The Bible Teaches We Don't Have to Keep the Weekly Sabbath

"Paul thought that followers of Jesus who tried to keep the law were in danger of losing their salvation." Con gave no Scripture for that, until he does, we can dismiss it. Paul taught that the law is not what justifies or saves us, only Christ can. (Romans 3:19-28; 10:1-13) Paul never says that if a person keeps the law he cannot be saved. He says that we have freedom to observe days or not to observe them (Romans 14:5), but faith in Christ is what saves, not the llaw. " Matthew thought that followers of Jesus who did not keep the law, and do so even better than the most religious Jews, would never attain salvation." Con provided no Scripture so this is just his opinion, not fact! Matthew 5:19 doesn't say that he who breaks the commandments will not be saved, rather, they will be called LEAST in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 11:11 tells us that the LEAST in the kingdom of heaven is GREATER than John the Baptist; and no doubt, John was saved. So even one who is least in the kingdom is still IN the kingdom! "For Matthew, to be GREAT in the kingdom requires keeping the very least of the commandments" True, to be GREAT, but not to be SAVED. "just getting into the kingdom requires keeping them better than the scribes and Pharisees." Jesus says that our righteousness must exceed theirs to get into the kingdom (Matthew 5:20), but he doesn't say this is to be done by keeping the law better than they do. King David committed adultery with Bathsheba and killed her husband. (2 Samuel 11) We have no record of the Pharisees doing anything like this, yet, David is looked upon with favor; why? His repentance and faith in the Messiah. Our righteous can only exceed that of the Pharisees by accepting Christ's grace and righteousness instead of trying to set up our own righteousness by keeping the law. (Romans 10:1-4) Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6) So John agrees that Jesus is our only way to have a relationship with God, not the law. Jesus corrected those who thought they could gain eternal life from the Scriptures. (John 5:39-40) So the Torah, the Scripture, it doesn't save anybody; it points to the one who can. "He refuses to address Matthews position." I did, please read my post. "He is completely ignorant of the fact that the bible is actually a Anthology of books, put into one collection with authors having different views. To try to place Matthew in the context of Paul like my opponent is consistently doing is the worst contextual crime you can commit against the bible." I will now ask Con what books should be included in the Bible and why? This isn't even the topic of this debate, but since he raised it I'll bite! What makes Matthew any more canonical than Paul's letters? And who decides which books should be canonical? Con is flying in the face of the early church fathers and 2000 years of Christian history when he challenges the Bible canon. I would like to see his argument for which books are to be in the canon and why. Peter, one of Jesus 12 apostles and an eyewitness of Jesus' life, told us that Paul's letters are Scripture. He says: "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearnt and unstable wrest, as they do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES." (2 Peter 3:15-16) In fact, Luke himself who wrote both Luke and Acts (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-4), the author of one of the four gospels Con holds as canonical, presents Paul as a genuine apostle of Christ in his book. So Paul's credibility is agreed upon even by the apostles. I wonder if Con accepts the Old Testament canon? If so, I'll also prove my point from the Old Testament prophets as well, the very ones Jesus relied upon when quoting Scripture! The Torah identifies the Decalogue as the Covenant itself. (1 Kings 8:9, 21; Exodus 34:27-28; Deuteronomy 9:9) Then the prophet Jeremiah prophesied that the covenant would be removed and replaces by a new covenant. (Jeremiah 31:31-32) Paul quotes this as fulfilled in Hebrews 8. In fact, Jeremiahs speaks of the time when the covenant would be gone saying that they wouldn't even remember it. (Jeremiah 3:16) Hosea 2:11 "I will also cause all her myrth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her Sabbaths, and all he solemn feasts." When? The people asked, "When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? And the Sabbath, that we may set forth wheat…" and God answered, saying, "It shall come to pass in that day…that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in a clear day." (Amos 8:5-9) When was that? At the crucifixion of Jesus. "And it was about the sixth hour [12 o clock, noon on a clear day], and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour." (Luke 23:44-46) "You must read Matthew for what he says. If you want to know what Jesus probably taught you examine it with the other 2 synoptic gospels. What Paul taught is different. Paul was not expressing the teachings of a historical Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and to a lesser extent John were attempting to do this." This debate is not about "the historical Jesus in the flesh taught we don't have the keep the weekly sabbath," rather, "THE BIBLE teaches we don't' have to keep the weekly Sabbath." Until Con can show that either (1) Paul's letters don't' teach this, or (2) Paul's letters are not part of the Bible or at least don't belong there, he cannot be claimed the victor! "When Paul was writing he was often writing to non-Jews, who did no observe the law. His writing reflects this as Paul historically is thought of as a great salesman. He sold his audience what they wanted to hear." Con hasn't shown any evidence for this claim, vote Pro. He sold them what they wanted to hear? "O FOOLISH Galatians, who have bewithched you, that you should not obey the truth…?" (Galatians 3:1) Did the Galatians want to hear that? "I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain." (Galatians 3:11) Did they want to hear that? On Matthew 5:17 Con says: "When you read fulfill it does not I repeat does not make sense to fulfill law." Paul says the law was fulfilled. (Galatians 5:14, 18) It made sense to Paul and to his readers in those congregations. This is about what the Bible teaches, not what makes sense to Con. Con is an atheist, God doesn't make sense to him, yet Matthew teaches there is a God; so should we claim that the Gospels don't' teach God's existence because it makes no sense to Con? "If my opponent disagrees here is the challenge, how exactly does one fulfill a law?" Fine, the law required the sacrifice of animals such as the Passover lamb. (Exodus 12:21-27) Jesus fulfilled this law when he died on the cross as the Lamb of God, to which that Passover pointed. (1 Corinthians 5:7; John 1:29) "Here is where Jesus, according to Matthew explicitly states what will happen to someone like my opponent who is trying to ignore the law. He will be called least into the kingdom of heaven." At Matthew 11:11, is the least in the kingdom still saved, or is he lost? If he is saved, then here we have the salvation of someone not keeping the law. The Gospel of Luke agrees that the thief on the cross did not keep the law and yet was promised paradise. Faith in Christ alone got him salvation. (Luke 23:39-44) The J, E, P, D theory ignores the fact that the same writer usually uses different styles and choice of words when treating different subjects and audiences. Also, those J, E, P and D documents were never found and are only hypothetical. We can't say for sure our Bible was taken from them if we can't prove they existed. But that's a new debate.