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

'notice he adds the word both. That is not there. He says Prophets then talks about fulfilling them. Key is, he doesn't say both. The law stands. He either couldn't read or he is intentionally misrepresenting the quote, it does not say both." In Matthew 5:17 Jesus says he didn't come to destory the law OR the prophets, the word "OR" shows he is speaking of BOTH the law and the prophets; then he says regarding them both, that he came to FULFILL. Then he says in verse 18 that nothing shall pass from the LAW till all is FULFILLED, so here Jesus links the fulfilling with the law yet again. It is clear already from verse 17 that Jesus came to fulfill BOTH the law and the prophets, so Con is simply wrong. "To finish off on Matthew, he clearly gives prerequisites for teaching other then the law needed to be upheld. The Prerequisites are this. Heaven and Earth must pass and everything is complete." The parallel in Luke 16:17 gives the correct understanding; "And it is EASIER for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." The point was that the law could not fail, it had to do that for which it was sent (given). Galatians 3:19 says it was "added because of transgression TILL the seed should come." So the law would not be permanent, it would only last until the Messiah. Why? "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." (Galatians 3:24-25) So it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away for one part of the law to go unfulfilled and prove God a liar! Matthew 5:17 is using a figure of speech. Till heaven and earth pass away, not one tittle shall pass from the law, TILL all is fulfilled; compare this parallel; Till heaven and earth pass away, you will not be released from prison, TILL you've served your time! Does this mean that the prisoner will not be released from prison till heaven and earth are destroyed? No. But as long as heaven and earth endure, the only way for him to get out of jail is to serve his time, then he can get out, just as the law must be fulfilled before it can pass away. "Later on in Matthew Jesus talks about remembering thine commandments, which includes the one to keep the sabbath." The New Testament also lays out new commands unknown in the Torah, for example baptism and evangelism.(Matthew 28:19-20) Con cannot rightly ASSUME the word "commandments" must mean the sabbath, he must show this from the context. Also, the law of Moses only passed away at the cross, so it was still binding when Jesus was alive and hence, we could expect him to instruct people to keep it until such time as it passed away. This does not rebut my argument that the New Testament teaches the law is abolished, hence, we dont' have to keep the sabbath. My opponent then brings up Matthew 19:16-18 where a young man wants to enter eternal life and is told to keep the commandments, but he leaves out verses 20-24 which shows that even keeping the commandments was not sufficient to gain him such life! Jesus was merely testing the man, for the Bible clearly teaches that we cannot be saved by works of the law. (Romans 3:19-28) What Con doesn't seem to get is that the Bible is teaching that God's servants had to keep the law up to a certain point, namely, the death of Jesus. At that time the law of Moses was abrogated. (Ephesians 2:15) So showing us that Jesus told people to keep the law while it was in force doesn't prove that the Bible teaches we must keep it today. Con needs to deal with the evidence I showed him that this law was aboished. Until he does, he cannot be claimed the victor in this debate. "So, Lets take out Pauls letters right now as instructions on what Christians should do. First my opponent must ask himself is he suppose to follow Jesus or Paul? If you are part of Christianity, last I checked Jesus was the Christ hence why it is called Christianity and not Paulianity. My opponent appears to be a Paulian not a Christian. Here is why:" Last I checked, the title of this debate began with the words THE BIBLE TEACHES...So Con can only reject what Paul says if Paul's letters are not part of the Bible; but they are. As for following Jesus, let's remember that ALL Scripture is inspired of God (2 Timothey 3:16-17), and that includes the letters of Paul. Paul himself tells us that what he preaches is indeed the word of God which he received from Jesus himself. (Galatians 1:10-12) What he writes are the Llord's commandments. (1 Corinthians 14:37) The words of Jesus as recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are no more true and worthy of our obedience than the commands he delivered from heaven to Paul whom he personally picked for this ministry. (Acts 9) Furthermore, we do not have the exact words of Jesus in the four Gospels, but four authors who put it in their own words, hence they all say the same thing slightly differently. "When we explore the historicity of Jesus and what Jesus taught, from a historical perspective Paul doesn't even come in. Paul does not make a claim to have known Jesus or have spoken to him in life, only Christ after Jesus' death." The debate is on what the Bible teaches, not on if one part of the Bible is more reliable than another. Thus, even if I made my whole argument from a revelation given to John long after Jesus left the earth, its still part of the Bible and every much as valid in this debate as the words of Jesus in the four Gospels. "The best source we have for Jesus' life is Mark and possibly what seems to remain from a missing gospel named Q or Quelle. After that we get to Matthew and Luke. The 3 of these are what Historians refer to as the synoptic gospels, they are the earliest gospels to tell Jesus' story." Con seems to be going off topic here. Is Con rejecting divine revelation as less reliable than what the Gospel writers claim they saw and heard Jesus say and do? Even if Con could prove the letters of Paul to be forgeries, the fact is that they are included in the Bible, and they do teach that abrogation of the law. As an atheist, I don't think Con even considers any of the Bible books reliable anyways since they all talk about God. If Con wants to debate the reliability, nature and relationship of bible books to each other and to history I would gladly debate him if he'd post the argument, but this isn't the topic at hand. "They are far earlier then John which is less credible based on the time frame, and its content appear to be theologically advanced by means of intention shall we say." Con claims that Mark is more credible than John. When was Mark written? When did Paul write about the law? Give dates and prove it Con! Con goes to Mark 10:19 and says: "So Jesus is talking about keeping the commandments there." But notice that in verse 20 the man says he already was keeping these commandments, and Jesus told him to do something else, "follow me," (verse 21), and tod him how to do so. "Sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor." The man refused and didn't enter the kingdom. So this man was not a Christian, he wasn't a believer, he wasn't following Jesus! If he was keeping the commandments and yet not FOLLOWING Jesus, then following Jesus doesn't equal keeping the commandments. Jesus set a higher standard. And I've already replied to this matter of Jesus telling some to keep Moses' law. "I don't see my opponent saying that we don't have to keep the thou shall not steal, the thou shall not kill, and complaining that these commandments are out of date." Because after Jesus died and abolished the law of Moses, the New Testament tells us under the New Covenant not to do those things. It doesn't tell us to keep the sabbath, so sabbath keeping isn't part of the New Covenant. "I wonder why my opponent respects Paul over Jesus." I don't, I respect equally God's word as given through Paul, Mark, and all gosple writers.