exodus 21:6 will be in slavery forever (olam)? Will we keep slaves in the new world? Will slavery exist in heaven? This law doen't exist among Christians now; or do you really keep slaves? 1 Kings 8:13 speaks of the physical temple as a place built for God to dwell in forever, but we know it was destroyed by the Babylonians, and the next one destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. Exodus 27:20-21 calls the Aaronic priesthood "for ever (olam)" and yet the Levitical priesthood ended. "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For there is verily a DISANNULLING of the commandment." (Hebrews 7:11, 12, 18) How could you not see that here Paul teaches the end of that law? What was being DISANNULLED? The definition of olam I gave can be found in the Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon by Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott; I suggest you read it and get educated on this matter.

Pro says: "We see nothing about a change of law or an abolishment of law, as you are suggesting." Well, I"m not the one who wrote Hebrews 7:12, 18; 8:7, 13; Ephesians 2:15; Romans 10:4; Galatians 4:24-30 or Colossians 2:14-17, so I"m not the one suggesting, Paul is, and what he writes are the commandments of God. (1 Corinthians 14:37). Pro assumes the law of the New Covenant is the same old law all over again without any changes. So did the Old Covenant command baptism? Of course our laws are different. Jesus contrasted "an eye for an eye" in the law of Moses, to "resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39) Clearly Christians are given a higher standard to live by, and this is why we fear not that abolishing the Ten Commandments will make adultery and murder legal, for our law is even better than those ten which only forbade the act. Our law forbids the thoughts and feelings that lead to the act. (Matthew 5:27-28)

Pro believes that just because Catholics claim that they changed the sabbath to Sunday that they actually did, but Catholics make all kinds of false claims that aren"t supported by history. They also claim that Peter was the first Pope, that he was not married (contradicts Matthew 8:14), that Mary was immaculately conceived free from sin, remained a virgin all her life (contradicts Matthew 13:53-56; Mark 3:31-35), ascended to heaven without dying, etc. Do you believe them? Then why believe they changed the sabbath to Sunday in AD 336? The historical fact is that the church was meeting for worship on Sundays long before the existence of the first Pope. 100 AD "We keep the eight day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead." (The Epistle of Barnabas 15:6-8) In AD 150 Justin say: "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read," then goes on to describe the church service. (First Apology of Justin, Weekly Worship of the Christians, ch 68) Justin Martyr, Clement, Tertullian, and other church fathers consistently record that Christians were not keeping the sabbath but were meeting for worship on Sunday long before the first pope existed. Jesus promised his church would remain faithful (Matthew 16:18), so Pro is either saying that God"s church was unfaithful all that time, which means Jesus" prophecy has failed; or else this was not his church. If it wasn"t, I challenge Pro to show me historical documentation on where God"s true church was during the last 2000 years.

I already gave quotes from ancient church fathers showing that Christians throughout the centuries gathered for worship on Sundays. I challenge my opponent to do likewise for the sabbath.

Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]hose who were brought up in the ancient order of things [i.e. Jews] have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord"s day, on which also our life has sprung up again by him and by his death" (Letter to the Magnesians 8 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr

"[W]e too would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined [on] you"namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your heart. . . . [H]ow is it, Trypho, that we would not observe those rites which do not harm us"I speak of fleshly circumcision and Sabbaths and feasts? . . . God enjoined you to keep the Sabbath, and imposed on you other precepts for a sign, as I have already said, on account of your unrighteousness and that of your fathers . . ." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 18, 21 [A.D. 155]).

"But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead" (First Apology 67 [A.D. 155]).

What proof has the Catholic Church offered to show that she changed the sabbath to Sunday aside from her mere empty claim? It is obvious that gathering for worship on the first day goes back to the original apostles. Acts 20:7
Debate Round No. 3


Of course I believe that Paul is right. I am only saying, that God and Yeshua's instructions supersede Paul's. Paul was not divinity. His books are a Pharisaic Rabbi's commentary on both the Torah and the gospel of Christ. He was a godly man, and certainly had the holy spirit. Much can be learned from his books and his teachings. I do NOT disregard his teachings.

Let's go over a few things. You said:

"but at Matthew 19:1-9 Jesus is clearly abrogating this law, bringing back the original standard laid down in Eden".

In Eden, both Adam and Eve were vegetarian, as meat did not become food until after the flood (Genesis 9:1-5). Does that mean that eating meat is sinful and we should go back to vegetarianism?

In Eden, incest was acceptable. We know that Eve was the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20) and that Cain had a wife (Genesis 4:17). Cain could have married his sister or his niece, which would have involved his brother marrying his sister.
We know that Abraham married his half sister as well (Genesis 20:12).

Incest was permitted until the time of Moses, where it was forbidden in the book of Leviticus, and then reinforced in Deuteronomy. But according to you, the law is dead, therefore incest and bestiality must be okay, as they are only mentioned in the 'dead' law.

So I'm sure we can agree that the ordinances of pre-Moses are not what Yeshua wanted to bring back.

The Sabbath is one thing that has existed since Creation. We read in Genesis 2:1-3 how God blessed and sanctified the seventh day. It is not something new that God added with Moses.

Let's move on. In Deuteronomy 4:2, God is very clear: "
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

By discarding the Sabbath, you are adding to the word which God commanded you.

You also said:

"Pro tries to save the sabbath by arguing that it existed before the covenant made at Sinai, but animal sacrifice and circumcision also existed before Sinai" then added "Pro, do you make animal burnt offerings for your sins?"

There are 613 commandments in God's Law. Not all of these apply to me and not all apply to you.
Some commandments apply only to women.
*Some commandments apply only to slaves.
*Some commandments apply only to priests.
*Some commandments apply only to judges.
*Some commandments apply only to farmers.
*Some commandments apply only to men.

The sacrificial commandments
apply ONLYto priests and are performed ONLY in the temple. It is not my place to perform these.

Let's move on. You keep going on about how the law is abolished. Let's see if that adds up with what Yeshua taught, and let's see if Yeshua taught positively or negatively about the law. These read these verses with an untainted, unbiased mind. They will all be in New King James Version.

When Yeshua is in the wilderness fasting, and is tempted by Satan, what does he use in his defense? Does he make up things to say, or does he quote from the Law of God? He does the latter, and it works.

Matthew 4:4
"But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’"

Not new. This comes from Deuteronomy 8:3
So He humbled you, allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna which you did not know nor did your fathers know, that He might make you know that man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord."

Let's think about what that means. Man is to live by EVERY WORD that has proceeded out of the mouth of God. That would mean we are to live by God's commandments, as ALL his commandments are words that hath proceeded from his mouth.

Yeshua quotes from God's Law again in Matthew 4:7, in his defense against Satan.

Matthew 4:7

Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’”

Deuteronomy 6:16

"You shall not tempt the Lord your God as you tempted Him in Massah."

Anytime you see "It is written" in the New Testament, it is quoting a verse from the Old Testament. Why would Yeshua be quoting from a law that he abolished?

By saying that the Law is abolished, you are going directly against the teaching of Yeshua. He is very clear that he did not come to abolish the law.

Matthew 5:17-20

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

He is very clear that he came NOTto destroy the law. Until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or tittle of the law will be destroyed.THEREFORE, whoever breaks the least of the Law's commandments will be called LEAST in Heaven, but those who OBEY AND TEACH THEM will be called great in Heaven.We also know that many of the Jews failed to obey the Law of Moses.

John 7:19

"Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?”

Matthew 7:21-23
"“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"

Lawlessness. The opposite of obedience to the law.

Yeshua tells us to obey the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees.

Matthew 23:1-3
"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do."

Yeshua was circumcised.

Luke 2:21
And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb."

Yeshua did not break the Sabbath. He did not work, nor cook, nor buy and sell on the Sabbath day. He simply healed, and picked food and ate it right there. You must understand how legalistic the teachers of the Law were in that time, and that they exaggerated the requirements for keeping Sabbath. This is documented history, and I will provide links for it below.

He does NOT say the Sabbath is abolished. He says that it is lawful to do GOOD on the Sabbath and that he is LORD OF THE SABBATH. This gives clear implication that there IS a Sabbath, and that he is Lord of it, and that it is lawful to do good deeds on the Sabbath.

Now Mark 7. Let's look at the context of the squabble between Yeshua and the Pharisees.

Mark 7:5
"Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”

You can clearly see the context of their argument is hand washing, a man-made law.That is the context when Yeshua answers in Mark 7:18-19:
"So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?”

Remember that unclean animals are NOT considered food. All food is clean.

If you are going to take Yeshua literally in Mark 7:18-19, then you must assume that it is okay to eat blood too, something that God constantly forbid in the Old Testament and something that Paul also forbid in Acts 15.

Let's remember that Yeshua was a rabbi, and that rabbis spoke in parables and figuratively. Not everything he says can be taken literally. For example:

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

Do you honestly believe Yeshua wants you to hate your family and your own life? Or is this figurative speech to make the point that you must love Yeshua more than your family? In the same way, Yeshua is making the point in Mark 7:18-19, that your heart is more important than what you eat. He's not saying that it doesn't matter WHAT you eat.

Oh and if you're going to take Yeshua literally on that, you may as well take him literally in Mark 14 when he says that the bread is his body and the wine is his blood.

Let's not forget Luke 7:8-13, where Yeshua gives clear reference to two commandments of the law, including death penalty.

For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

It should be clear that the Pharisees did NOT truly keep the Law of Moses, and Yeshua rebuked them for it. It should also be clear that he was in full agreement with the commandment to put to death people who curse their parents. After all, he was the one who GAVE the commandment at Sinai. Why would he teach against his own commandments?



My opponent claims that he isn"t disregarding Paul"s teaching, but he is disregarding Paul"s teaching, for he doesn"t believe that that Jesus "abolished in his flesh the enmity, even law of commandments." (Ephesiand 2:15) Pro doesn"t accept that "there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before." (Hebrews 7:18) He disregards the fact that "the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Hebrews 7:12) Because he disregards these teachings of Paul, he has to make the argument that God"s word, and the words directly spoken by Jesus, take precedence over Paul"s, but paints the picture that he is contrasting God"s word to Paul"s word. Let me ask him this: do you believe that Paul preached his own ideas, or did he preach the word of God? How can God"s word be less worthy of believe when given through a prophet or apostle (like Paul) than when God speaks to us himself? I"ve shown before that the church considered Paul"s word to be scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), and all scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). So when Paul preached, when he wrote to the churches, he wasn"t writing his own uninspired commentary on the Torah and the Gospel of Christ, but was preaching the commandments of God. (1 Corinthians 14:37) As Paul said: "the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ." Then he goes on to relate how Jesus himself met him on the road to Damascus and caused his conversion. (Galatians 1:11-24)

There is no way Moses could have written the account of his own death, burial, and mourning at Deuteronomy 34:5-8.
This account of the conquest of Laish and the changing of its name to Dan at Judges 18:27-29 is placed in the Bible, immediately after the death of Samson. Now Samson was the twelfth, and last, Judge. The Judges were the rulers of Israel after the death of Joshua. Moses died more than two hundred years before Samson. Thus, the name of the city of Laish was changed to Dan only some two to three centuries after the death of Moses. Genesis 14:14 says: "When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan." This allusion to Dan, is an anachronism, and could not have been written by Moses. The passage could only have been written by someone who lived after the period of the Judges, when Laish had become Dan, more than two hundred years after the death of Moses. We find another anachronism in Genesis 23:2 which provided an explanatory note that Kirjath-arba, the town where Rachel died is Hebron. The city of Kirjath-arba was not called Hebron until the time of the conquest when Joshua gave it to Caleb (Joshua 14:13-15).So Moses definitely didn"t write the Pentateuch; we don"t know who wrote the first five books of the Bible. Yet, Pro is willing to trust an anonymous source to tell him what God said to Moses, but doesn"t put the same level of faith in Paul, whom we do know, to tell us what Jesus revealed to him. This is an ironic double standard. What Jesus said while on earth cannot take president over what he revealed through Paul, anymore than it can take president over what he revealed through Moses or any other prophet! Why? Because what he reveals through them is no less true.

Pro, doesn"t God have the right to change his law? If he hasn"t changed his law, then Paul was wrong when he wrote Ephesians 2:15 and Hebrews 7:12, 18, and all those Jews and Christians who believed him in all those churches across the Roman Empire were deceived, and so was the church of God deceived for the last 2000 years! I challenge Pro to show me where the church of God was that was keeping the law of Moses for the last 2000 years. If it didn't exist, then Yeshua's prophecy has failed. He promised the gates of hell would not overcome his church. (Matthew 16:18) If the church apostasized from the law God expected them to keep, and broke his law for 2000 years, then the gates of hell surely overpowered them.

I also challenged Pro to tell us if he offers up animal sacrifice since he thinks the sacrificial law of Moses is still binding. He said "The sacrificial commandmentsapply ONLYto priests and are performed ONLY in the temple. It is not my place to perform these." But according to 1 Peter 2:9, ALL believers are priests, so yes, it does apply to you. Will you question the validity of Peter"s writings too? By the way, where is your temple? If this law was still binding, wouldn"t God make sure he had a temple for it? Yet, since the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, no temple has yet been rebuilt.

I said that in Matthew 19 Jesus was bringing back God"s original standard, and anyone reading this could see I was only talking about God"s original standard regarding divorce. Jesus told the Pharisees that Moses allow them to divorce their wives on account of their hard-heartedness, but from the beginning it wasn"t so. God said that a man should "cleave to his wife," and what "God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." (vss 3-9) So Jesus was overruling Moses" law which allowed them to write divorce certificates on various grounds. Jesus says "only" on the grounds of fornication does he allow divorce. Pro dragging in issues of diet and incest which I never claimed were the original standards Jesus meant, does not answer the fact that he did restore the original view toward divorce.

Pro uses Deuteronomy 4:2 to show that we can"t discard the sabbath or we"d be adding to what God said; actually, we"d be taking away from what he said. We surely don"t have the right to take upon ourselves the right to abolish any law of God, but God himself, because he made the law, has the right to change it if he wishes, does he not? He is the one who promised he would cause the sabbath to cease. (Hosea 2:11) He is the one who say via the apostle Paul that the law has been changed, and let"s remember it was Jesus himself who came down from heaven and made Paul and apostle. Let"s remember that Jesus broke the sabbath. At Jeremiah 17:21-22, God himself said: "bear no burden on the sabbath day." Yet, Jesus commanded a man to walk with his bed. (John 5:8-11) "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had BROKEN THE SABBATH, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." John says that the Jews tried to kill him, and we believe him; he says Jesus claimed equality with God, and I can"t speak for Pro, but all Christians I know believe him. John 1:1-3, 10, 18 presents Jesus as God, and as the creator of the world. Colossians 1:15-19 and Hebrews 1:1-3, 8-12 presents the same view. Jesus claims the same honor that belongs to the Father. (5:23) So I have no doubt he is God. So if John was right about the Jews wanting to kill him, and he was right about his claim to divinity, then he was also reliable about him breaking the sabbath! So we can"t change the law on our own, but God can and has changed it, through his Son, and has revealed this change by his prophets and apostles.

So why would Jesus quote a law that he has abolished? Because all of it wasn"t abolished at the same time, and the majority was still in effect while he walked the earth as a man. It was only at the cross that the majority, the bulk of the law of Moses came to an end. (Colossians 2:14-17) However, Matthew 4:4 is a principle. Even when the law of Moses is abolished, the laws we have to live by are still coming from God"s mouth; but as my opponent said, some laws apply to men, others to women, others to judges, farmers, etc, so not every single law under the Old or the New Covenant is for us to live by.

Matthew 5:18 says that till heaven and earth pass, nothing will pass from the law TILL all is fulfilled. So Jesus isn"t saying the law won"t pass away, he is saying it won"t pass away TILL it is fulfilled, and fulfilling the law is what he says he came to do in verse 17. Matthew 1:25 tells us that Joseph did not know (have sex with) Mary TILL she gave birth to Jesus, which means he did know her sexually after Jesus was born. So if the law won"t pass away TILL it is fulfilled, then when Jesus fulfills it, it would pass away.

As for "lawlessness," Matthew 7:21-23 is talking about breaking the new law we live by now, not the law of Moses.

As for Mark 7:15, Jesus says "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him." The law of Moses says there are meats that can defile you, thus, a change is made in the law. There was absolutely nothing figurative here; it wasn"t something figurative that goes into the stomach in verse 19. Even the King James Version says "purging ALL MEATS," so isn"t pork a meat? My opponent says unclean animals are not considered food, but it was God who said to Noah "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you." (Genesis 9:3) It was God who told Peter to eat animals he thought was unclean, no doubt because he didn"t yet grasp the law was abolished. (Acts 10:9-15) God told Peter not to call these animals defiled. God has cleansed them.

My opponent keeps saying Paul was right, I believe Paul. So please explain to us what was being abolished at Ephesians 2:15 and Hebrews 7:12, 18 if not the law! Are you afraid of these passages?
Debate Round No. 4


You are very well read in the bible Daley, and I admire that of you. You need to keep an open mind though.

You are a rarity in the fact that you believe that Yeshua broke the Sabbath and acted contrary to God's Torah. The majority of Protestants I have talked to have this ideology: "Yeshua kept the Law, so we don't have to."

Now you said, and I quote: "
Because all of it wasn't abolished at the same time, and the majority was still in effect while he walked the earth as a man. It was only at the cross that the majority, the bulk of the law of Moses came to an end."

If the Law was abolished at the cross, as most Protestants believe (I'm assuming you're a Protestant), then Yeshua would have absolutely NO RIGHT to break the Sabbath. Doing so would be a sin deserving of death; capital punishment. And you and I both believe that the Messiah was perfect and sinless.

Perhaps you think that some commandments were abolished BEFORE the cross, the Sabbath being one of them. This is an absurdity too. If some commandments could be abolished before the cross, when why couldn't all of the ones you believe are?

As Yeshua said "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Did Yeshua break the rabbinical legalism that the Pharisees had? Yes. Did he actually break God's commandments? No. John 5:8-11 is about a sick man being healed.

I don't think you really caught Matthew 5:18

"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."

Have heaven and earth passed away? No.
Has all been fulfilled? Is every prophecy written in the books of the prophets fulfilled? How about Revelation? Has the prophecies in Revelation been fulfilled?


Heaven and earth have NOT passed away, and all has NOT been fulfilled. THEREFORE, whosoever breaks the least of these commandments shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but he who practices and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You said "
As for "lawlessness," Matthew 7:21-23 is talking about breaking the new law we live by now, not the law of Moses."

Now look at John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."

(I took out the 'but' between Moses and grace, because it is an italic word, added by translators to try to make things simpler. In reality it often distorts scripture.)

You assume that Ephesians 2:15 and Hebrews 7:12 speak of Mosaic Law. You assume John speaks of Mosaic Law. Yet when Yeshua speaks of the law, you assume it's a 'different law' even though the same word is given. You're fooling yourself. It's the same law. The Greek word for it is the same.

Paul speaks highly of the law, and yes this is the same law that came through Moses:

Romans 2:12
"For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified".

Romans 2:17-23
"Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God, and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law, and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law. You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who say, do not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?

Romans 2:25-27
"For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?

Romans 3:1-2
What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God."

Romans 3:31
" Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law."

Romans 7:12
"Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good."

Romans 7:22
"For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man."

Romans 7:25
I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin."

2 Corinthians 6:14
"Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?"

2 Corinthians 12:20-21
"For I fear lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I wish, and that I shall be found by you such as you do not wish; lest there be contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, backbitings, whisperings, conceits, tumults; lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and I shall mourn for many who have sinned before and have not repented of the uncleanness, fornication, and lewdness which they have practiced.

2 Thessalonians 2:7-10
"For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

1 Timothy 1:8-11
"But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust."

And many more.

If Yeshua declared pork and shellfish to now be food for us, then why does Peter, years later, say the following in Acts 10:14?

"Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”

If Yeshua really meant that we could now eat whatever we wanted, then why was Peter so against it? We also know that the meaning of Peter's vision in Acts 10 has nothing to do with animals. The animals symbolize gentiles. The interpretation of the vision is given twice in the bible, from Peter himself. So it's silly to try to say it meant something else.

The meaning of the vision:

Acts 10:28
"Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Acts 11:1-18
"Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the circumcision contended with him, saying, “You went in to uncircumcised men and ate with them!”

But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying: “I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object descending like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came to me. When I observed it intently and considered, I saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ But I said, ‘Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.’ But the voice answered me again from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’ Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven. At that very moment, three men stood before the house where I was, having been sent to me from Caesarea. Then the Spirit told me to go with them, doubting nothing. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’ And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, ‘John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?”

When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.”

Compare with Acts 10:14:

"But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.

The interpretation is indeed given for you. No reason to make up your own wild ideas that nullify the law of God.

Let's top it off with Revelation 12:14
"Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city."

The commandments that Christ supposedly abolished.

If you're going to take Mark 7:18-19 literally, then you must assume that eating blood is okay, something that Paul specifically forbids in Acts 15. You must also take Luke 14:26 literally, and hate your family.

You better cut off your body parts too, because they cause you to sin. (Matthew 18:8-9)

It is understood that Yeshua spoke in parables and analogies, and that he should not be taken literal for everything he says.



So we"ve come to Pro"s final post and he still hasn"t given us an explanation of Hebrews 7:12, 18; 8:7, 13; Ephesians 2:15; Romans 10:4; Galatians 4:24-30 or Colossians 2:14-17. He told me "You assume that Ephesians 2:15 and Hebrews 7:12 speak of Mosaic Law," but he didn"t tell us directly which law these verses are about. Maybe this is because if he admits they were talking about the Mosaic law, then he"d have to admit that"s the law being abolished in those verses? But if he says its talking about a different law, then he has to admit that God has more than one law in the Bible, and therefore he can no longer assume that when the Bible commands Christians to keep the law that it has to be, and can only be, the law of Moses. So to escape these two positions, he avoided giving an explanation of Ephesians 2:15 and Hebrews 7:12 altogether.

Then he says: "Yet when Yeshua speaks of the law, you assume it's a 'different law' even though the same word is given. You're fooling yourself. It's the same law. The Greek word for it is the same." So Pro assumes that because the Greek word for law is the same in both cases, that that"s enough to prove it"s the same law. Well consider please, that the Greek word for "Father" which Jesus applies to God is the same Greek word applied to the Devil in John 8:38 and John 8:44; so if the same word must always mean the same thing, Satan would be God Almighty. The same word often has different meanings, and this is why elohim, the Hebrew word for "God" at Genesis 1:1, also means the false gods of Egypt at Exodus 12:12, so I don"t see why the word "law" must always mean the same law. The Hebrew and Greek words for "covenant" are the same all through Scripture, so does that mean that the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic law covenant, the covenant with Levi, the Davidic covenant, and the New Covenant, are all the same covenant? His method of interpretation would lead us to believe that in Romans 7:25 the law of God and the law of sin is the same law.

Pro assumes I"m a Protestant, he assumes wrong. He argues that if the law ended at the cross then the sabbath was binding before that, and Jesus couldn"t break it or he"d be sinning. Yet, he never dealt with John"s statement in John 5:18 that Jesus was BREAKING THE SABBATH. In fact, he says that it was lawful for Jesus to heal on the sabbath, implying the Apostle John was wrong in his comment on Jesus" sabbath breaking. So its Pro, or John, whom should we believe? I"ll go with John " after all, he was there, Pro wasn"t! And by the way, it wasn"t the healing that caused John to say Jesus broke the sabbath, it was the fact that Jesus commanded the man he healed to carry his bed on the sabbath in direct contradiction to Jeremiah 17:21-22 which forbids carrying any load on the sabbath. Isn"t a bed heavy? (John 5:8-11) My opponent didn"t even touch those verses. He just dogmatically refused to believe what the Scriptures said. Obviously, if Jesus is creator of the sabbath, Lord of the sabbath, he has authority to cancel it; and if he, by his very example, abolishes the sabbath, who are we to accuse him of sin as my opponent suggests we could? Jesus himself said that the priests in the temple profane the sabbath and are guiltless (Matthew 12:5); why can"t Jesus break the sabbath and be guiltless? He made it, he has the right to destroy it, and he didn"t have to wait for the cross to do so.

Matthew 5:18 doesn"t say "one jot or one tittle will be no means pass from the law AND THE PROPHETS till all is fulfilled," it says nothing will pass from "THE LAW till all is fulfilled." So the condition for the passing away of the law isn"t the fulfillment of all prophecy, but the fulfillment of all the law. So all prophecy doesn"t have to be fulfilled before the law of Moses could be abolished, but all the law has to be fulfilled before it can be abolished. Now Jesus said in verse 17 that he came to fulfill the law; that was his mission, so if Pro doesn"t believe all the law is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, he must believe that Jesus failed his mission " that he didn"t fulfill the law, that he didn"t do what he said he came here to do. I"ll leave readers to think on that.

Pro now expects me to explain Romans 2:12, 17-23, 25-27; 3:1-2, 31; 7:12, 22, 25; 2 Corinthians 6:14; 12:20-21; 2 Thessalonians 2:7-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11, but yet despite repeated requests he has given us no explanation for Hebrews 7:12, 18; 8:7, 13; Ephesians 2:15; Romans 10:4; Galatians 4:24-30 or Colossians 2:14-17! Like Jesus, if you refuse to answer my question, don"t expect me to answer yours. (Matthew 21:23-27)

Pro wants to know why Peter had not eaten anything unclean at Acts 10:14, but it doesn"t occur to him that he was wrong. God corrected Peter by telling him: "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." (vs 15) The same animals Peter just calls unclean, God says are cleansed, but Pro is taking Peter"s side, I side with God. Then Pro actually argues the animals symbolize Gentiles because of verse 28, so I guess he must believe that God wanted Peter to become a cannibal, for in verse 13 God tells Peter "kill, and eat." Kill and eat humans? Maybe Pro thinks this was a command to kill them spiriturally, but I think we all want to be spiritually alive, not dead. The point Peter learnt was that if he wasn"t to call even the animals unclean, of how much more is a man worth than a pig? So no man should be treated as such either.
Now I will prove that Christians are under a different law. Romans 6:14 says we are "not under the law," but 1 Corinthians 9:21 shows we are "under the law to Christ." Now we can"t both be under, and not under, the same law; so we are not under the law of Moses, but we are under the law of Christ, two separate laws. So there is no reason to assume the words "law" or "commandment" always refer to Old Testament regulations.

Pro argues that if I take Mark 7:18-19 literally that I have to take everything in the Bible literally, so if he thinks Mark 7:18-19 is symbolic, does he have to take everything in the Bible symbolically? I take Mark 7:18-19 literally because it was talking about literal food and a literal stomach. Not everything Jesus said was figurative.

Pro never told us who were the true church that Jesus built which was keeping the law of Moses for the last 2000 years. Jesus promised his church would remain faithful, so then where was it? The church we know of, the Christian Church, has consistently taught that the law of Moses was abolished over the centuries; so if she is wrong, then has Jesus' promise failed? Pro couldn't even address this issue. Maybe because the movement he is part of cannot identify itself as the church that Jesus built? Well, since this is the last post in this debate, maybe we'll never know. I thank Pro for a lively and stimulating debate.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Nzrsaa 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate! Conduct was fine, spelling and grammar was fine, neither debaters provided sources. However, I think that pro gave slightly better arguments (though not by much - it was close!) I think that pro backed up his arguments more concisely. Good debate though!
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was truly a tough debate. But, I think Con did better. He seemed to show the burden of proof for the church abolishing the Sabbath since Christ, because Christ is the Law, so we are no longer under the Mosaic Law. Good job to both debaters.