The Lord's day.

[rstrats]

from scratch,

re: "Please answer the question..."
　


Good idea. What doctrine do you think I am promoting?

 

[By Faith Alone]

Do what I think really count with you? What I know is that Sabbath is God's blessed, sanctified day of rest and worship. The bible teaches that from Genesis to Revelation. No passage sanctifies Sunday or asked that Sunday be a day of worship. You decide.

Oh yes. Whether it be negative or positive your words always count. Is it not in your teachings Sunday worship is the mark of the beast? Is it directed at the Catholic Church? Be careful how you answer that one.
I have somewhat against the teachings of the Catholic Church but Sunday worship or even Saturday worship is of no consequence in this area. I will defend the RC in areas they are falsely accused and such the mind should be for everyone. Bearing false witness is a no-no. That institution is not in the book of Revelation.

The individual can sanctify and blamed day of the week he wants to:
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

 

[VictorC]

Do what I think really count with you? What I know is that Sabbath is God's blessed, sanctified day of rest and worship. The bible teaches that from Genesis to Revelation. No passage sanctifies Sunday or asked that Sunday be a day of worship. You decide.

Elder111,
How do you reconcile this love affair with the sabbath with the historical fact that God never even gave it to the Gentiles in Barbados? And where do you find Christianity affirming a return to the first covenant that God redeemed us from in His adoption?

Lastly, your comments regarding Sunday is an attempt to force a command that doesn't exist within the liberty that God gave to us. The paradigm you've adopted isn't Biblical. So are your comments regarding the sabbath using verbs in the present tense. Galatians 5:1 gives us a command that you aren't cognizant of, and we can't follow your departure from the core tenets of Christianity.

 

[Elder 111]

Oh yes. Whether it be negative or positive your words always count. Is it not in your teachings Sunday worship is the mark of the beast? Is it directed at the Catholic Church? Be careful how you answer that one.
I have somewhat against the teachings of the Catholic Church but Sunday worship or even Saturday worship is of no consequence in this area. I will defend the RC in areas they are falsely accused and such the mind should be for everyone. Bearing false witness is a no-no. That institution is not in the book of Revelation.

The individual can sanctify and blamed day of the week he wants to:
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

Brother I am about the biblical truth and teaching. Sincerity does not equate truth. Take Saul who became Paul. Did he not believe that what he was doing pleased God until Jesus stopped Him? God is a particular God not one that anything goes with Him. Many men died for so assuming including Uzza (1 chronicles 13:9-10). Why would He set, sanctify and bless a day and then take any from man?

 

[Elder 111]

Elder111,
How do you reconcile this love affair with the sabbath with the historical fact that God never even gave it to the Gentiles in Barbados? And where do you find Christianity affirming a return to the first covenant that God redeemed us from in His adoption?

Lastly, your comments regarding Sunday is an attempt to force a command that doesn't exist within the liberty that God gave to us. The paradigm you've adopted isn't Biblical. So are your comments regarding the sabbath using verbs in the present tense. Galatians 5:1 gives us a command that you aren't cognizant of, and we can't follow your departure from the core tenets of Christianity.

You think that Christ came to divorce everything He stood for in dealing with the Jews? That the God of the old testament is not the same in the new? Jesus make it clear that His principles of old still stands. Mat. 5:17-19. There is as much "bondage" in keeping the Sabbath as there is in Sunday Monday or any other day. But you know what, God asked for Sabbath. Do we have liberty to lie, steal and worship another God? Then why is the Sabbath not the same? God placed them all together in one package. Do we now have to correct Him? Did He not know what He was doing?

 

[VictorC]

Brother I am about the biblical truth and teaching.

Good.

Why would He set, sanctify and bless a day and then take any from man?

The 'why' comes from giving us something inherently superior in His 'My rest'. However, you're framing a question regarding taking away the sabbath that begs the prerequisite that He gave it to you in the first place. That prerequisite hasn't been met, and is necessary in any endeavor to promote a Biblical foundation.

 

[Elder 111]

Good.



The 'why' comes from giving us something inherently superior in His 'My rest'. However, you're framing a question regarding taking away the sabbath that begs the prerequisite that He gave it to you in the first place. That prerequisite hasn't been met, and is necessary in any endeavor to promote a Biblical foundation.

I did you just "pick and choose".
Don't worry the Jews did not get it either that's why the killed Jesus.

 

[VictorC]

You think that Christ came to divorce everything He stood for in dealing with the Jews? That the God of the old testament is not the same in the new? Jesus make it clear that His principles of old still stands.

You aren't a Jew, and as such never were given the old covenant that contained the sabbath. Ephesians 2:11-16 addresses the relationship you had during the tenure of the old covenant:

11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

If, as you claim, the old covenant still retains jurisdiction, then all the inhabitants of Barbados remain estranged apart from God's redemption "having no hope and without God in the world".

Mat. 5:17-19.

Your mindset requires that we dismiss Jesus telling us "till all is fulfilled", and remaining in the old covenant. This too is contrary to the tenets of Christianity, and the change Hebrews 9:15 describes in the present tense: And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

There is as much "bondage" in keeping the Sabbath as there is in Sunday Monday or any other day. But you know what, God asked for Sabbath.

False, and this has been pointed out to you many times. It remains a prerequisite you have never provided any support for.

Do we have liberty to lie, steal and worship another God? Then why is the Sabbath not the same? God placed them all together in one package.

Of course it is convenient for you to ignore previous posts showing you that God delivered us from the old covenant Law, identified by quoting directly from the Ten Commandments.

Do we now have to correct Him? Did He not know what He was doing?

Regarding your 'liberty' to lie, steal, and worship an idol (which is what you do when you replace the Creator with His creation, and 2 Kings 18:4 shows it necessary to remove the creation when it became an object of worship), remember that this was an argument Paul encountered before, and addressed in Romans 3:7-8:
7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

It is a fallacious argument deserving condemnation, resorted to by those intent on reversing the relationship of the Law keeping the recipients until the time appointed by God.

Galatians 4
Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Bondage is rejecting God's redemption, and returning to the slavery God provided a solution to in His adoption.

 

[VictorC]

I did you just "pick and choose".
Don't worry the Jews did not get it either that's why the killed Jesus.

You didn't provide the support required. The conclusion that you can't becomes inescapable.

 

[from scratch]

You think that Christ came to divorce everything He stood for in dealing with the Jews? That the God of the old testament is not the same in the new? Jesus make it clear that His principles of old still stands. Mat. 5:17-19. There is as much "bondage" in keeping the Sabbath as there is in Sunday Monday or any other day. But you know what, God asked for Sabbath. Do we have liberty to lie, steal and worship another God? Then why is the Sabbath not the same? God placed them all together in one package. Do we now have to correct Him? Did He not know what He was doing?

Only if I kept your amended version of the Sabbath.

 

[By Faith Alone]

You think that Christ came to divorce everything He stood for in dealing with the Jews? That the God of the old testament is not the same in the new? Jesus make it clear that His principles of old still stands. Mat. 5:17-19. There is as much "bondage" in keeping the Sabbath as there is in Sunday Monday or any other day. But you know what, God asked for Sabbath. Do we have liberty to lie, steal and worship another God? Then why is the Sabbath not the same? God placed them all together in one package. Do we now have to correct Him? Did He not know what He was doing?

You hold the red letters hostage to prove a point as many do. The crucifixion did not shut Him up. Reconciliation on the cross laid the foundation for future changes in the Gospel. The Lord revealed knowledge from His throne in Heaven very much to us. There is much importance manifested in the revelations of which I speak from the risen and...ASCENDED...Lord.

 

[Elder 111]

You aren't a Jew, and as such never were given the old covenant that contained the sabbath. Ephesians 2:11-16 addresses the relationship you had during the tenure of the old covenant:

11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, 15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, 16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.

I highlighted the text for you.
You see a removing of the ten commandments here, or the Sabbath? It does not say so. We who you say was afar off were so because of our own doing. Romans 1:
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

If, as you claim, the old covenant still retains jurisdiction, then all the inhabitants of Barbados remain estranged apart from God's redemption "having no hope and without God in the world".

The gentiles were never excluded from salvation. If so why is Rahab and Ruth a part of Christ ancestry?

Your mindset requires that we dismiss Jesus telling us "till all is fulfilled", and remaining in the old covenant. This too is contrary to the tenets of Christianity, and the change Hebrews 9:15 describes in the present tense: And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

When was or is this "till all be fulfill" ? Heaven and earth passed already? Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

False, and this has been pointed out to you many times. It remains a prerequisite you have never provided any support for.

According to VictorC but not scripture nor God!

Of course it is convenient for you to ignore previous posts showing you that God delivered us from the old covenant Law, identified by quoting directly from the Ten Commandments.

Then you find another God to worship: that is the first of the ten. Leave us alone who want to worship the God of heaven, The Creator God who instituted the Sabbath to remind us that He is the Creator. Who gave us the ten Commandments to show us how we should live in love towards Him and each other.

Regarding your 'liberty' to lie, steal, and worship an idol (which is what you do when you replace the Creator with His creation, and 2 Kings 18:4 shows it necessary to remove the creation when it became an object of worship), remember that this was an argument Paul encountered before, and addressed in Romans 3:7-8:
7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

So I should not lie but there is no commandment to that effect for me? God will destroy me if I tell lies but there is no commandment to that effect towards me? Rev. 22:
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
I assure you, none of that makes sense.

It is a fallacious argument deserving condemnation, resorted to by those intent on reversing the relationship of the Law keeping the recipients until the time appointed by God.


Galatians 4
Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Bondage is rejecting God's redemption, and returning to the slavery God provided a solution to in His adoption.

Excuse me! except you are stealing and committing adultery etc. you are in bondage too. You say no ten commandments and don't steal I say ten commandments and don't steal and I am in bondage and you are not? Rom. 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Looks like we are in the same boat, that can not be, you don't keep the whole law, not Sabbath. 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Why are we not servants of Sin? Because we obey. What is sin? The transgression of the Law! So what is it that we obey? Oops, looks like the ten commandments.

 

[Elder 111]

You hold the red letters hostage to prove a point as many do. The crucifixion did not shut Him up. Reconciliation on the cross laid the foundation for future changes in the Gospel. The Lord revealed knowledge from His throne in Heaven very much to us. There is much importance manifested in the revelations of which I speak from the risen and...ASCENDED...Lord.

Ever hear or read "I am the Lord, I change not"

 

[By Faith Alone]

Ever hear or read "I am the Lord, I change not"

Sure have. That statement has been severely abused as you have done for it does not mean what people imply. The Lord is immutable...unchanging in character...unchanging in attributes.
It is the same as a day with the Lord is as a 1,000 years does not mean a day is worth a 1,000 years and blasphemy is used as a scare tactic by the uninformed in not knowing what it actually means to us today.
Would you like to learn more?

 

[from scratch]

Ever hear or read "I am the Lord, I change not"

Yes and it means several things to me. First like it says God doesn't change. Secondly if this were the slightest bit true God wouldn't have issued the Ten Commandments after several 1,000 years. Thirdly it doesn't mean God can't change the covenant (rules). God is a true sovereign.

If any honest person looks at the entire Old Testament alone they can easily see a progression of changes.

So using Mal 3:6 is only to fool the ignorant who won't read the Bible in the first place. So you're insulting our intelligence to the point of flaming.

 

[VictorC]

I highlighted the text for you.
You see a removing of the ten commandments here, or the Sabbath? It does not say so.

Yes, I do - furthermore, what is absent is God giving the Gentiles the Ten Commandments, or the sabbath contained it it (it is a proper noun, the name of the covenant from Mount Sinai, and should be capitalized). This is the burden of proof you have been tasked with, and still haven't delivered on.

We who you say was afar off were so because of our own doing.

It was by your own doing that you were born a Gentile in Barbados?

Romans 1:
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Did you notice that you reached for an unrelated passage of Scripture in the hope that it would contradict Ephesians 2:11-16? This is another example of your oft-employed argument that Scripture contradicts Scripture, and this is somehow able to invalidate Scripture.

The gentiles were never excluded from salvation.

The point that eludes you is that the Gentiles were never given the Law. That they remained "no hope and without God in the world" until after the tenure of the Law is Scripture's testimony that you're arguing against.

Furthermore, the same presentation in Scripture is found in Galatians 3, where we see "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law ... that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

If so why is Rahab and Ruth a part of Christ ancestry?

Relevance? Were all the lineage of Jesus according to the flesh saved? Did Rahab display faith before or after she joined into the commonwealth of Israel and lived under the Law? It seems you're dropping names without making a point that helps your position.

When was or is this "till all be fulfill" ? Heaven and earth passed already? Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Even after drawing attention to the present tense use of the pertinent verbs, you missed the point Hebrews 9:15 makes: Jesus is Mediator of the new covenant, and is not a Mediator of the old covenant He redeemed our transgressions from. By His death the old covenant was fulfilled.

According to VictorC but not scripture nor God!

This again shows the burden of proof remaining on your shoulders: Nowhere did God "ask for Sabbath" (your words) from us, and you have not shown anywhere in Scripture where He gave the Gentiles nor His redeemed children the sabbath. Scripture is favoring my argument, as Exodus 31:12-17 demonstrates the sabbath was exclusive to the children of Israel.

Not only are you arguing against Scripture, but the Scripture you're arguing against is the Law itself.

Then you find another God to worship: that is the first of the ten. Leave us alone who want to worship the God of heaven, The Creator God who instituted the Sabbath to remind us that He is the Creator. Who gave us the ten Commandments to show us how we should live in love towards Him and each other.

If your opinion had any validity, then why is it so easily refuted by pointing out that God never gave you, a Gentile, the sabbath nor the Ten Commandments, and you yourself aren't even among the "us" you refer to?

You even included a personal attack by attempting to estrange me from God's redemption, when Jesus taught the same limitation of a law's jurisdiction I do according to Matthew 17:24-26. I am following Jesus as His adopted child. You can't invalidate His promises given to His own children, whom He sad are free.

So I should not lie but there is no commandment to that effect for me? God will destroy me if I tell lies but there is no commandment to that effect towards me?

You completely ignored what I wrote:
Regarding your 'liberty' to lie, steal, and worship an idol (which is what you do when you replace the Creator with His creation, and 2 Kings 18:4 shows it necessary to remove the creation when it became an object of worship), remember that this was an argument Paul encountered before, and addressed in Romans 3:7-8:
7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

It is a fallacious argument deserving condemnation, resorted to by those intent on reversing the relationship of the Law keeping the recipients until the time appointed by God. Scripture showing this time coming to fruition was rejected by you, so I see no reason to repeat it.

Rev. 22:
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
I assure you, none of that makes sense.

Why isn't the sabbath found anywhere in the commandments of God given to us? Is this (yet) another appeal to argument via Scripture contradicting Scripture, employed because you do not know what Scripture says?
It would seem so.

Excuse me! except you are stealing and committing adultery etc. you are in bondage too. You say no ten commandments and don't steal I say ten commandments and don't steal and I am in bondage and you are not? Rom. 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Looks like we are in the same boat, that can not be, you don't keep the whole law, not Sabbath. 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Why are we not servants of Sin? Because we obey. What is sin? The transgression of the Law! So what is it that we obey? Oops, looks like the ten commandments.

I mentioned before that you have never kept the sabbath holy according to the Law that ordained it in your entire life. The same is true of the false prophet Ellen White, who condemned herself when she wrote "It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord" and never did.

To remind you of the burden of proof you haven't satisfied, you have never shown where the Gentiles of Barbados were ever given the Ten Commandments nor the sabbath. Such an assertion is contrary to the Law, anyway. The bottom line is that you have never satisfied this prerequisite necessary to lend credence to your argument that God had to take away something He never gave you in the first place.

 

[Elder 111]

Sure have. That statement has been severely abused as you have done for it does not mean what people imply. The Lord is immutable...unchanging in character...unchanging in attributes.
It is the same as a day with the Lord is as a 1,000 years does not mean a day is worth a 1,000 years and blasphemy is used as a scare tactic by the uninformed in not knowing what it actually means to us today.
Would you like to learn more?

You are correct. It does refer to unchanging character. Please take a moment and look at the ten commandments. It denotes conduct, character. You don't steal to be saved, you don't because it is wrong. Not committing adultery is not about gaining God's favor but because it is wrong. It is part of the Christian Character. That means it is of Christ (that is what Christian mean). So how then can we expect to remove it?

 

[Elder 111]

Yes and it means several things to me. First like it says God doesn't change. Secondly if this were the slightest bit true God wouldn't have issued the Ten Commandments after several 1,000 years. Thirdly it doesn't mean God can't change the covenant (rules). God is a true sovereign.

If any honest person looks at the entire Old Testament alone they can easily see a progression of changes.

So using Mal 3:6 is only to fool the ignorant who won't read the Bible in the first place. So you're insulting our intelligence to the point of flaming.

What you call change is not. It is progressive revelation and not for them but for us. If there was no law what was Abel guilty of? If there was no law what was Joseph talking about when said he could not sin against God instead of sleeping with the woman. Why did Jacob's family put away there idols when God called them. Why did God destroy with the flood and fire? There was no law for these people to know better as you put it. So God can only be conceived as unfair.

 

[Elder 111]

Did you notice that you reached for an unrelated passage of Scripture in the hope that it would contradict Ephesians 2:11-16? This is another example of your oft-employed argument that Scripture contradicts Scripture, and this is somehow able to invalidate Scripture.

If it is scripture it is not my contradiction but shows your argument flawed.

The point that eludes you is that the Gentiles were never given the Law. That they remained "no hope and without God in the world" until after the tenure of the Law is Scripture's testimony that you're arguing against.

So the question still remains. What about Ruth and Rahab among thousands more?

Furthermore, the same presentation in Scripture is found in Galatians 3, where we see "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law ... that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."

Abraham's seed was given the law.

Relevance? Were all the lineage of Jesus according to the flesh saved? Did Rahab display faith before or after she joined into the commonwealth of Israel and lived under the Law? It seems you're dropping names without making a point that helps your position.

Before.

Even after drawing attention to the present tense use of the pertinent verbs, you missed the point Hebrews 9:15 makes: Jesus is Mediator of the new covenant, and is not a Mediator of the old covenant He redeemed our transgressions from. By His death the old covenant was fulfilled.

The only change recorded is the used of the blood of animals for the Blood of Christ.

This again shows the burden of proof remaining on your shoulders: Nowhere did God "ask for Sabbath" (your words) from us, and you have not shown anywhere in Scripture where He gave the Gentiles nor His redeemed children the sabbath. Scripture is favoring my argument, as Exodus 31:12-17 demonstrates the sabbath was exclusive to the children of Israel.

That is why Jesus said it was for man? I did not know that only the children of Israel were men. All these years:o. When was that discovered?

If your opinion had any validity, then why is it so easily refuted by pointing out that God never gave you, a Gentile, the sabbath nor the Ten Commandments, and you yourself aren't even among the "us" you refer to?

To choose Christ is to choose His way and His way is in His law.

You even included a personal attack by attempting to estrange me from God's redemption, when Jesus taught the same limitation of a law's jurisdiction I do according to Matthew 17:24-26. I am following Jesus as His adopted child. You can't invalidate His promises given to His own children, whom He sad are free.

Free from what? Condemnation not to do lawlessness.

You completely ignored what I wrote:
Regarding your 'liberty' to lie, steal, and worship an idol (which is what you do when you replace the Creator with His creation, and 2 Kings 18:4 shows it necessary to remove the creation when it became an object of worship), remember that this was an argument Paul encountered before, and addressed in Romans 3:7-8:
7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.

It is a fallacious argument deserving condemnation, resorted to by those intent on reversing the relationship of the Law keeping the recipients until the time appointed by God. Scripture showing this time coming to fruition was rejected by you, so I see no reason to repeat it.

So worshiping the Sabbath is to worship the Sabbath? Is that what you are saying?



Why isn't the sabbath found anywhere in the commandments of God given to us? Is this (yet) another appeal to argument via Scripture contradicting Scripture, employed because you do not know what Scripture says?
It would seem so.[/quote]
Why tell you to do something that you are already doing?

I mentioned before that you have never kept the sabbath holy according to the Law that ordained it in your entire life. The same is true of the false prophet Ellen White, who condemned herself when she wrote "It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord" and never did.

To remind you of the burden of proof you haven't satisfied, you have never shown where the Gentiles of Barbados were ever given the Ten Commandments nor the sabbath. Such an assertion is contrary to the Law, anyway. The bottom line is that you have never satisfied this prerequisite necessary to lend credence to your argument that God had to take away something He never gave you in the first place.

What law? I did not know you lived with Ellen White too.

 

[from scratch]

You are correct. It does refer to unchanging character. Please take a moment and look at the ten commandments. It denotes conduct, character. You don't steal to be saved, you don't because it is wrong. Not committing adultery is not about gaining God's favor but because it is wrong. It is part of the Christian Character. That means it is of Christ (that is what Christian mean). So how then can we expect to remove it?

So are you arguing about God changing or the retirement of the law?