Would more detail about Jesus help?

[marco]

How tall was he? We don't know. How did he cope with adolescence? We don't know. What colour of hair did he have? We don't know. Was he bearded? We don't know. What food did he like? We don't know, but he did take a piece of fish so wasn't vegetarian. What illnesses did he have? We don't know. Did he limp, stutter, stammer, cough, have allergies? We don't know.


He came out of the shadows at thirty, never apparently took a wife, and lived rough, it seems, as an itinerant preacher.


Would it help to have a physical description of Christ?

Does the psychological portrait we have make him more of a myth?

[marco]

Can you tell us where Christians are commanded to keep the Sabbath?

Christians read the Bible, OT and NT. So they would find in

Exodus 20:8

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 19 by Realworldjack]

Oops ... I read it as Christians commanded NOT to keep the Sabbath.

Still, it's worth remembering that if you're going to pass the Jesus character off as "God", then any planet-flooding and commandment-giving in the earlier writings came from Jesus as well ...

And an omnipotent, omniscient "God" wouldn't visit this planet to change laws of physics or religion that he/she/they had declared previously ...

So:

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

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

11 For in six days Yahweh/Jesus made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Yahweh/Jesus blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Applies to Christians

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 21 by marco]

Well allow to answer both of you in this post.

If you will notice, and read carefully, in Exodus chapter 20, it begins by saying, "I am the God who brought you out of Egypt." Well, guess what? I have never been to Egypt, much less been, "brought out of Egypt."

Therefore this command, along with the rest of the covenant laws the Israelites agreed to, was an agreement between God, and the Israelites.

Next, when we arrive to the NT, it is clear we are to let go of our efforts at keeping the law, because the law, was a tutor to bring us to Christ. With this being the case, we are to rest from our efforts of keeping the law, which in reality is the Sabbath rest.

In fact here is what Paul had to say,

Colossians 2:16-17
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

So then, Christians are commanded to rest from our works, and we are to rest in the works of Christ, who is said to have fulfilled the law in our place.

It is often said that Christians pick, and choose what they want to adhere to, and I will agree this may be the case with many Christians. However, those who make these accusations often tend to pick, and choose themselves.

In other words, one cannot simply pick a verse from the Bible, completely out of it's context, such as ignoring the fact that the law was clearly addressed to the Israelites, and not Christians, and also ignore what else maybe said throughout the rest, such as Christians are clearly commanded to, "rest from their works of the law."

But let us continue on here. Paul also says in Galatians chapter 3,

I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

Now wait a minute? If the man back then, who accepted circumcision, was obligated to "keep the whole law" would this not mean that Paul would be saying, we as Christians are not obligated to the law?

He continues on,

You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

So then, it seems clear, the law was given to the Israelites, and we as Christians are said to have been set free from the law, and if we attempt to justify ourselves through the law, we have set ourselves in bondage again to the law, which is what Jesus was said to have set us free from.

So again, while there certainly may be Christians who pick, and choose, you all certainly seem to pick, and choose as well. In other words, you pick a verse that is clearly not directed to Christians, while ignoring other verses that would absolutely apply to Christians, which would clearly refute what you are attempting to say.

[marco]

If you will notice, and read carefully, in Exodus chapter 20, it begins by saying, "I am the God who brought you out of Egypt." Well, guess what? I have never been to Egypt, much less been, "brought out of Egypt."

Therefore this command, along with the rest of the covenant laws the Israelites agreed to, was an agreement between God, and the Israelites.

This is a trivial objection. You weren't around to be addressed then, like millions of others, but the commands were issued by the God that Christians have agreed to worship. If he says wear white shirts, you wear white shirts. The Decalogue is not itself a covenant but a set of commands. There are no punishments prescribed nor if clauses, so they are universal commands applying not just in some local circumstances, as local laws are. That is how they are universally observed. Jesus didn't change any of these commands; he may have altered Mosaic law - local laws.
There's a big difference.

Next, when we arrive to the NT, it is clear we are to let go of our efforts at keeping the law, because the law, was a tutor to bring us to Christ. With this being the case, we are to rest from our efforts of keeping the law, which in reality is the Sabbath rest.

You are half right; Jesus didn't come to give people the choice of murdering or stealing or being adulterous. Jesus said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." So it is ludicrous to suppose he came to destroy the Decalogue. He simply made way for altering local Mosaic laws and customs. That is what Paul is explaining: details can be altered; God's word cannot. I'm surprised you imagined it could be.

Now wait a minute? If the man back then, who accepted circumcision, was obligated to "keep the whole law" would this not mean that Paul would be saying, we as Christians are not obligated to the law?

Yes, this illustrates your confusion between Mosaic Law, the customs Jews followed, and God's commands. The individual ways of observing the Sabbath might change; the commandment cannot. In a way it amusing to suppose that God intended only a few Hebrews to refrain from murder. Christianity would be quite meaningless were it to abandon God's law as if it were some local custom.

[tam]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

Would it help to have a physical description of Christ?

Help make Him seem more real (as if he really existed)? Is that what you are asking?


If so, I'm not sure that is true. We have no physical description of the apostles (or of Paul as far as I know), but people do not tend to question their existence due to this lack of physical description.


That being said, we do have some physical description of Christ (when He walked in the flesh), if you think that would help you. He was a small man (small enough to be able to sit upon the colt of a donkey). He was not attractive or beautiful (in physical appearance), and in fact He became marred and disfigured from carrying other people's sins and ailments in his own flesh.

He had no stately form or majesty to attract us, no beauty that we should desire Him. Isaiah 53:2

Surely He took on our infirmities and carried our sorrows; yet we considered Him stricken by God, struck down and afflicted. Isaiah 53:4 (see also Isaiah 52:14)



I always considered this part of the reason why His apostles and disciples did not recognize Him after His resurrection. Yes, He resurrected in the glorified and new body - but that would also mean that He no longer had carried sin or death in His body; and so He would no longer be marred or disfigured as He had come to be (especially toward the end of His ministry).


Which brings me to another point:

He was not recognized or known by His appearance, but by His voice, by His words.


The shepherd walks right up to the gate[/b]. The gatekeeper opens the gate to him and the sheep recognize his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he gets them all out, he leads them and they follow because they are familiar with his voice. They won’t follow a stranger’s voice but will scatter because they aren’t used to the sound of it.� John 10:2-5




It will be the same when He returns.


So no, I am not so sure that having a physical description of Him would help people come to Him. Or even believe in His existence. Although, understanding how much he suffered just to heal people (something He did out of love and compassion)... well that might inspire some to love Him (in return).







Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[marco]

Help make Him seem more real (as if he really existed)? Is that what you are asking?

In a word - yes. He is an amalgam of nice sayings. There is less reason to bother about the existence of Paul and Peter, but at least they demonstrated they could write.

That being said, we do have some physical description of Christ (when He walked in the flesh), if you think that would help you. He was a small man (small enough to be able to sit upon the colt of a donkey). He was not attractive or beautiful (in physical appearance), and in fact He became marred and disfigured from carrying other people's sins and ailments in his own flesh.

You are reverting to metaphor, Tam, and filling in gaps with your own guess. I'm not saying you are wrong, but it's not the description that makes Christ stand as a solid personality. I accept you may not need this confirmation.

So no, I am not so sure that having a physical description of Him would help people come to Him. Or even believe in His existence. Although, understanding how much he suffered just to heal people (something He did out of love and compassion)... well that might inspire some to love Him (in return).

For those already convinced, they need no further convincing. It just seems a little suspicious that his biographers omitted to give basic details, and they missed out 90% of his life story.

[JehovahsWitness]

I'm confused by your response, do you think that the great Einstein believed Jesus literally glowed in the dark (like a firefly)?

Do I really present myself as a simpleton?

That as not for me to say. Suffice it to say I prefer to discuss issues rather than the intellect of individual posters.

Thank you for clarifying your position.


JW

[marco]

I'm confused by your response, do you think that the great Einstein believed Jesus literally glowed in the dark (like a firefly)?

Do I really present myself as a simpleton?

That as not for me to say. Suffice it to say I prefer to discuss issues rather than the intellect of individual posters.

You seem to have forgotten to discuss the issues then since you have commented on a trivial rhetorical question, and ignored the "issues". Odd, really. Perhaps we need more detail here about issues, just as we do about the person of Jesus, the proper topic of discussion.

[Divine Insight]

How tall was he? We don't know. How did he cope with adolescence? We don't know. What colour of hair did he have? We don't know. Was he bearded? We don't know. What food did he like? We don't know, but he did take a piece of fish so wasn't vegetarian. What illnesses did he have? We don't know. Did he limp, stutter, stammer, cough, have allergies? We don't know.


He came out of the shadows at thirty, never apparently took a wife, and lived rough, it seems, as an itinerant preacher.


Would it help to have a physical description of Christ?

Does the psychological portrait we have make him more of a myth?

For me Jesus isn't even remotely relevant in Christianity.

Why?

Because the Bible already shoots itself in the foot in the Old Testament. It wouldn't matter what Jesus was like. Jesus can hardly save an already obviously false God.

People don't seem to realize, and especially Christians. There really isn't any sense in wasting time talking about Jesus or the New Testament at all until the Old Testament can be justified and made believable.

Jesus is nothing if not the virgin born Son of the God of the Old Testament.

So no. No additional information about Jesus could save Yahweh.

If Jesus was a stand-alone God more information about him would certainly be helpful.

But Jesus cannot stand alone. Jesus has not feet of his own. He has no authority of his own. The sole authority of Jesus stems from the claim that he is the Son of Yahweh. Therefore there's no point in even talking about Jesus until Yahweh can be made credible.

Jesus is nothing if he's not the demigod Son of Yahweh born of a virgin sinful mortal woman. And Mary had to be a sinner because Christianity does not allow for any humans to have been free of sin prior to Jesus himself. That would include Mary.

For if Mary was sin free she would have vindicated humanity and there would be no need for Jesus to become our penal substitute for sin.

So if Jesus isn't the demigod Son of Yahweh born of a sinful virgin woman, then he's nothing other than a mere moral preacher himself. Just another mortal religious fanatic.

Yahweh is the God we need to justify, not Jesus. Jesus is nothing without Yahweh.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 24 by marco]

This is SO, SO, comical, that I find it hard to believe? I mean, one the one hand, what is contained in the Bible, is nonsense in your mind. However, on the other, it makes sense, and you can tell us what it means? Really?

This is a trivial objection.

How in the world would this be, "trivial?" We will demonstrate that it is not trivial in the least momentarily, but at this point, how can commands given to the Israelites, apply to me? He is not, "the God who brought me out of Egypt", and this would be who these laws apply to, "those he brought out of Egypt."

You weren't around to be addressed then, like millions of others, but the commands were issued by the God that Christians have agreed to worship.

But the thing is, even though it would be the same God, this would not in any way necessitate, that the deal he may have made with Israelites, would also apply to me, and as I said, we will demonstrate this, momentarily.

If he says wear white shirts, you wear white shirts.

The thing is, I may command one of my children to, "wear white shirts", but I may command another to wear a different color shirt. So then, if he commanded the Israelites to, "wear white shirts" then this would not mean that he has commanded me to do the same, especially if he has commanded me to wear a different color shirt, than the Israelites were commanded to wear. Which again, we are about to get to.

The Decalogue is not itself a covenant but a set of commands.

Oh really? Well let's see?

There are no punishments prescribed nor if clauses, so they are universal commands applying not just in some local circumstances, as local laws are.

As I said, we are about to see if what you say is correct. However, before we do this, I just would like to point out again, just how ridiculous this is, because on the one hand, all that is contained in the Bible would be nonsense, and make no sense in your mind. However, on the other, it makes perfect sense, and you can explain it to us? Really? You would be better off to simply declare that, "I may be right because no one can make sense of it?" But you cannot say that now, because to you now, it makes perfect sense, to the point you can explain it.

At any rate, let us see if there may be any, "punishments prescribed, or if clauses?"

In Deuteronomy chapter 10, Moses is commanded to, "Cut for yourself two tablets of stone like the first." This would be the "tablets" the commands were wrote upon.

Then, in verse 12, it says, "And now, Israel." Whoa? Wait a minute? Who is it that is being addressed? I believe it would be......... that's right, Israel. Am I of Israel? Well, no I am not. At any rate, it goes on to say,

And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you

Well now, who is the you? I believe that would be, Israel since this is who is being addressed. But what were they required to do?

fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord, which I am commanding you today

Well wait a minute? If this was a command that he was commanding that day, then I would not have been there, and since we have already established these commands were directed to the Israelites, then how would this apply to me?

And why would he be commanding the Israelites to obey such things?

for your good

Now, I don't care who you are, this certainly sounds like an "if clause" to me. How bout you? The passage goes on to say,

Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it. Yet the Lord set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day.

Hold on a minute? Who is God speaking of here? I believe that would be the "fathers" of the Israelites, and I am not a Jew, nor was I alive at the time, in order to hear, and agree to these commands. He continues on, to the point we get to this,

Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

Well, no I was not. Who is he speaking to? It then goes on to say,

He is your God, who has done for you these great and terrifying things that your eyes have seen.

I ain't seen a thing! So who is he referring too?

Your fathers went down to Egypt seventy persons

I certainly do not recall any of my fathers in, Egypt?

and now the Lord your God has made you as numerous as the stars of heaven.

Wait a minute? I am not aware of any clan of people that I may be related to, who would have numbers like this?

My friend, it only gets worse for you. Because you see, when we get to chapter 11, there we read,

And consider today

Hold on? How can I "consider this, in that day, when I would not have been there?

(since I am not speaking to your children who have not known or seen it)

GOOD GRIEF? He is not even speaking to their children, and yet it applies to me?

consider the discipline of the Lord your God, his greatness

Oh my? Sounds like another one of those "if clauses?"

You shall therefore keep the whole commandment that I command you today

Well, I was not there, that day?

that you may be strong

There's another one of those, "if clauses."

and go in and take possession of the land that you are going over to possess

"If clause" again.

and that you may live long in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers to give to them and to their offspring

And another one of those, "if clauses?"

And if

WHAT???? There is the actual word, "if."

“And if you will indeed obey my commandments that I command you today

"If" on what day did he command this? And was I there? Am I an Israelite? I'm so confused!

to love the Lord your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul, he will give the rain for your land in its season, the early rain and the later rain, that you may gather in your grain and your wine and your oil. And he will give grass in your fields for your livestock, and you shall eat and be full.

GOOD GRIEF? How many "if clauses" can there be? And the thing is, I don't even have a farm, how would these things would apply to me? He then goes on to say,

Take care lest your heart be deceived and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them

GOOD GRIEF? It sound like another "if clause" is coming?

then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you, and he will shut up the heavens, so that there will be no rain, and the land will yield no fruit, and you will perish quickly off the good land that the Lord is giving you.

And there it is!

Well, I do not want to keep boring you, but he goes on to give other requirements, and the "if clauses keep on coming, and it is not looking so good for your argument.

For if you will be careful to do all this commandment that I command you to do, loving the Lord your God, walking in all his ways, and holding fast to him, then the Lord will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations greater and mightier than you.

As we can clearly see, there are conditions to these promises, which makes it a contract, and this contract was not made with individuals, but rather with a nation of people.

Every place on which the sole of your foot treads shall be yours. Your territory shall be from the wilderness to the Lebanon and from the River, the river Euphrates, to the western sea.

This without a doubt verifies this agreement was made to a particular group of people, and it would be the people who would inherit, the land described.

And it is pretty much over with for your argument here,

“See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse:

When did he set this before them? I believe it was, "today." Well, I was not there. Oh, and by the way, as we can see, there are clear, stipulations to this agreement, contrary to your idea that there were not, "if clauses."

the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you today, and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way that I am commanding you today, to go after other gods that you have not known.

There is a reason the word, "today" continues to be used, and it is there in order to identify those being addressed, who have bound themselves to this agreement.

I could continue on demonstrating just how wrong you are here, but I think the damage has been done. Now of course there was another covenant made that did not have any sort of, "if clauses" because God had taken on all the stipulations of the covenant upon himself, and this would have been the covenant made with, Abraham, and it is this covenant that Christians are commanded to grab a hold of, as opposed to the covenant of law, made with the nation of Israel.

So then, as we can clearly see, you are in obvious error, and in more than one place, on top of the fact that any other time, all of this would be declared to be nonsense by you, but now for some reason, you have it all figured out for us. Who would have thought?

That is how they are universally observed.

Again, you are in error, because I will assure you there are a multitude of folks who understand this the same way as I do. However, even if you were correct to say, "it is universally observed", how would this in any way demonstrate that it would be correct?

As an example, at one point, it was almost universally accepted that the sun revolved around the earth. Would what is universally accepted make it right?

Jesus didn't change any of these commands; he may have altered Mosaic law - local laws.

And again, this is quite comical, because on the one hand your argument seems to be, we cannot know very much at all about Jesus, and what he may have said, and did, but when it becomes convenient, we can know exactly what he did, or said? Sort of strange don't you think?

At any rate, the actual truth would be, that Jesus said that he, "did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil the law", and we as Christians are commanded to give up our efforts of living by the law, since the law can only condemn us, and rather grab a hold of what Christ has done on our behalf by fulfilling the law. In other words, we are, "not to be found clothed in our own righteousness, which is obtained by the law, but rather we are commanded to be found clothed in the righteousness of Christ." So again, we can clearly see you are in error.

You are half right; Jesus didn't come to give people the choice of murdering or stealing or being adulterous.

You are really confused here. These laws were given to a group of people as national laws, with stipulations, one of which would be the possession of the land, which we have seen.

Moreover, since we have already determined that Christians are commanded to grab a hold of the covenant made with Abraham, and were never included in the covenant tied to the land, things like, murdering, stealing, and adultery, would fall under the local laws of earthly government.

In other words, since my status as a Christian, depends on God, and God alone, my behavior would not affect this, but I would surely suffer the consequences of the local government for violating such laws.

But the thing is, I do not abstain from things such as, murder, theft, or commiting adultery, because of any sort of command, whether it be from God, or the local government.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." So it is ludicrous to suppose he came to destroy the Decalogue.

We have already discussed this, and you would be right to say, "he came to fulfill the law" but for what purpose? Would it be so that the rest of us would do so as well? Or. would it be to allow those who were under the old covenant, to get out from under all the obligations to the law, tied to the land, that depended on their performance, and grab a hold of what God had supplied in Christ?

He simply made way for altering local Mosaic laws and customs.

And again, we cannot know what Jesus may have done, but here, somehow we know, exactly what he did? Actually, he made a way to be rid of the Mosaic law, along with all it's stipulations.

That is what Paul is explaining: details can be altered;

Sure, make it up as you go along.

God's word cannot. I'm surprised you imagined it could be.

I have not "imagined" it, because it is right there for all to see.

In a way it amusing to suppose that God intended only a few Hebrews to refrain from murder.

Here is where you are confused. God made a covenant with the Israelites, and Israel agreed to the terms, to live under a theocracy. In this covenant there were commands, and stipulations (if clauses if you will), and in this covenant there were commands against murder, theft, and adultery, because these are commons sense laws, and most every society has these laws, because it is beneficial to the society to have such laws. Therefore, it would be common sense for God to have included these very same laws to the Israelites.

However, I, and the rest of Christians do not live under a theocracy, and therefore we are not obligated to any of these laws. Rather, we live under our local government just like our neighbors around us, and we are obligated just like out neighbors, to the laws put forth by that government.

Ergo, since most of these governments have laws against such things, we as Christians are obligated to abstain from such behavior just like anyone else.

The point is, if I were to snap one day, in a fit of rage, and murder someone, it would not be like, I would no longer be a Christian, because my status as a Christian does not depend on my behavior.

But the main point here is, you act as if there was not laws against such things, then all of us would naturally be out there looking to murder, steal, and or, commit adultery, when this is not the case in the least. As an example, is the only reason you abstain from such behavior, is because there are laws against them? Or, would you refrain from such behavior even if there were not such laws? In the same way, I do not need a law from God, in order to abstain from murder, theft, nor adultery, because these are common sense laws that most all societies ban.

Again, the thing is, our status as Christians is not dependent on our ability to keep the commands that God laid out to the Israelites, and we are not obligated to these laws, unlike the Israelites, who were obligated to these laws, and their ability to keep these commands were tied to the possession of the land.

I recommend you read the whole letter that Paul wrote to the Galatians, and you will clearly see that Christians are not obligated to the law. Here are a few examples that will demonstrate this clearly.

yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse

Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.

And here my friend is where your argument is defeated!

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us

So here it is clear that Christians are said to be, "redeemed from the law." With this being the case, we as Christians are no longer obligated to the law which God laid out to the Israelites, but have rather been redeemed from it. Therefore, we are not obligated to keep the, Sabbath, (meaning resting on the seventh day).

Christianity would be quite meaningless were it to abandon God's law as if it were some local custom.

My friend, it is only meaningless to those whose minds are enslaved by law. I certainly cannot go into all that is involved here, but allow me to say a few things that I am certain will be foreign to you.

Christianity has nothing whatsoever to do with laws, or instructing us on how we are to behave in order to appease God.

In other words, most all religions I am aware of, describe how we are to ascend the ladder to God. However, Christianity describes how God has descended the ladder to us, and that we should give up on our efforts to appease God, and rather grab a hold of what He has done for us.

There are a number of reasons why people are confused, and one of those reasons is because we as humans are hardwired toward law. In other words, our minds understand law, and we understand how it works. I get what I deserve, and or earn.

On the other hand, what we find difficult to understand is, free grace. In other words, I do not have to perform, or earn, and I am not getting what I deserve, and all I have to do is to accept what is offered.

Also the confusion comes in because there are indeed laws in the Bible. However, as we have demonstrated these laws were given to the Israelites, and were tied to the possession of the land, (if clauses).

We have, and can read these laws, along with the outcome, and can easily determine that if our appeasing God has to come from our own efforts, then we will surely fail. So then, a better way has been put forth, where our standing before God does not depend upon our ability to keep laws.

So then, as a Christian, I am not confined to any law, and I am free to help others, not being concerned if my behavior may somehow break some sort of law.

In Romans chapter 4 and verse 6, Paul tells us plainly there,

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

So again, as we can clearly see, you are in error, and Christians are not obligated to the law that God laid out to the Israelites as a nation. This means, we are not obligated in any way to rest on, or keep the seventh day holy.

Not being under the law, is sort of like moving from one country to another. In other words, once I become a citizen of another country, I am no longer under the laws of the former country I was a citizen of.

However, in my new country, there may be laws banning certain things that my former country allowed, but there very well may be laws that are the same, such as those which ban, theft, murder, and adultery. But, I am not obligated to the laws of my former country, and therefore if I abstain from theft, murder, and adultery, it would not be because I am still obligated to the same laws, of my former country, but rather because I am obligated to the laws of my new country, and it has the same laws.

In the same way, as Christians, we are not obligated to the laws that were set upon Israel as a nation, but are rather commanded to obey the laws of the human government that has been set over us, and since most governments have laws against such behavior, then this is the law that I would be obligated to. Which means, if I abstain from such behavior, it is not because it was a command to Israel.

But again, I highly doubt that many of us, whether Christian or not, would participate in such behavior, whether there would be a law, or not.

In the end allow me to say again, how ridiculous it is, on the one hand for one to argue that we can know very little concerning the things in the Bible, but then one the other, this very same one goes on to suggest that it is very plain, and they can easily explain it to us.

I will also point out, I have clearly demonstrated that Christians are not obligated to keep the laws that were set upon Israel, as a nation, which would also clearly demonstrate that we are not obligated to the Sabbath command.

Of course, there more than likely will come a point where you will say, "we will have to agree, to disagree", but the fact of the matter would be, that I have supplied the evidence, along with the facts to support the case, while all you have done is to point to the laws given to Israel, along with your assumptions.