Lies about the Sabbath.

[from scratch]

Are you telling me that the 325 AD council of Niceae is of greater authority that God word? That I should look at what was done by others in the first century to base my faith upon rather than the bible?
Should our salvation be based on that which negates the bible? Should we accept the claims of others above the authority of the word of God?

Please explain how the Council of Nicaea negates the Bible.

 

[Frogster]

Screw EGW, go read your bible and Lev 23 and you will understand the NT and that they kept Passover instead of Easter.

No, the NT passover is about Christ, it was the new cov beginning, not the old cov, there is a difference. if they kept the old, like today, that denies the blood, that was sprinkled, that started the new cov.

Define 'passover" in NT terminolgy, please.

THIS is the NEW COV, the remission of SINS, Matt 26.

DO..THIS..not...THAT..old one.

 

[from scratch]

No, the NT passover is about Christ, it was the new cov beginning, not the old cov, there is a difference. if they kept the old, like today, that denies the blood, that was sprinkled, that started the new cov.

Define 'passover" in NT terminolgy, please.

THIS is the NEW COV, the remission of SINS, Matt 26.

DO..THIS..not...THAT..old one.

Yer back.

 

[SAAN]

No, the NT passover is about Christ, it was the new cov beginning, not the old cov, there is a difference. if they kept the old, like today, that denies the blood, that was sprinkled, that started the new cov.

Define 'passover" in NT terminolgy, please.

THIS is the NEW COV, the remission of SINS, Matt 26.

DO..THIS..not...THAT..old one.

Passover is Passover, no matter how you see it. Easter is a substitution for Passover. I observe Easter, but am also not blind to the fact it is not what the bible said we were to be keeping and that Easter is a RCC traditon it made up.


Christ's blood is the new covenant and animal blood was the old covenant for remission of sins, there is your difference in covenants right there. Christ abolished the ceremonial offering, burnt offerings and animals sacrifices

 

[LarryP2]

That short time you are referring to is 200-300+ yrs until Rome in 300AD's said Sunday is the new day of rest and Rome threatened people with violence that tried to rest on Saturday.

The ignorance and bigotry in that statement is incredible. First and foremost, Constantinople was the capital of the Roman Empire in the 300's. Rome had NO power to legislate Sunday worship, which in any case was unanimous by 135 AD, even according to Seventh Day Adventist Sabbath Scholar Samuele Bacchiochi. Ellen White dreamed up an incredibly dishonest fairy tale about the Papacy causing this changeover, indicating ignorance that is so appalling that it is shocking! Additionally, while White was stealing art and content out of Wylie's "History of the Protestant Reformation" she put in The Great Controversy, she had to have seen Wylie's clear historical statements regarding Eastern Orthodoxy's completely undisputed claim of first year Sunday Worship and Easter celebration after the Resurrection. Her bald faced lie that the Pope did it obviously continues to resonate.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Frogster]

Yer back.

Helloooo bro, struck down, but raised back up like Paul in Asia!

I had the sentence of death, but my avatar returns!

 

[Frogster]

Passover is Passover, no matter how you see it. Easter is a substitution for Passover. I observe Easter, but am also not blind to the fact it is not what the bible said we were to be keeping and that Easter is a RCC traditon it made up.


Christ's blood is the new covenant and animal blood was the old covenant for remission of sins, there is your difference in covenants right there. Christ abolished the ceremonial offering, burnt offerings and animals sacrifices

lets try again.

When Jewish people today, or back then,keep passover, is it the one that brings sin remission?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Passover is Passover, no matter how you see it. Easter is a substitution for Passover. I observe Easter, but am also not blind to the fact it is not what the bible said we were to be keeping and that Easter is a RCC traditon it made up.


Christ's blood is the new covenant and animal blood was the old covenant for remission of sins, there is your difference in covenants right there. Christ abolished the ceremonial offering, burnt offerings and animals sacrifices

If Christ abolished offerings, then he abolished the Law because the Law DEMANDED offerings, you cannot do away with offerings unless you decide that you are indeed no longer bound by the Law itself. You are advocating partial bondage to the Law which IMO is an unholy perversion of it. There is a difference in those who are to keep the Law (Jews) and are UNABLE to keep it for good reason they realize they are indeed breaking it but still have NO CHOICE in the matter while you are advocating that you can break the Law because Christ... must have CHANGED it to no longer require something that IS written in the Law to do.

 

[SAAN]

If Christ abolished offerings, then he abolished the Law because the Law DEMANDED offerings, you cannot do away with offerings unless you decide that you are indeed no longer bound by the Law itself. You are advocating partial bondage to the Law which IMO is an unholy perversion of it. There is a difference in those who are to keep the Law (Jews) and are UNABLE to keep it for good reason they realize they are indeed breaking it but still have NO CHOICE in the matter while you are advocating that you can break the Law because Christ... must have CHANGED it to no longer require something that IS written in the Law to do.

Yes Heb 7:12 said there will be a change in the law, not a total abolishment of it. A couple chapters after it said Jesus blood covers our sins and animal sacrifices and all the other offering are no longer needed as they could never fully atone for our sins but Jesus blood did what they couldn't. I think all the animal sacrificing, burnt offering and all the other ceremonial stuff in the Mosaic law were fulfilled and abolish, but the rest of the law that defines our morality still stands. All of that carries into the NT and show us how to love one another and love God.

I do know many that say all of the Torah is still in effect which is impossible, even outside of sacrifices, because we dont have a temple, and many other things that would be physically impossible to do in todays society. That is why I go why the command in the NT as thy are all 100% do able.

 

[LarryP2]

All of that carries into the NT and show us how to love one another and love God.

The New Testament contains everything Christians need to know to live the moral life. NONE of the Old Testament is necessary. The Sabbath was nailed to the Cross and is a utterly worthless and futile gesture to try to keep it.

 

[from scratch]

Yes Heb 7:12 said there will be a change in the law, not a total abolishment of it. A couple chapters after it said Jesus blood covers our sins and animal sacrifices and all the other offering are no longer needed as they could never fully atone for our sins but Jesus blood did what they couldn't. I think all the animal sacrificing, burnt offering and all the other ceremonial stuff in the Mosaic law were fulfilled and abolish, but the rest of the law that defines our morality still stands. All of that carries into the NT and show us how to love one another and love God.

I do know many that say all of the Torah is still in effect which is impossible, even outside of sacrifices, because we dont have a temple, and many other things that would be physically impossible to do in todays society. That is why I go why the command in the NT as thy are all 100% do able.

Ok so you think its partial. I find no such thing in the New Testament or promised in the Old Testament. I also don't read anything that suggests a remake or remodel. I do see a new stone cut which isn't like the one before it, though.

 

[from scratch]

The New Testament contains everything Christians need to know to live the moral life. NONE of the Old Testament is necessary. The Sabbath was nailed to the Cross and is a utterly worthless and futile gesture to try to keep it.

 

[Frogster]

Yes Heb 7:12 said there will be a change in the law, not a total abolishment of it. A couple chapters after it said Jesus blood covers our sins and animal sacrifices and all the other offering are no longer needed as they could never fully atone for our sins but Jesus blood did what they couldn't. I think all the animal sacrificing, burnt offering and all the other ceremonial stuff in the Mosaic law were fulfilled and abolish, but the rest of the law that defines our morality still stands. All of that carries into the NT and show us how to love one another and love God.

I do know many that say all of the Torah is still in effect which is impossible, even outside of sacrifices, because we dont have a temple, and many other things that would be physically impossible to do in todays society. That is why I go why the command in the NT as thy are all 100% do able.

Red above, see 7:18.


18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness,

Besides, the temple was intregal to the old cov, it even mentions the stones in 9:4, for a reason.

Now lets forget all about the old cov.


Jer 3:16 And when you have multiplied and been fruitful in the land, in those days, declares the Lord, they shall no more say, “The ark of the covenant of the Lord.” It shall not come to mind or be remembered or missed; it shall not be made again.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Yes Heb 7:12 said there will be a change in the law, not a total abolishment of it. A couple chapters after it said Jesus blood covers our sins and animal sacrifices and all the other offering are no longer needed as they could never fully atone for our sins but Jesus blood did what they couldn't. I think all the animal sacrificing, burnt offering and all the other ceremonial stuff in the Mosaic law were fulfilled and abolish, but the rest of the law that defines our morality still stands. All of that carries into the NT and show us how to love one another and love God.

I do know many that say all of the Torah is still in effect which is impossible, even outside of sacrifices, because we dont have a temple, and many other things that would be physically impossible to do in todays society. That is why I go why the command in the NT as thy are all 100% do able.

I'm sorry but the Law is part of a covenant and it is inseparable from that covenant you cannot change the Law without voiding the covenant the only two ways to get around this is to make it no longer binding or to not be bound by it in the first place. Gentiles were NEVER bound to the Law to start with and NOT bound to it by edict at the council of Jerusalem.
The Torah is only in effect for those who accept it as binding upon them. Christians do NOT have to accept it.

 

[Sophrosyne]

The New Testament contains everything Christians need to know to live the moral life. NONE of the Old Testament is necessary. The Sabbath was nailed to the Cross and is a utterly worthless and futile gesture to try to keep it.

Yup.... we are partakers of a BETTER covenant, why do we need to backpeddle to a worse one?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Ok so you think its partial. I find no such thing in the New Testament or promised in the Old Testament. I also don't read anything that suggests a remake or remodel. I do see a new stone cut which isn't like the one before it, though.

The Ole Buffet covenant/law bit.... they think it opened at the Cross where you can pick and choose which laws are binding and then go around condemning others who don't agree with your choices.

 

[LarryP2]

The Ole Buffet covenant/law bit.... they think it opened at the Cross where you can pick and choose which laws are binding and then go around condemning others who don't agree with your choices.

Not just "laws." It would be bad enough if they selected an entire Law to follow. But they only accept parts of laws. For instance, the 4th Commandment they accept maybe 25 percent of that commandment.......and only the EASIEST part of it to commit to! The parts of the 4th Commandment that would require some effort are quickly abandoned.

And hilariously, they have abandoned ALL of the customs, interpretations, and rules that Judaism built up over 3,000 years. In practice that means that the 4th Commandments means ANYTHING they say it means.

You can go to work on a Tuesday, proclaim it is actually the Seventh Day Sabbath, and declare that the work you are doing is not forbidden on the Sabbath Day!

In other words, they have completely gutted the commandment of all meaning so that it doesn't actually "command" anything! And then they have the gall to accuse Christians of being "Lawless!!!!"

 

[from scratch]

Yup.... we are partakers of a BETTER covenant, why do we need to backpeddle to a worse one?

I rather liked your OS upgrade from windows 8 to Vista or whatever you said.

 

[Elder 111]

You're the one who is far off the target.
Your chosen texts is saying.......(20)The law came in to identify people's offense against God. Where sins are many, God's grace works even more. (21)So as sins leads people to death, the grace of God through forgiveness of sin will lead to righteousness that reigns unto eternal life.


The fact is: Grace is here because of sin not because of law.
Law only identifies and keeps account of sin.........
'No sin', would means 'no need of grace'.
We're beyond the "No sin" because we keep the law.


The law is powerless to save.

Even if we keep the law now we did not always do so. All have sin.
The Law is absolutely powerless to save but it reveals our need of salvation.
What is sin if not the transgression or breaking of the law?
Romans 7; 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

 

[LarryP2]

Even if we keep the law now we did not always do so. All have sin.
The Law is absolutely powerless to save but it reveals our need of salvation.
What is sin if not the transgression or breaking of the law?
Romans 7; 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

So if I keep 25 percent of the 4th commandment, and just proclaim that I am keeping it on Tuesdays while I am working at the office, that counts, doesn't it? You say that none of the "man-made" "traditions and interpretations apply," so my interpretation is just as good as yours, isn't it? Since you already ignore the prohibition against your Servants working on the Sabbath, I'm not actually working as long as I like what I am doing.

That should work, shouldn't it?