Wasn't it just the special Sabbaths which were done way with in the New Testament?


Now I been going through your site and notice that your teaching on the Bible teaching is mostly accurate.

I have a Sabbath question: Regarding Galatians 4:10 and Colossians 2:14-17, I'm not going to lie, it seems like Jesus abolished or nailed it to the cross because it was no longer needed, which is true. However, what sabbaths was Paul talking about? Was he talking about the ceremonial (feast) sabbaths or the sabbath day of the Ten Commandments?

Read: Exodus 12:1--51; Exodus 23: 10-33; Leviticus 16:1-34; and Leviticus 23:1-44. In these Scriptures when you read and study them you will realize that the Lord separated these feast and ceremonials sabbaths from the Sabbath day of the Ten Commandments- that's why it made sense when Paul talked that he was afraid of the people observing months, days, times and years and that the Gentiles didn't have to worry about meat offering, drink offering, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon(month) or the Sabbath days. The annual atonement or the Day of Atonement was on the tenth of the seventh month - and this was the day that required a day of rest and holy convocation because the High Priest on that day was suppose to confess the cleansing of  the sanctuary, the congregation, himself and his family and confess all the sins of the people upon the goat - the scapegoat who was sent into the wilderness. These feasts and ceremonies required a certain day during a certain month, and certain years during certain years to be like a Sabbath day or year unto the people of Israel and the Lord, but none of them was the Sabbath day, because each came upon a different day during the week which was different from the Sabbath day.

Like I said the Sabbath day was not a shadow of things to come but the ceremonial and feast sabbaths were a shadow of things to come - Christ.

For instance:

The Annual Atonement required a holy convocation, and a rest day that was a sabbath to the people- Leviticus 23:27,28,32

The Passover- days of rest was on the starting of the passover(14th day) and ending of Passover(21th day)- Exodus 12:16 Remember the Passover lasted seven days.

The Feast of Unleavened Bread- which started on the same day as the Passover- the 14th to 21th day- Exodus 12:17-19

The Feast of the First Fruits of Harvest

The Feast of the Blowing Trumpet

The Feast of the Sabbatical years and many more.


One method people use to avoid an obvious conclusion is to narrow the definition of a word so that what is being spoken against doesn't include the thing that they wish to do. What you have chosen to do is to make a distinction between the weekly Sabbaths and the holy convocations which are sometimes also called Sabbaths in the Bible. The flaw is that your argument is based solely on your desired answer. You didn't prove that Paul only had the holy convocations in mind. You saw a conflict in what you believe and what Paul taught and thus concluded that this must be what Paul had in mind because "obviously" you are right and Paul wouldn't disagree with you.

But as I said, it is a non-argument. In order to prove your point, you would have to show that God (not you) limited the mention of Sabbaths in Galatians and Colossians to only the special Sabbaths of the holy convocations.

I notice that you fall back on a common Sabbatarian line of reasoning. You artificially draw a line between "ceremonial" laws and the laws you wish to keep. Such a distinction is never given to the Israelites. The laws you call ceremonial and the laws you don't call ceremonial are intermixed. The Israelites were told to keep all the laws. They were not told that some were optional.

For example, circumcision is not a part of the Ten Commandments, yet it is one that Sabbatarians insist must be kept. Yet Paul stated, "And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law" (Galatians 5:3). No in debt to keep a portion of the law, but the whole thing. James makes the same point, but uses some of the Ten Commandments to make the point. "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law" (James 2:10-11). James' point is that you can't choose to keep a part of God's law and state that is good enough.

Finally, Paul, in discussing the change in covenants stated: "Or don't you know, brothers (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man for as long as he lives? For the woman that has a husband is bound by law to the husband while he lives, but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then if, while the husband lives, she is joined to another man, she would be called an adulteress. But if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she is joined to another man. Therefore, my brothers, you also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you would be joined to another, to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were through the law, worked in our members to bring forth fruit to death. But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! However, I wouldn't have known sin, except through the law. For I wouldn't have known coveting, unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." But sin, finding occasion through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of coveting. For apart from the law, sin is dead. I was alive apart from the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. The commandment, which was for life, this I found to be for death; for sin, finding occasion through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me. Therefore the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good" (Romans 7:1-12).

Paul makes the point that a person had to die to the old law in order to be joined to a new law. Is Paul only talking about a portion of the law? Obviously not, but if you are so inclined to argue, Paul illustrates his point by using the tenth commandment: You shall not covet.