The Love of Truth

I’d like to briefly talk about the intention and motivation behind this blog. This blog is often going to contain topics regarding where some of the present-day Christian beliefs have veered from what the Bible says. To me this is important because the Bible, after all, is the Word of our creator. To ignore or distort this message which has been given to us from our creator would be a grave mistake. Yet there are many areas where this has happened over the last two thousand years.

In order to find these deviations and to get back on the road laid out before us by our Heavenly Father Yahweh we need one thing. A love of the truth.

The question is will our love for truth outweigh our love of comfort? For one to give way to truth it means possibly being faced with accepting a life style change. Changing a way of life isn’t easy. Continuing on the path of least resistance is always very tempting. But if one builds up enough love for truth in their heart continuing in error will become nearly unbearable.

So today I would like to look at a few verses concerning truth and reflect on them.

The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. (NKJV, 2 Thes 2:9f)

The “love of the truth” is tied directly to being saved. Showing just how important it is to seek and accept truth.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, (NKJV, Romans 1:18)

It is the unrighteous who suppress truth. On the other hand we can deduce that the righteous would do the opposite, as in preach and teach the truth.

but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness–indignation and wrath, (NKJV, Romans 2:8)

Those who do not obey truth are “self-seeking”. Interestingly, not obeying truth is also tied to obeying unrighteousness and wrath.

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth. (NKJV, 1 Cor 13:4-6)

Love rejoices in truth.

Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? (NKJV, Galatians 4:16)

Upholding and speaking the truth will at times seem to make you an enemy to others. Especially those who do not want to hear the truth.

You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you (NKJV, Galatians 5:7f)

Who is it that hinders the truth? Paul makes it clear that it’s not the one that “calls you” (Christ).

that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head–Christ– (NKJV, Ephesians 4:14f)

It’s fairly clear by this verse that deviation from truth is cause by “the trickery of men”. But speaking the truth in love is maturity in Christ.

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (NKJV, 2 Timothy 2:15)

To be approved by Yahweh we must rightly divide the word of truth.

To summarize the lessons in these verses:

The unrighteous

Do not obey the truth but suppress it. They are self seeking and deceive others by trickery.

The righteous

Will be saved by their love of truth. They will rejoice in truth and are approved by Yahweh for rightly dividing the word of truth and they will do this even though it will make them an enemy to those who do not want to hear the truth.

But truth is not something that will just fall in to anyone’s lap. It says the approved rightly divide the word of truth. To divide means to separate, in this case, truth from non-truth. It’s not up to a teacher to tell anyone what to believe. They are there to aid us in our learning but we are not to just follow blindly. We must question things and compare everything to what is taught in the Bible. It’s ultimately our own job to distinguish what truth is.

Philippians 2:12 (NKJV)

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;

Advertisements

St. Patrick Was No Saint!

St. Patrick’s Day is here! And for millions that means green clothing and green beer. For some St. Paddy’s Day is a time to celebrate their Irish heritage. For others perhaps it’s just a great excuse to party! But for many, like the Irish, it’s a time to celebrate the man whom the holiday is named after as well as a time to commemorate the arrival of Christianity in Ireland.

Patrick is credited for converting thousands of Irish to Christianity. But was he a Saint? It may be surprising to learn that St. Patrick was never officially canonized as a Saint by the Catholic Church. It may be even more surprising to learn that he was never a part of the Roman Church to begin with….

Patrick Not Part of the Roman Church

“Two centuries elapsed after Patrick’s death before any writer attempted to connect Patrick’s work with a papal commission. No pope ever mentioned him, neither is there anything in the ecclesiastical records of Rome concerning him. …Patrick preached the Bible. He appealed to it as the sole authority for founding the Irish Church. He gave credit to no other worldly authority; he recited no creed. Several official creeds of the church at Rome had by that time been ratified and commanded, but Patrick mentions none. In his Confession he makes a brief statement of his beliefs, but he does not refer to any church council or creed as authority. The training centers he founded, which later grew into colleges and large universities, were all Bible schools. Famous students of these schools — Columba, who brought Scotland to Christ, Aidan, who won pagan England to the gospel, and Columbanus with his successors, who brought Christianity to Germany, France, Switzerland, and Italy — took the Bible as their only authority, and founded renowned Bible training centers for the Christian believers. … Patrick, like his example, Jesus, put the words of Scripture above the teachings of men. He differed from the Papacy, which puts church tradition above the Bible. In his writings he nowhere appeals to the church at Rome for the authorization of his mission. Whenever he speaks in defense of his mission, he refers to God alone, and declares that he received his call direct from heaven.” (Truth Triumphant, pp.82-84)

Another overlooked fact is that the early Celtic Churches kept the Sabbath. Unlike the Roman Church who kept Sunday as their day of worship the Celtic Churches, whom Patrick in part founded, kept the 7th day (Saturday) as required by the 4th commandment.

The Celtic Churches Kept the Sabbath

“The monks sent to England [in 596 A.D.] by Pope Gregory the Great soon came to see that the Celtic Church differed from theirs in many respects…Augustine himself [a Benedictine abbot]…held several conferences with the Christian Celts in order to accomplish the difficult task of their subjugation [submission] to Roman authority…The Celts permitted their priests to marry, the Romans forbade it. The Celts used a different mode of baptism [i.e., true baptism: immersion] from that of the Romans…The Celts held their own councils and enacted their own laws, independent of Rome. The Celts used a Latin Bible [i.e., the Itala] unlike the [Roman Catholic’s Latin] Vulgate, and kept Saturday as a day of rest.” (A.C. Flick, The Rise of Medieval Church, p.236-327)

     “It seems to have been customary in the Celtic churches of early times, in Ireland as well as Scotland, to keep Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, as a day of rest from labor. They obeyed the fourth commandment literally upon the seventh day of the week.” (James C. Moffatt, D. D.,The Church in Scotland, Philadelphia: 1882, p.140)

     “In this latter instance they seemed to have followed a custom of which we find traces in the early monastic church of Ireland by which they held Saturday to be the Sabbath on which they rested from all their labours.” (W.T. Skene, Adamnan Life of St. Columba, 1874, p.96)

So Patrick was not a Roman Catholic after all and also kept the 7th day Sabbath. The only authority he recognized was the Bible itself and was never in subjection to the pope. For most this information will hardly seem relevant as they clad themselves in green and make a dash for the nearest Irish pub, but for myself, and hopefully many others, today will be a time to honor the real Patrick and his ideal to hold the Bible as the one, true authority and the sole source of spiritual truth.

All of this information and these accounts were taken from the following site. To learn more about the historical truth of Patrick and the early Celtic Churches please visit:

http://www.truthontheweb.org/patrick.htm

Do You Take the Name In Vain?

There is a commandment in the Bible regarding the name of our creator. It’s the 3rd of ten commandments. Most of us have heard this commandment many times.

This commandment says:

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain. (NKJV, Exo 20:7)

One might wonder “what does it mean to take his name in vain?”

But there is another question begging to be asked here. That is, what name are we talking about here? You may notice that “the LORD” is not a name at all. Anyone who has watched a movie or television show taking place in medieval times knows that the term “lord” was thrown around quite a bit. Let’s see what the dictionary has to say about this word.

Dictionary.com defines “lord” as:

noun

1. a person who has authority, control, or power over others; a master, chief, or ruler.

2. a person who exercises authority from property rights; an owner of land, houses, etc.

3. a person who is a leader or has great influence in a chosen profession: the great lords of banking.

4. a feudal superior; the proprietor of a manor.

5. a titled nobleman or peer; a person whose ordinary appellation contains by courtesy the title Lord or some higher title.

Dictionary.com gives the origin of the word “lord” as follows:

Origin of lord

before 900; Middle English lord, loverd, Old English hlāford, hlāfweard literally, loaf-keeper. See loaf1, ward

Yup, loaf keeper. As in bread…

The point I’m making here is that “the LORD” is not the name of our creator as given in the Bible. It is simply a title, one that has been used to describe countless humans. Note that the word “LORD” in the 3rd commandments is in all capital letters. The reason for this is explained in the preface of the NIV Bible:

In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as “Lord” in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendered “Lord,” for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered “Sovereign Lord.” (http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv-preface.html)

In other words where you see the word “LORD” in all caps in your bible is where the name YHWH should be. This name is spelled in English and pronounced “Yahweh”. I encourage anyone reading this post to do their own research regarding the name Yahweh. There is plenty of information out there.

So back to the meaning of the 3rd commandment. To really understand the intention of this command we must look in to the Hebrew here. You can easily do this on such websites as http://www.blueletterbible.com or http://www.biblehub.com.

The Hebrew word translated as “vain” in Exodus 20:7 is “shav”. The Strong’s Concordance defines “shav” as:

Emptiness, vanity

A definition given by http://www.dictionary.com for vanity is:

lack of real value; hollowness; worthlessness

The sense of the word “shav” then is something empty or worthless and of no value.

The word translated as “take” in Exodus 20:7 also means to carry or bring. With a better understanding of these words we can give a clearer translation of the 3rd commandment. It should read something like this:

You shall not bring the name Yahweh your God to worthlessness, for Yahweh will not hold him guiltless who brings His name to worthlessness. (Exodus 20:7)

With this reading it becomes clear that the 3rd commandment is instructing us not to make the name Yahweh worthless. Ironically, by replacing the name Yahweh with “the LORD”, that’s exactly what the translators have done.

Many are content to use the title “LORD” instead of the name Yahweh. And perhaps many are not even aware of his name. But the commandment above is telling us not to make his name worthless. And in fact the name is to be treated as holy:

Glory in His holy name; Let the hearts of those rejoice who seek Yahweh! (1 Chron 16:10)

Sing praise to Yahweh, you saints of His, And give thanks at the remembrance of His holy name. (Psalm 30:4)

My mouth shall speak the praise of Yahweh, And all flesh shall bless His holy name Forever and ever. (Psalm 145:21)

I hope that anyone learning about the importance of the name Yahweh will consider keeping the 3rd commandment. Regard the name Yahweh as holy. Use it in prayer. Call on the name of your Father and not on titles. You have everything to gain from using this great and holy name.

The Sabbath in the Early Churches

One thing many Christians may not be aware of is why they no longer keep the 7th day sabbath. Perhaps they think that after the death and resurrection of Christ the church immediately switched to worshipping on Sunday instead.

The following is an excerpt is from a paper entitled “What Does The Bible Say About Saturday”. You can find this article in its entirety here:

https://rabbitholeliterature.wordpress.com

This section deals with the history of the early churches and their attitudes toward the sabbath. In the first section you will read statements from early Christians that advocate the sabbath hundreds of years after the death of Christ. In the second part you will read statements from early Christians that desire to distance themselves from Jews and Jewish practices, including the sabbath. In the third part you will read a challenge made by the Catholic Church to Protestants, and their claim that it was by their own authority that the sabbath was changed.

Early Church History

The early Christian church was diverse. There were many sects and leaders, until Rome tried to unify Christianity. The following topics will show that the Sabbath was kept, argued over, and finally suppressed.

·         Proof Sabbath was kept – In the quotes below, we see ancient church fathers advocating the Sabbath.

o   Origen (c. 200 AD) – “After the festival of the unceasing sacrifice is put the second festival of the Sabbath, and it is fitting for whoever is righteous among the saints to keep also the festival of the Sabbath. There remaineth therefore a sabbatismus, that is, a keeping of the Sabbath, to the people of God.” (Homily on Numbers 23)

o   Tertullian (c. 200 AD) – “Thus Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath. He kept the law thereof . . . He restored to the Sabbath the works for were proper for it” (Tertullian, Book IV, Chap 12, Vol 3 Ante-Nicean Christian Library)

o   Archelaus (c. 216-274 AD), a bishop wrote in his disputation with Manes:  “Again, as to the assertion that the Sabbath has been abolished, we deny that He has abolished it plainly; for He was Himself also Lord of the Sabbath.”  (Acts of Disputation)

o   Socrates Scholasticus (c. 380 AD)… “For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this” (Ecclesiastical History 5:22)

o   “For in the Church of Millaine (Milan), it seemes that Saturday was held in a farre esteeme… Not that the Easterne Churches, or any of the rest which observed that day were inclined to Judaism; but that they came together on the Sabbath day, to worship Jesus Christ the Lord of the Sabbath.” (History of the Sabbath, Dr. Peter Heylyn, London 1636, Part 2, para. 5, pgs 73-74)

·         Argument fueled by Anti-Semitism – The early church in its efforts to distance itself from the Jews, set about to eliminate the Sabbath from being kept.

o   Ignatius (c. 107 AD) – “Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness;  But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them.” (To the Magnesians chapter 9)

o   Novation (c. 250 AD) – “But how perverse are the Jews, and remote from the understanding of their law, I have fully shown, as I believe, in two former letters, wherein it was absolutely proved that they are ignorant of what is the true circumcision, and what the true Sabbath.” (On the Jewish Meats, chap. 1)

o   Athanasius (c. 290 AD) – “On the Sabbath day we gathered together, not being infected with Judaism, for we do not lay hold of false sabbaths, but we come on the Sabbath to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath,” (Homilia de Semente, Sec.1)

·         Proof Sabbath was suppressed

o   Ambrose (c. 340) – and you may know this quote, as a form of it is very famous, in response to the new requirement to fast on the Sabbath – “When I am at Rome, I fast on a Saturday; when I am at Milan, I do not. Follow the custom of the church where you are.”(Hippo, Augustine, Epistle to Januarius, II, section 18) His advice has remained in the English language as the saying, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do” or “When in Rome…

o   Council of Laodicea (c. 363 AD) – Canon 29 – “Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.

o   Pope Gregory I (c. 600 AD) – in reaction to a church in Scotland, led by Columban – “It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these but preachers of Antichrist, who, when he comes, will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord’s day to be kept free from all work. For, because he pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord’s day to be had in reverence; and, because he compels the people to judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed.” (Book VIII, epistle 1)

The fact that they outlawed the Sabbath on Saturday is evidence that it was being kept. The Catholic Church suppressed the Sabbath and dominated the religious landscape for the next thousand years. It wasn’t until the 16th Century that there was a serious challenge to this authority.

Reformation & Rome’s Challenge

The Protestant Reformation (c. 1517 – 1648) arose in response to the dominance of the Catholic Church and challenged the church’s authority to change things in the Bible. They proclaimed that the Bible was the sole teacher of truth.  There were many subject matters that were argued over and decreed on. However, one of the hidden reasons for the failure at the Council of Trent was the challenge issued by the Archbishop of Reggio. Here is the quote:

The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the [Catholic] Church has apostatized from the written word and follows tradition. Now the Protestant claim, that they stand upon the written word only, is not true. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith is false.

“PROOF: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day but reject it. If they do truly hold the scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath enjoined in the written word, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the [Catholic] Church. Consequently the claim of ‘Scripture alone as the standard,’ fails; and the doctrine of ‘Scripture and tradition’ as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being judges.” (see Council of Trent, Archbishop of Reggio)

This argument points out to the Protestants that if they really thought that the Bible was the sole basis for truth, they would be keeping Saturday instead of Sunday.

Because the Protestants of the day would not suddenly adopt the Sabbath day and acknowledged that some traditions were not from “antiquity” but from “continuous inspiration,” much of their argument fell apart. Afterward, there was a great increase in the Catholic Church.

We see that the truth of what really brought the early Christians away from sabbath keeping is more political than divine and fueled by anti-semitism . The Catholic Church claims to have made the change to the sabbath on their own authority. For Protestants claiming to use the Bible as their sole authority it stands to reason that they should observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, just as the apostles did, just as the earliest Christians did.

Is the Sabbath Part of “the Law”

A question has been debated among Christians for over a millennium: Should Christians keep the sabbath? I am, of course, talking about the seventh day sabbath and it’s observation according to the 4th commandment. Most Christian religions do not keep the sabbath day but instead keep “the Lard’s day”, a Sunday observance, honoring the resurrection of the messiah. There is certainly nothing wrong with getting together on Sunday to commemorate the resurrection of Christ, however it is never mentioned in the Bible as a commanded observance. It is a free will observance at best. The sabbath was commanded however, as a matter of fact it is one of the Ten Commandments.

Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God…

One argument given by some Christians is that the sabbath is apart of “the law” and that the law was done away with, so it is no longer required to be observed.

It is certainly clear in the New Testament that because of the victory of Christ, his fulfillment of the “the Law” and his self sacrifice, neither the Jews nor gentiles are under the Law, instead we are under grace. We are justified by our faith (trust) in the messiah and not through works of the law.

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. (NKJV, Rom 3:28)

For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. (NKJV, Rom 6:14)

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace (NKJV, Eph 1:7)

So is the command to observe the Sabbath, along with the other commandments, part of “the law” covenant? Yes it is. In Exodus chapter 19 the Israelites agree to the law covenant that is subsequently given at mount Sinai. The Israelites again agree to all that is spoken of by Yahweh at Sinai and enter the law covenant. This includes the Ten Commandments which are described in Exodus 20. But did the sabbath also precede the law? As a matter of fact out of almost all the commandments, the pre-existence of the sabbath is perhaps the easiest to prove.

And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. (NKJV, Gen 2:2)

We see here that the sabbath existed from the very beginning. But one could argue that there was no command to observe it and therefore its observance was only mandatory under the law. However in Exodus 16 the Israelites were instructed to observe the sabbath:

He said to them, “This is what the LORD commanded: ‘Tomorrow is to be a day of sabbath rest, a holy sabbath to the LORD. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.’ ” (NKJV, Exo 16:23)

And again

“Eat it today,” Moses said, “because today is a sabbath to the LORD. You will not find any of it on the ground today. Six days you are to gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any.” (NKJV, Exo 16:25f)

What is interesting about the passages above is that this event takes place in Exodus 16. The law is not given or agreed to until chapter 19:

The people all responded together, “We will do everything the LORD has said.” So Moses brought their answer back to the LORD. (NKJV, Exo 19:8)

And why was the law given in the first place?

Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. (NIV, Gal 3:19)

The law was added because of transgression. And how do you transgress without law? Interestingly the breaking of the sabbath in Exodus chapter 16 is the first transgression recorded in Exodus committed by the Israelites since they had left Egypt. Could it be that their disobedience in observing the sabbath is actually the reason the law covenant was given? Either way we see that the sabbath existed before the law covenant, as a commanded observance and as a holy day, sanctified from the very beginning of creation.

Still the writings of Paul do say that we are not under law but under grace. Does this mean that we don’t have to refrain from sin? Paul says this isn’t the case.

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! (NKJV, Rom 6:15)

So we are not supposed to sin even though we are not under the law. Well then how do we know what sin is?

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. (NKJV, Rom 3:20)

What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” (NKJV, Rom 7:7)

Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. (NKJV, Gal3:24f)

So although we are no longer under the law covenant, it has served an important role in teaching us what sin is. Paul’s analogy of the law being a tutor is a great way to explain it. If someone tutors you in math they will teach you all the rules of math and have you memorize problems and how to solve them. Once the tutors work is done you are left to face these math problems on your own. However just because you are no longer under the tutor does not mean that you don’t have to worry about solving the math problems. You still have a math test coming up. On the contrary the tutor has trained you and equipped you with the skills needed to solve the math problems resulting in a passing grade on your math test.

To recap some of Paul’s statements:

  • We are not under “the law”
  • We are under grace
  • Just because we are not under law does not mean we should sin
  • The law taught us what sin is

When Paul talks about the law teaching us what sin is he quotes one of the Ten Commandments:

For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” (NKJV, Rom 7:7b)

It would seem that Paul advocates the Ten Commandments here and its ability to teach us what sin is.

There was however a big problem in the days of the apostles as Jewish converts to Christianity started trying to force gentiles converts to keep the requirements of the law. As an example they were trying to require that gentile converts undergo circumcision.

And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. (NKJV, Acts 15:1)

And again

But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. (NKJV, Acts 15:5)

Circumcision is one example of the works of the law that are no longer required and Paul addresses that issue time and time again. The council at Jerusalem lead by James and the other apostles, seeing that it was not good to force new Christian converts to bare all the requirements of the law, send them a message regarding what parts of the law they are required to keep:

but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. (NKJV, Acts 15:20)

What’s most telling about this short list of requirements for new converts is not what is here, but what is not here. Are new converts allowed to:

Murder?

Steal?

Covet?

Worship idols?

Commit adultery?

Of course not. Yet there’s no mention of these commandments as part of the requirements for new converts. And why? Because whether or not Christians should keep the Ten Commandments was never even questioned at that time. It was understood that you should.

It’s clear that most Christians don’t have a problem with most of the Ten Commandments, the command to keep the sabbath being one of the exceptions. However it is not because the sabbath was done away with that most Christians don’t observe the sabbath. It is because of a change made by the early Roman Church. This change was not of divine inspiration but was inspired by politics and down right antisemitism. I will post about this topic later.