The Lord's day.

[from scratch]

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.

...will make a new covenant... not according to...

 

[from scratch]

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

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

Abraham's seed was given the law.

Before.

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

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?

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

Free from what? Condemnation not to do lawlessness.

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.

Why tell you to do something that you are already doing?

 

[VictorC]

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

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

Abraham's seed was given the law.

Before.

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

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?

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

Free from what? Condemnation not to do lawlessness.

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

Why tell you to do something that you are already doing?

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

I can understand your desire to distance yourself from seventh-day Adventism's Pen of Liability. Theirs is a land of make-believe, with 2/3 of the SDA Fundamental Beliefs containing at least some material dependent wholly on the writings of Ellen White, unsupportable by Scripture and in several cases directly contrary to Scripture. As Dr. Walter Martin observed it bears the stigma of a cult, and his companion Dr. Donald Barnhouse concluded their Sanctuary Doctrine is "the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history".

Having said that, I find your comments similar to what Adventists believe.

They are contrary to Scripture for the most part, and some of your comments defer to extraneous points that aren't remotely germane to the conversation. Where this leaves you is contradicting Scripture, arguing by Scripture contradicting Scripture, and even arguing from a perspective that Jesus contradicts God.

Focus on the topic we began this latest round of conversation with. It all started with your claim that God instructed us to keep the sabbath (which demands that we leave His rest). As I reminded you before:

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.

It is past time to come out of the church of make-believe and support your contentions using a Bible. If you cannot do this, it becomes requisite for you to retract your claim that is extra- and un-Biblical.

 

[VictorC]

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

The use of the Greek metathesis used to describe the 'change' of the Law in Hebrews 7:12 conveys a dual meaning dependent on context in its definition:

• transfer: from one place to another
• to change

Where this same epistle describes a transfer of location by the time the author wrote Hebrews 10:9, the narrative describes a 'change' in the manner of the Law's loss of jurisdiction.

 

[Elder 111]

I can understand your desire to distance yourself from seventh-day Adventism's Pen of Liability. Theirs is a land of make-believe, with 2/3 of the SDA Fundamental Beliefs containing at least some material dependent wholly on the writings of Ellen White, unsupportable by Scripture and in several cases directly contrary to Scripture. As Dr. Walter Martin observed it bears the stigma of a cult, and his companion Dr. Donald Barnhouse concluded their Sanctuary Doctrine is "the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history".

Having said that, I find your comments similar to what Adventists believe.

They are contrary to Scripture for the most part, and some of your comments defer to extraneous points that aren't remotely germane to the conversation. Where this leaves you is contradicting Scripture, arguing by Scripture contradicting Scripture, and even arguing from a perspective that Jesus contradicts God.

Focus on the topic we began this latest round of conversation with. It all started with your claim that God instructed us to keep the sabbath (which demands that we leave His rest). As I reminded you before:

It is past time to come out of the church of make-believe and support your contentions using a Bible. If you cannot do this, it becomes requisite for you to retract your claim that is extra- and un-Biblical.

There is nothing to retract! You have rejected scripture so much that you are saying that I contradict scripture with scripture, rather than admit you are wrong.
If I can contradict scripture with itself it means that scripture itself is flawed, but if it is that scripture is not flawed as we both agreed on. Then you position is what is contradicting scripture, not me.
You a text. Mark 2: 27
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

If the Sabbath was made for man on what grounds can you exclude anyone?

Reject now, that is the mode you are in and will remain unless God Himself intervenes.

 

[Elder 111]

The use of the Greek metathesis used to describe the 'change' of the Law in Hebrews 7:12 conveys a dual meaning dependent on context in its definition:

• transfer: from one place to another
• to change

Where this same epistle describes a transfer of location by the time the author wrote Hebrews 10:9, the narrative describes a 'change' in the manner of the Law's loss of jurisdiction.

And the law spoken of is clearly stated. The law governing the priesthood. So why do you put the ten commandments there? This is why scripture can be shown over and over to contradict, itself because applications are make that scripture do not address. That is evil.

 

[VictorC]

There is nothing to retract! You have rejected scripture so much that you are saying that I contradict scripture with scripture, rather than admit you are wrong.
If I can contradict scripture with itself it means that scripture itself is flawed, but if it is that scripture is not flawed as we both agreed on. Then you position is what is contradicting scripture, not me.
You a text. Mark 2: 27
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

If the Sabbath was made for man on what grounds can you exclude anyone?

Reject now, that is the mode you are in and will remain unless God Himself intervenes.

Once again, you think that Jesus contradicts what God spoke to Moses, and you're forced to add your interpretation that the children of Israel aren't human. Soundbite theology is incompetence in action.

Focus on the question, which you still haven't addressed:

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.

 

[VictorC]

And the law spoken of is clearly stated. The law governing the priesthood. So why do you put the ten commandments there? This is why scripture can be shown over and over to contradict, itself because applications are make that scripture do not address. That is evil.

Just what exactly did you think the Law driving the priesthood necessary to perform the burnt offerings mandated by the sabbath was? The principle object of Hebrew's narrative is the transition from the first covenant to the new covenant. To narrow the principle topic to an arbitrary subset displays a prejudice defying the message the inspired author wrote. This inspired epistle is not subject to episodes of fractured fairy tales cartoons for its theology.

 

[from scratch]

The use of the Greek metathesis used to describe the 'change' of the Law in Hebrews 7:12 conveys a dual meaning dependent on context in its definition:

• transfer: from one place to another
• to change

Where this same epistle describes a transfer of location by the time the author wrote Hebrews 10:9, the narrative describes a 'change' in the manner of the Law's loss of jurisdiction.

But the Old Covenant made at Sinai isn't what is transferred. The law's jurisdiction isn't transferred as they claim. I agree with you about its loss of jurisdiction.

 

[from scratch]

There is nothing to retract! You have rejected scripture so much that you are saying that I contradict scripture with scripture, rather than admit you are wrong.
If I can contradict scripture with itself it means that scripture itself is flawed, but if it is that scripture is not flawed as we both agreed on. Then you position is what is contradicting scripture, not me.
You a text. Mark 2: 27
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

If the Sabbath was made for man on what grounds can you exclude anyone?

Reject now, that is the mode you are in and will remain unless God Himself intervenes.

In context with the law that isn't what MK 2:27 says as the Greek reveals.

 

[VictorC]

But the Old Covenant made at Sinai isn't what is transferred. The law's jurisdiction isn't transferred as they claim. I agree with you about its loss of jurisdiction.

Yes, it is - when Hebrews 10:9 tells us "He takes away the first that He may establish the second", the first covenant from Mount Sinai is transferred to the land of 'away'. It is just another way of stating it doesn't retain jurisdiction over God's redeemed, for it cannot coexist with the 'second', which is the new covenant in the Blood of Christ.

 

[Elder 111]

Just what exactly did you think the Law driving the priesthood necessary to perform the burnt offerings mandated by the sabbath was? The principle object of Hebrew's narrative is the transition from the first covenant to the new covenant. To narrow the principle topic to an arbitrary subset displays a prejudice defying the message the inspired author wrote. This inspired epistle is not subject to episodes of fractured fairy tales cartoons for its theology.

How and when was the burnt offering mandated by the Sabbath?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
You said that I am fracturing God word? Looks like it was fracture before I was born.
Salvation is by Jesus and His Ten commandments, if you have a problem with that take up with Jesus Himself.

 

[VictorC]

How and when was the burnt offering mandated by the Sabbath?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

I also quoted this passage. What is your point? The Law was changed, necessary because our High Priest is not authorized under the covenant Law from Mount Sinai. That 'change' in the Law leads this epistle demonstrating that it lost jurisdiction over God's redeemed. Quoting this passage again doesn't help your argument.

You said that I am fracturing God word? Looks like it was fracture before I was born.

I see. You're happy replacing Scripture with an opinion that God's Word has no value to you.

Salvation is by Jesus and His Ten commandments, if you have a problem with that take up with Jesus Himself.

Jesus doesn't support your argument, as we have seen in many posts filled with Scripture you can't reconcile your opinion with.
But the big news is...
You just violated the rules of the GT forum on CF, via a claim that salvation depends on a return to the Law God redeemed us from. This violation stems from recognition that this forum is intended for Christians to discuss differences, and the anti-Christian soteriology you adopted shows that you aren't a Christian.

 

[Elder 111]

I also quoted this passage. What is your point? The Law was changed, necessary because our High Priest is not authorized under the covenant Law from Mount Sinai. That 'change' in the Law leads this epistle demonstrating that it lost jurisdiction over God's redeemed. Quoting this passage again doesn't help your argument.



I see. You're happy replacing Scripture with an opinion that God's Word has no value to you.



Jesus doesn't support your argument, as we have seen in many posts filled with Scripture you can't reconcile your opinion with.
But the big news is...
You just violated the rules of the GT forum on CF, via a claim that salvation depends on a return to the Law God redeemed us from. This violation stems from recognition that this forum is intended for Christians to discuss differences, and the anti-Christian soteriology you adopted shows that you aren't a Christian.

Salvation is not by Jesus?
The Ten commandments are not Jesus' own?
John 10: I and my Father are one.
Genesis: "Let us". All working together.
John 14:
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
I am not a Christian because I says the things that the bible teaches?
Then Cast me out.

 

[VictorC]

Salvation is not by Jesus?
The Ten commandments are not Jesus' own?
John 10: I and my Father are one.
Genesis: "Let us". All working together.
John 14:
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
I am not a Christian because I says the things that the bible teaches?
Then Cast me out.

Elder111,

• You explained that you don't accept Scripture. That explanation is consistent with your constant rejection of Scripture - irreconcilable with your new claim otherwise.
• You also explained that you aren't a Christian, by adoption of a soteriology foreign to Christianity.

Look at your own signature line. Your rejection of the Law reveals your true colors: darkness, "because there is no light in them".

 

[from scratch]

How and when was the burnt offering mandated by the Sabbath?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
You said that I am fracturing God word? Looks like it was fracture before I was born.
Salvation is by Jesus and His Ten commandments, if you have a problem with that take up with Jesus Himself.

So what is your Bible reference saying the Ten Commandments are required for salvation?

 

[from scratch]

Salvation is not by Jesus?
The Ten commandments are not Jesus' own?
John 10: I and my Father are one.
Genesis: "Let us". All working together.
John 14:
7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
I am not a Christian because I says the things that the bible teaches?
Then Cast me out.

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

busted again!!

 

[VictorC]

So what is your Bible reference saying the Ten Commandments are required for salvation?

You're wasting your time asking for Biblical evidence from someone who has rejected the Bible as his authority. I wasted about a dozen posts asking for evidence that Elder111 was ever given the Ten Commandments as a Gentile in Barbados, to which he finally explained his rejection of Christianity instead of meeting that request.

 

[from scratch]

You're wasting your time asking for Biblical evidence from someone who has rejected the Bible as his authority. I wasted about a dozen posts asking for evidence that Elder111 was ever given the Ten Commandments as a Gentile in Barbados, to which he finally explained his rejection of Christianity instead of meeting that request.

I know. I'm not here for Elder 111, but the casual reader honestly looking for the truth. Once in a while I get a PM from a non posting member.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by from scratch

So what is your Bible reference saying the Ten Commandments are required for salvation?
​

You're wasting your time asking for Biblical evidence from someone who has rejected the Bible as his authority.
I wasted about a dozen posts asking for evidence that Elder111 was ever given the Ten Commandments as a Gentile in Barbados, to which he finally explained his rejection of Christianity instead of meeting that request.

And you will probably waste a lot more than that by the time this is over with

http://www.christianforums.com/t7461668/



.