Jesus willfully violated the Sabbath Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » DISCUSSION » Jesus willfully violated the Sabbath « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 159
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2014 - 7:17 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Ellen White articulated a breathless and fantastic conspiracy theory of Sabbath Abandonment, presided over by an evil and malign Papacy as the Grassy Knoll Sabbath Assassin. She went to fantastic lengths to argue that Jesus did NOT willfully break the Sabbath and that he did not publicly-announce the expiration of the Sabbath by doing so. She had to perform the following startling, convoluted and strenuous mental gymnastics to deflect attention from the obvious:

A). The most brilliant and careful experts on the Sabbath Law in history were sadly mistaken when they unanimously declared Christ guilty of not just Sabbath-breaking; but of openly flaunting his misconduct and encouraging others to follow his example. And that’s after the “crime” happened right in front of these elaborately-educated and trained foes! No witness credibility problems! And she disregarded that those same experts had a clear and compassionate history of lenient interpretation of the Sabbath Law, and had a pronounced bias AGAINST detecting Sabbath Breaking. And she ignored their stated goal of making accusations of Sabbath Breaking extremely difficult to prove, and extremely onerous to impose the disfavored and unpalatable Death Penalty if the act – against all odds - was proven.

B). She did not convincingly explain why the “suspect” never actually denied committing the crime, which ultimately led to his brutally-tortuous execution;

C). She tacitly argued the Apostles drew precisely the wrong (but nonetheless the most obvious) conclusions from “A” and “B.” And therefore these courageous Apostles could not have possibly meant what they said in Acts 15, Colossians 2:13-18, in the overwhelming theme of the Book of Galatians and much of the Book of Romans;

D). She disregarded the 500 eyewitnesses to the Resurrection; which occurred on Sunday, and who personally participated in the Day of Pentecost (also on a Sunday); and argued they could not have drawn the obvious logical parallels from the day those world-shattering events occurred, and Christ’s flagrant Sabbath-breaking. And therefore, just could not have quickly adopted Sunday as the "Lord's Day" and abandoned the Jewish Sabbath.

E). She disregarded and dissembled the stories of the First three centuries of millions of ordinary Early Christians – many of whom eagerly went to horrific and grizzly deaths and endured the most jaw-dropping torture in history rather than renounce Christ. And she suggested these heroes were 180 degrees wrong and immediately committed apostasy when they argued that Sabbath Keeping was an anti-Christian heresy. She disregarded their frequent assertions that their evolving view on this heresy was solidly and logically based on Christ’s flagrant Sabbath Breaking.

F). Rather than accepting the obvious logical connection between “B,” “C,” “D” and “E;” and Christ’s willful Sabbath Breaking, she advanced a bizarre, contra-historical, and convoluted Conspiracy Theory of the Papacy being the Grassy Knoll Sabbath Assassin;

G). She never mentioned, let alone explained how the sworn enemies of the Papacy: Eastern Orthodoxy, Waldensians, Luther, Tyndale, Zwingli, Calvin and nearly all of the other Protestant Reformers; could have closely and carefully studied Christ’s flagrant Sabbath-Breaking, and then unanimously renounced Sabbath Keeping for Christians;

H). Adventists have never tried to explain how the near-unanimity of the world’s most breathtakingly-brilliant and respected post-Reformation theologians – Barth, Kierkegaard, Kuung, Tillich – could have studied the stories of Christ’s obvious Sabbath Breaking and reaffirmed Sunday celebration of his Resurrection and vigorously-rejected Christian Sabbatarianism.

It is theoretically-possible to deny Christ’s willful Sabbath Breaking in order to make the proceeding dubious and convoluted attempts to save the Sabbath from the ash heap of history. But you have to ask yourself why anyone would bother.
Registered user
Username: Philharris

Post Number: 3051
Registered: 5-2007

Posted on Thursday, July 10, 2014 - 6:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Well I'm far from being a legal expert so I had to look up your handle.

Sabbath breaking....a matter already judged!

You must have been awesome in the court room.

Fearless Phil
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 160
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Friday, July 11, 2014 - 2:46 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thank you for your kind comments, Phil. The Cross was also Res Judicata. THAT was where the judgment was finished once and for all. Res Judicata is the opposite of the Investigative Judgment.

RE: Jesus's Sabbath-Breaking

No need for a top flight attorney to make this case. It is air tight.

The more I study the Talmud and Mishnah Torah and the First- and Second- Century Christians; the more obvious and clear the case for immediate Sabbath abandonment becomes.

Why did Christianity abandon Sabbath Keeping so quickly?


They were following in the footsteps of their beloved Master. They were merely following Jesus's repeated instructions and example. The Resurrection instantly cured any lingering doubts about the Sabbath's once and for all fulfillment.

It's really no more complex than that. It really IS obvious.

A convoluted Conspiracy Theory of Papal Sabbath assassination from the Grassy Knoll is unnecessary. The Pharisees that accused Jesus of Sabbath Breaking really weren't delusional.

One can only miss this painfully obvious cause and effect by being under the influence of Ellen White's hysterical and paranoid rantings and ravings.

(Message edited by Resjudicata on July 11, 2014)

(Message edited by Resjudicata on July 11, 2014)
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 169
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 11:00 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I love this page, since it really amplifies my basic argument about Jesus's Sabbath-Breaking and also strongly demonstrates the Trinity:
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 170
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 1:19 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And this one:

This is my all-time favorite quote of one I consider to be an illustrious "partner in crime," Rick Barker:

"Please list all of the healings performed by Jesus that would be considered “necessary” medical procedures at an SDA hospital and would be acceptable to perform on the Sabbath.

I’ll bet that you couldn’t find one."

I'm sorry, but I was ROTFLOL when I read that, mainly because it is absolutely true. Quite frankly, some of Christ's healings were no more "necessary" than a liposuction or botox injection. They were clearly "elective" healings, in my opinion, designed specifically to goad the Pharisees into paroxysms of purple rage. I noted that at least three of his healings were of people that had the non-life threatening, non-emergency condition for at least 18 years, and one was over 40 years. And then the one "pick up your bed and walk" couldn't have been any clearer a blatant violation of the Sabbath Commandment.

What's the hurry there? These were flagrant, dirty-necked, willful violations of the Sabbath that violated the clear wording of the Fourth Commandment, without any "tradition of men" glossing over it. Adventist "explanations," designed to save the Sabbath from the ashheap of history, are extremely non-persuasive: "Jesus taught us to do "good" on the Sabbath." I thought you said keeping the Sabbath was moral all by itself? No? Sounds like the "doing good" on the Sabbath is suspiciously identical to a "man made tradition" in order to gloss over the mortal wound that Jesus actually inflicted the Sabbath.

I once faced a similar argument in court, where the government was trying to save a criminal statute that plainly infringed on the First Amendment Right of Free Speech. And make no bones about it, my client's choice of "speech" couldn't have been more spectacularly odious and horrifying. The government, well-appreciating their almost insurmountable burden when faced with the formidable buzz saw of "Strict Scrutiny, tied themselves into misshapen pretzels trying to preserve the statute (the government's burden in a case that infringes on a "Fundamental Right" is often expressed as "an insurmountable burden.") Finally the Judge asked the government attorney "Why is there still noise coming out of that hole under your nose?" And then began their analysis from the bench with the feared and fatal preface of "The Government's argument is interesting......"

Jesus inflicted irreparable damage on the Sabbath with his healings. Only a fanatic would try to preserve the Sabbath, after it was listing "heavily to starboard" after such a direct torpedo hit.
Registered user
Username: Carracio

Post Number: 38
Registered: 3-2014
Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 1:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


If Jesus was without sin, how could he break the Sabbath?
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 171
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2014 - 1:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Because the Sabbath was purely ceremonial and Jesus was the fulfillment of it. At his birth, in fact, arguably the Sabbath no longer even existed. A whole new covenant now existed. The same analogous situation occurred after our Revolutionary War. After the US Constitution was enacted, was it still an act of Treason to urge the overthrow of the British King? Or after the Civil War and the passage of the Anti-Slavery Amendments to the US Constitution, was it still a federal felony to harbor a fugitive slave?

There's absolutely nothing moral about the Sabbath, so breaking it was not a sin.
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 173
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Sunday, July 13, 2014 - 6:29 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


Adventists have a HUGE problem to explain. They have dishonestly phrased the issue as "When did Christians universally reject the Sabbath and universally meet on Sunday for the Lord's Supper?"
Bacchiochi has established that date as no later than 135 AD, and that includes Jewish Christians!

The REAL issue in my mind is "How on earth did Christianity universally abandon Sabbath Keeping AND treat it as a symptom of the anti-Christian "judaizing" heresy by the time of the Book of Galatians in AD 49?" That is just 16 years after the Resurrection. And then publicly proclaim that Gentile Christians were not subject to the Mosaic Law, including Sabbath Keeping, no later than AD 50 at the Council of Jerusalem.

No later than 17 years after the Resurrection you have those two explicit repudiations of the Sabbath. Explain how the Apostles got there that fast, unless they correctly perceived the intent of Jesus's willful Sabbath Breaking and his encouragement of them to follow his lead?

I remind you that Paul was an ex-Pharisee who was at the forefront of the wholesale abandonment of, and opposition to Sabbath Keeping. One strong inference here is that Paul did not perceive his fellow Pharisees to be delusional when they condemned Jesus's Sabbath Breaking.

Adventists MUST believe that the sober, judicious and meticulous Pharisees were wildly delusional when they accused Jesus of Sabbath Breaking. And Jesus, who was perfectly sinless, offered no rebuttal to the false charge. The sinless Jesus allowed an obvious and blatant lie to stand unrebutted and unchallenged, when he could have and should have responded with a rousing endorsement of the Sabbath, according to Adventists.
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 174
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Sunday, July 13, 2014 - 7:51 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jesus clearly said he was "working" in John 5:8-18, which the 4th Commandment explicitly prohibits. He never claimed "I am not 'working,' I am 'healing,' which does not violate the 4th Commandment." He offered no excuse or defense:

"And for this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

Here John concludes - without an ounce of embarrassment, excuse, or shame; that his master was "breaking the Sabbath." He explicitly agreed with the legal analysis of the Pharisees, since after all Jesus clearly stated he was "working." Jesus's statement "I am working" is analyzed under the Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 804 as follows:

"(3) Statement Against Interest. A statement that:

(A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and

(B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability."

The notes to the Rule state the obvious:

"The circumstantial guaranty of reliability for declarations against interest is the assumption that persons do not make statements which are damaging to themselves unless satisfied for good reason that they are true. Hileman v. Northwest Engineering Co., 346 F.2d 668 (6th Cir. 1965)."

The case that Jesus willfully violated the Sabbath and admitted doing so is airtight. "Working" obviously requires an intentional act and certainly the one who promulgated the 4th Commandment knew that "working" was explicitly prohibited. He had extraordinarily high "mens rea" as it is known under the law: He knew the law, knew that "working" was explicitly prohibited, explicitly admitted to "working" in front of people who also knew the law and were clearly wishing to kill him. Neither he nor John offered a defense such as "I was working, but it was excusable working."

This is not a close call. Jesus was guilty of Sabbath Breaking beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Oh how I wish I could have had some Adventists on some of my Jury Panels! Someone who believes Jesus was innocent of Sabbath Breaking is likely not to just believe the most hairbrained defense, but would manufacture a reason to acquit, even if none were offered!
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 175
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Sunday, July 13, 2014 - 8:31 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Finally, there is an "unbroken chain of causation" between Jesus's open and flagrant violation of the Sabbath, and St. Ignatius of Antioch's AD 108 Letter to the Magnesiums, wherein Sabbath Keeping was condemned as an anti-Christian heresy and proof of a lack of receiving and comprehending Grace. In other words, under Ignatius's analysis, Sabbath Keeping had evolved into sin, just 70 years after the Resurrection!

John, who reported Jesus's willful Sabbath Breaking in such graphic and unapologetic detail, became one of Christianity's bravest and most ardent defenders. Ignatius was one of his closest direct disciples. Paul, who wrote the Book of Galatians that condemned the Judaizing heresy, was a Pharisee highly-trained in the nuances of the law and who was at the very least an acquaintance of St. Ignatius, since Antioch was one of his favorite stomping grounds. Paul also personally delivered the written decision of the Council of Jerusalem of AD 50 to the Christians at Antioch, which decision pointedly-declared that Gentile Christians were NOT to follow ANY of the Mosaic Law. Peter, who was the "Rock of the Church" founded by Jesus Christ, was the first Bishop of Antioch and probably personally-appointed Ignatius as the third Bishop, when Peter left for Rome. Finally, tradition gives Ignatius a direct connection to Christ:

"Tradition suggests that when St Ignatius was a little boy, the Savior hugged him and said: “Unless you turn and become as little children, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven” (Mt. 18:3)."

Ignatius, who wrote the Letter to the Magnesiums while on his way to be executed at Rome, was obviously extremely concerned about his Salvation. Dr. Johnson once wryly suggested that "the prospect of only a hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully." So we can assume Ignatius's mind was totally concentrated on accurately relaying the truth of the Gospel as he had been taught by three of the original Apostles. That he was facing the certainty of violent death and hideous dismemberment in the very near future is a situation for which the Law gives extraordinarily high credibility. Why would he lie or exaggerate at a time like that? Ignatius's only concerns in his letters was for the well-being of widows and orphans, respect for Bishops, and that his lion tooth-nicked bloody bones would get back to the church, to inspire his flock with courage in the face of horrific Roman Persecution.

And at a desperate time like that, he declared in no uncertain terms that Sabbath Keeping was a sin for a Christian. From Jesus's open and willful Sabbath Breaking until Ignatius's declaration that Sabbath Keeping was an anti-Christian sin was just 70 years. And there is an unbroken chain of causation in between Ignatius and Jesus Christ in the form of three of the original Apostles - all of whom were executed for their faith - and who taught Ignatius everything he knew.

This is a rock-solid, airtight case.
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 176
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Sunday, July 13, 2014 - 9:12 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And here is the jaw-dropping execution of the Sabbath's most vocal Second Century enemy:

"The Roman Christians met St Ignatius with great joy and profound sorrow. Some of them hoped to prevent his execution, but St Ignatius implored them not to do this. Kneeling down, he prayed together with the believers for the Church, for love between the brethren, and for an end to the persecution against Christians.

On December 20, the day of a pagan festival, they led St Ignatius into the arena, and he turned to the people: “Men of Rome, you know that I am sentenced to death, not because of any crime, but because of my love for God, by Whose love I am embraced. I long to be with Him, and offer myself to him as a pure loaf, made of fine wheat ground fine by the teeth of wild beasts.”

After this the lions were released and tore him to pieces, leaving only his heart and a few bones. Tradition says that on his way to execution, St Ignatius unceasingly repeated the name of Jesus Christ. When they asked him why he was doing this, St Ignatius answered that this Name was written in his heart, and that he confessed with his lips Him Whom he always carried within. When the saint was devoured by the lions, his heart was not touched.

Hearing of the saint’s great courage, Trajan thought well of him and stopped the persecution against the Christians. The relics of St Ignatius were transferred to Antioch (January 29), and on February 1, 637 were returned to Rome and placed in the church of San Clemente."

That Adventists would even THINK a person like that was capable of "Sabbath Apostasy," or would have relented on even the smallest doctrinal detail of his beloved Christianity, is just incredible and fantastic. Adventists argue two equally-incredible and strongly-contradictory theories that just fly in the face of history:

- That the Early Christians had "apostatized" on the Sabbath issue no later than 135 AD (according to Dr. Samuele Bacchiochi);

- Or, alternatively, the Pope and/or Constantine was the Sabbath's grassy knoll assassin sometime in the third or 4th centuries (EGW).
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 177
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Monday, July 14, 2014 - 11:50 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And finally, Jesus's "job-description" as outlined in the first few chapters in Mathew clearly gave him the authority to abrogate the Sabbath. It is my opinion the New Covenant began at Jesus's birth, why else would the Gospels recite so much of his pre-ministry life? His birth alone is an event of immense importance to Christianity. In fact, in some denominations it is as important as Easter. Look at his birth dispassionately: There are all kinds of angels involved, Mathew said the Holy Spirit was already involved, long before the "official" outpouring on the Day of Pentecost. So it was an event of immense historical AND legal importance.

Mathew 2 refers to him as "King of the Jews" and "the Ruler" and "Shephard." During wartime, under the "Laws of Kings and Wars" in the Mishnah Torah, the King of Israel had the power to abrogate the Sabbath and order his soldiers to fight on that day. Even so-called "discretionary wars;" provided they were pre-authorized by the Sanhedrin ("The 71"); authorized the King of Israel to abrogate the Sabbath:

"6.15 We may besiege a non-Jewish city (even) on Sabbath, and we may make war with them even on Sabbath, as it says, “until it falls” (Deut. 20:20). We do battle on Sabbath whether it is a War of Mitzvoh or a Discretionary War."

A "discretionary war" was not a war of Mitzvot, or a war of "necessity." Long before Christ, the enforcement of the Sabbath was highly-fact dependent. And if you were the king, the Sabbath in any real meaningful sense virtually did not exist as a truly binding "law." And look here, Israel went to war against other Nations based on this rule:

"6.1 War is not conducted against anyone in the world until they are first offered peace (and refuse it), whether this is a Discretionary War or a War of Mitzvoh, as it says, “when you come close to the city to fight with it, you shall call to it to make peace” (Deut. 20:10). If they make peace and accept the Seven Commandments incumbent upon the Sons of Noah (Gentiles), none of them are killed, but they must pay us tribute, as it says, “and they shall be for you a tributary, and they shall serve you” (Deut. 20:11)."

And here is the distinction between Wars of Mitzvot and DIscretionary Wars:

"5.1 A priori, the king does not go to fight other than a War of Mitzvoh (Mandatory War). What is a War of Mitzvoh? This is the war against the Seven Nations or the war against Amalek or any war to assuage Israel of a persecutor. After this, he may fight Discretionary Wars which are those wars he conducts against the other nations in order to enlarge the borders of Israel, and increase his renown and reputation.
5.2 He does not need to obtain permission from the Court to engage in a War of Mitzvoh but he may, at any time, on his own, compel the people to go out to war. However, he requires the authorization of the Court of Seventy-One to take the people with him go out to fight a Discretionary War."

Think about it: the King of Israel was authorized to temporarily-abrogate the Sabbath, even during a War fought merely to enlarge the borders of Israel, or to increase his "reputation or renown!" Talk about a flimsy pretext! They didn't even need to be attacked first before the Sabbath was abrogated. Which to me is the clear precedent for the "King of The Jews" description in Mathew. If any King of Israel had the power to fight a "discretionary war" on the Sabbath, merely to enlarge the borders of Israel or to increase his reputation; and not to fend off an attack from any enemy, then how is that not "working?" It was no more necessary to fight a discretionary war than it was for Jesus to heal a withered hand. The point being, "The King of the Jews" had the power to "work" on the Sabbath, even if it was purely optional and not a matter of necessity.

Obviously, in order to approve a non-Mitzvot war, the Sanhedrin had to approve a war to "increase [the King's] renown and reputation," which gave the King the power to fight a war on the Sabbath where the well-being of Israel was not at stake!
Mathew very clearly traces Jesus's lineage back to David to establish "the royal bloodline" as per prophecy, and then called Jesus the "King of the Jews." Except now the "King of the Jews" was God himself, who plainly had the power to abrogate the Sabbath permanently by his mere birth, under the precedent I just cited.

To willfully violate the Sabbath then was not a sin or a moral wrong for God almighty; the author of that same law; the "King of the Jews," and the "Ruler."

The Cross finished the abrogation of the Sabbath: but Jesus's mere birth initiated the project. And in his Kingly prerogative, he violated the Law at his whim, and encouraged his disciples - and us - to follow his example.
Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 229
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Wednesday, August 06, 2014 - 9:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I just posted the following over at Spectrum, in response to a query about the Torah. Enjoy.

"If I were to over-simplify an answer to your question: They interpret the Hebrew Word "Yom" as "ages," not "day." That was the prevailing interpretation almost right from the start. There are a few outliers here and there that insist on a six day creation, but generally speaking, that is viewed as being unfaithful to the Hebrew text. To insist on a six day creation is for a mere mortal to insist on defining and delimiting the powers of an infinite and omniscient being.

Hilariously, Adventist creationists insist on a literal "day" for "day" interpretation of Genesis 1. But then they are suddenly squeamish about doing so with Daniel 8:14 and other texts.

And the "Ages" interpretation naturally segues into the overriding purpose of Genesis: It is the "Sovereignty Statement" of the Torah, which is the Constitution of the Children of Israel. "Torah" = "Law." The first five books of the Old Testament are a "law book." It was never meant to be a scientific textbook describing the origins of the earth and all that is on it, but to describe the Creator and why he is the legal Sovereign over a discreet tribe of slaves delivered out of Egyptian captivity. Genesis is analogous to our Article 1 of the US Constitution: It describes the metes and bounds of Presidential Powers. And so does Genesis. He was the King of the Hebrew Nation, who had no beginning and no end and from which everything flowed. He doesn't need to go to Congress and plead for an extension of the War Powers Act to bomb Libya.

He can just order in a Flood. So Genesis is about Him, not us.

Christians have some insurmountable problems with the Old Testament. First and foremost, the written Torah is only about 5 percent of the entire Torah. The Mishnah, which Judaism teaches was given to Moses at the same time as the Torah, is the other 95 percent. They make a claim I absolutely agree with: The Torah cannot be understood without the Mishnah. And then the Talmuds are about 20 times bigger than the Mishnah. So the Old Testament was included in the Bible as a stark "Cliff Notes" version of the Torah. It was included only to demonstrate the nature and history of the "incubator" .....the prophecies, laws and history of the Hebrews...... that Jesus Christ was predicted to be born within. It was included to give historical, legal and prophetic context to Jesus Christ. Early Christians used the Old Testament almost entirely to prove that Jesus Christ was who he said he was. Any use outside of that purpose in my opinion is just an grotesque insult against the Torah and the thousands of brilliant Torah Scholars who have made it their life's work. But of course, Christian translators of the Old Testament NEVER consult with the real experts on the subject.

Then we get into one of my pet peeves of Old Testament misuse that directly affects the relationship between Creation and the Sabbath: The old Adventist argument that Jesus came to overthrow the "man made traditions" around the Sabbath, and instead taught us to "do good" on the Sabbath. He was trying to teach us how to keep it properly, after it had been "corrupted." The ignorance and presumption of this view is breathtaking. And it demonstrates the context-less, Mishnah-ignoring attitude that insists on a literal six day creation.

This argument depends on willfully ignoring the Death Penalty that was mandatory to punish Sabbath Breaking, and which is plainly spelled out as a mandatory mitzvot. Failure to impose the Death Penalty for Sabbath Breaking was as serious of a violation as the Sabbath Breaking itself. The "man made traditions" that accreted around the Sabbath were designed to "make a wall" around the Sabbath, so that the average person would know exactly what was required, and what was prohibited. The Pharisees were loathe to apply the Death Penalty for Sabbath Breaking, so they made it very very hard to prove by promulgating detailed regulations. If your alleged Sabbath Breaking did not fall squarely within the prohibitions, you were acquitted. The Law allowed you to walk 2,000 cubits. If you only walked 1,999.99999999999 cubits, you were acquitted. Additionally, the Death Penalty required the full quorum of 23 members of the Sandhedrin to vote unanimously for the Sabbath-Breaking conviction AND the imposition of the Death Penalty. If only one member of the Sanhedrin dissented, you were spared. The Sanhedrin firmly believed in the concept that it is better to let 10 guilty persons go free, than it is to execute one innocent person.

That was the real conflict between Jesus and the Sabbath Law: The Pharisees were bent on making the Death Penalty extraordinarily difficult to impose. Jesus willfully broke the Sabbath to demonstrate he was God and that the Sabbath was obsolete. A Papal conspiracy never assassinated the Sabbath from the Grassy Knoll: Telling the man to "take up your bed and walk" was Jesus squeezing off a carefully-aimed mortal head-shot from the window of the Texas Book Depository. He acted alone with his magic bullet.

Let me repeat what I just said, so that nobody can misinterpret it: Jesus willfully broke the Sabbath. He did so flagrantly, and usually did so right in the visual presence of Pharisees in order to taunt them with his willful disregard of the Sabbath. In the context, it would have been far more polite for him to wave a middle finger at both the Pharisees and the Sabbath.The Pharisees were NOT delusional: I have read their written opinions of decisions from the Sanhedrin. They were anything BUT delusional. None of the healings that Jesus did on the Sabbath would be permitted in a Seventh Day Adventist Hospital on Saturday. None of them were life-threatening or emergency situations, which had always been a exception to the "thou shalt not do any work" clause of the 4th Commandment. His Sabbath miracles were the equivalent of a botox injection, a liposuction or a laser tattoo removal. And then he compounded his flagrant, dirty-necked law-breaking with "take up your bed and walk." He cheerfully encouraged others to violate the Sabbath. And the "harvesting the grain" incident could not have been any clearer of a Sabbath violation. What, the Son of God lacked the wherewithal to plan ahead and pick the grain on Friday? They would have starved by waiting until sundown?

And finally, Jesus's "defense" of "I am working, just as my father is working," was an unmistakable confession of willful Sabbath Breaking, AND describes creation as being a present-day, ongoing activity. That blasphemous statement stands as an insurmountable obstacle to a literal six day creation. Sabbatarians strictly insist on a six-day creation, since without it the Sabbath is impossible. Jesus willfully broke the Sabbath and in doing so, established that creation was an ongoing event. His life was an ongoing creation event, and so is his Resurrection.

The humane Pharisees HATED executing people for Sabbath Breaking and made it their purpose in life to make it extraordinarily difficult to apply. But the Resurrection made it impossible. Six Day Creationists/Sabbatarians generally pull out the stops to diminish the effect of the Resurrection: It is the Second Creation that has no end.
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 14894
Registered: 12-2003

Posted on Monday, August 11, 2014 - 6:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wow, Res, what a post! Thank you for unpacking what lay behind Jesus' Sabbath-breaking. The fact that John says in his eighth chapter that not only did Jesus break the Sabbath, but He called God His own Father is a clear enough statement. If we are willing to humble ourselves to read Scripture with the same rules of grammar and interpretation with which we read other literature, we would have no choice but to believe those words mean what they say:

Jesus broke the Sabbath. He was its expected fulfillment.

Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 255
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - 11:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I have sent my theory of Jesus's willful Sabbathbreaking around to numerous theologians and preachers. I have begged and pleaded with them to prove me wrong. I have repeatedly-baited some of the LGT posters on Spectrum with it. I made the preceeding post as harshly-sarcastic and abrasive as I possibly could, hoping to provoke some of the LGTs into my withering rhetorical "interlocking fields of fire," but not one of them contradicted it. I have rubbed some Adventist theologian's "noses into it," but none of them have responded. I draw a blank wherever I go.'

I am forced to conclude that Jesus's Sabbath-breaking is ineluctably and inseperably tied to his Divinity. You simply cannot understand the full implications of his Divinity, his earthly ministry, and his resurrection without understanding his open and taunting disdain for the Sabbath.
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 14898
Registered: 12-2003

Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - 10:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Absolutely. He took control of the Sabbath and showed Himself to be God the Son, the expected Messiah. No mere mortal could have taken control of the Sabbath and broken it while revealing God's authority over creation and human life.

Like David who broke the law by eating the shewbread with his men after he had been secretly anointed king but before Saul was dead, Jesus broke the law with His disciples when they harvested and ate wheat while walking through the field.

God's anointing trumps the law.

Registered user
Username: Resjudicata

Post Number: 256
Registered: 4-2014
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - 5:39 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


So how did some of the reformers overlook this and bring the Sabbath back "out of the grave?" It just seems so obvious now that the implications of his Sabbath Breaking are just impossible to overlook.

The first and second century christians seem to have had it absolutely right: Sabbath Keeping was an indication of a lack of Grace, or better, a lack of having received it. And I am sure they got that right out of the mouths of the Apostles.
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 14899
Registered: 12-2003

Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - 2:25 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Res, I don't know the channel of the law's creep back into the church, but I do know that it is human nature to want rules we can keep. The natural man wants to be acknowledged for his accomplishment of goals and goodness; it is only those who are saved by grace who realize that they are utterly dependent upon the work of Another. That dependence goes against the natural human's "grain"!

Galatians, Colossians and Acts 15 show us that as early as the time of the apostles, when the church was just being formed, Judaizers were doing their best to bring law into the church...and that's not into the congregations of Jewish believers but of gentile believers. It just seems outrageous. The church was just being born, and law was already a big enough problem that Paul railed against it in his first epistle, Galatians!

I've also wondered how the covenant theology reformers missed the implications of the new covenant in these profound ways. I've had to conclude a couple of things. First, they didn't all miss it: Martin Luther did see and address the problem. Second, those who hung onto the law as a rule of faith and practice for believers nevertheless did see and understand justification by faith.

A few years ago we had quite a bit of heated conflict on this forum over the concepts of reformed vs. dispensational theology. I asked our pastor Gary Inrig for some help with the subject, and he sent me a wonderful answer that pulled the figurative lens back and gave me a much bigger, historical perspective. Part of his answer informs this question, I think. I'll share it below:


It is well and good to be suspicious of the novel. However, the ultimate question must be, Is it Biblical? After all, some of those who most ardently profess the novelty of dispensationalism ardently defend the Reformation or Reformed theology, which are only 250 years earlier.

The fact is, as James Orr showed in a book called The Progress of Dogma, certainly issues have come to the forefront in Christian history at different points in history. So the deity of Christ and the Trinity were of central importance in the early centuries, and then concern shifted to the nature of the person of Christ (what did it mean that he was God and man). Issues of the nature of the church formed the next period (with sad conclusions), and soteriology came to the fore during the Reformation. Eschatology wasn't on the front burners for most until the 18th and 19th centuries.'s my "take" on this question of why many of the reformers didn't generally deal with the place of the law. From my limited perspective, it looks like there was SO MUCH wrong with the doctrines of the church (which was pretty universally Catholic or Orthodox) in the years leading up to the Reformation that the first, most basic thing that needed to be cleared up was this: How Are We Saved?

God called a variety of great men to question the prevailing Catholic doctrine which insisted that man's observance of the sacraments was a means of grace required to keep one right with God and thus eligible to be considered for salvation. (It was a very Adventist view! )

Being justified entirely by the grace of God on the basis of Christ's finished work was NEW to the world...most people hadn't heard that before, and prior to the printing press being invented (practically on the eve of the Reformation and the Renaissance), the average person had no access to Scripture and likely couldn't read anyway. They were dependent upon what their priests taught them.

The Reformation was a movement of God that brought the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ—the completed atonement—back into the consciousness of the people. The gospel had to come first. Issues of HOW the covenant worked could only be addressed after people repented and believed in Jesus.

Covenant theology was probably a cling-on from the worldview the church had held during its first few centuries. It grew out of the belief that had become nearly universal during that first millennium that the Church was the new Israel. (And we thought we SDAs had come up with that idea...)

Here's another quote from Gary Inrig on this subject:


The entire issue is tinged with a sad history of anti-Semitism on the part of the Christian church, that has roots back into the early church. The Jewish rejection of Christ, the Jewish revolt in the second century and the desire of early Christians to distance themselves from the Jewish people led to a spiritualizing and de-Judaizing of the Biblical record. Sadly, this led to replacement theology and a "supercessionist" viewpoint (the church gets Israel's blessings; they get to keep the curses) which bedeviled "Christian" theology down through the centuries. Much of what was done by Christians to Jews was utterly shameful.

In other words, the common worldview in the church was that the good things God gave Israel now belonged to the Church, and the law was one of those "good things". It defined Israel before Israel denied Jesus, so in its coming to see itself as God's "new" chosen people, the church kept for itself the things God had given and promised Israel. And they kept the law, reframing it somewhat to avoid the Jewish "flavor" and substituting the Lord's Day for Sabbath.

Now, however, not only through former Adventists but also through other theologians, the New Covenant has come back on the radar screen. God in His sovereign timing is causing His church to grapple with the full scope of the good news. If we ignore the implications of the new covenant, we are actually disrespecting the grace of God.

Ultimately we have to pattern our doctrine after the teaching of the apostles. The great men and women of God through the centuries are models for us, and their writings confirm and correct our understandings in many cases, but it is from the actual pages of Scripture that we must get our doctrines. As you said, Res.

God is faithful, and the Lord Jesus protects and builds His church in spite of our human flaws. He doesn't let the truth stay hidden!


Add Your Message Here
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration