Is the seventh day the Sabbath?

[Elder 111]

Complaining won't do you any good. We want a solid irrefutable defense of your position. So far its absent.

That is one thing you don't want. You intent to refute all truth to maintain your position. Jesus even raised the dead even after four days and still the Jews asked for a sign that He was the Christ. You were given, the dead was raised and still you ask for a sign.

 

[from scratch]

That is one thing you don't want. You intent to refute all truth to maintain your position. Jesus even raised the dead even after four days and still the Jews asked for a sign that He was the Christ. You were given, the dead was raised and still you ask for a sign.

No I do want that very thing. I want irrefutable proof. That means you explain exactly what the Bible says. No assumptions and no claiming things as facts without evidence. No saying new means renewed, amended, refurbished etc. You simply can't do it.

You want everyone to except without question anything you say. If it won't stand up to examination it isn't the truth.

 

[from scratch]

Don't be too surprised that the response to your Bible-based position is to think up some ad hominem retort against you personally. That is just so much to be "expected" when they run out of logical responses.

The other option for the failed arguments against God's Sabbath is to imagine some false either or fallacy "Would you rather have Christ or the command to love one another" or "Christ or God's Sabbath rest" idea placing them in opposition.

Simplistic fallacies are to be expected as the only resort left to the arguments against God's Sabbath.

in Christ,

Bob

Personally I find the real issue is refusing to believe Moses, the prophets and most importantly Jesus and the Apostles.

 

[from scratch]

The fact is that the text says it is in the evening - and that midnight was also included in this " week-day-1" statement for the meeting.

And in the Bible - fact is that the evening of week-day-1 is what we today call Saturday evening.

Which means the plan was to travel all day Sunday - and have Christian worship on Saturday - or at the very least - Saturday evening.

No escaping that.

in Christ,

Bob

The real fact is Saturday evening isn't the Sabbath. You wish it to be while even practicing the Sabbath is over at dusk. You still want to call it the Sabbath and deny its the first day of the week because it isn't yet our Sunday. You're double speaking which is really a lie.

 

[VictorC]

Don't be too surprised that the response to your Bible-based position is to think up some ad hominem retort against you personally. That is just so much to be "expected" when they run out of logical responses.

The other option for the failed arguments against God's Sabbath is to imagine some false either or fallacy "Would you rather have Christ or the command to love one another" or "Christ or God's Sabbath rest" idea placing them in opposition.

Simplistic fallacies are to be expected as the only resort left to the arguments against God's Sabbath.

in Christ,

Bob

It doesn't come as a surprise to find you calling argumentum ad hominem posts "Bible-based", nor does it come as a surprise to find you urging others to reject God's redemption. However, mmksparbud contradicted herself in her post, and it remains her decision whether or not she wants to rectify her own contradiction. You can't help her.

 

[Elder 111]

No I do want that very thing. I want irrefutable proof. That means you explain exactly what the Bible says. No assumptions and no claiming things as facts without evidence. No saying new means renewed, amended, refurbished etc. You simply can't do it.

You want everyone to except without question anything you say. If it won't stand up to examination it isn't the truth.

It stands up! Denial is the problem!No truth will save a man who denies it. Why do you think Jesus said things like, "they gave eye but do not see? It Got so bad that Jesus spoke in parables. Mark 4:
10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

 

[from scratch]

That is one thing you don't want. You intent to refute all truth to maintain your position. Jesus even raised the dead even after four days and still the Jews asked for a sign that He was the Christ. You were given, the dead was raised and still you ask for a sign.

I don't think so Elder. I asked and made an honest request. Look at what I got for a response. Nothing but a request for me to believe what you say without examination. I look for facts of your argument/defense and get nothing solid. What I get is refusal to accept common definitions and clear statements. My recent quoting of Moses and the prophets is a great example. Why no refutation. A your wrong statement won't do the trick. Neither will not responding to them. Like VictorC often notices and states, what he says is ignored or taken as a personal attack. I need you to show me why I'm wrong.

So far you say the 7th day of creation is the Sabbath. Yet Moses doesn't say that anywhere. Yes you'll quote and say Ex 20:8-11 says its the 7th day of creation. Based on what? Deletion of words within the passage? What do you really keep? Does anyone work for you on the Sabbath? How can you require such and condemn them for doing your bidding? Can you really justify taking advantage of the situation and condemn them for working on the Sabbath? How?

A favorite passage of yours is Mat 5:17. What's the point of Jesus fulfilling the law if everyone also has to fulfill the law? The Old Testament teaches substitutionary atonement via innocent blood sacrifices. Yet you won't accept this substitutionary aspect of and by Jesus. Your claim to fame is we must personally fulfill the law to acquire and/or maintain salvation. Why?

How is Gal 5 referring to the law as a requirement by naming selected sins? This simply isn't a reference to the law. Paul said sin was before the law; the law was for a period of time and Moses said no one prior to Israel had the law and it was given only to Israel. You've been quoted Moses and throw it out just like you do Paul when he says something you reject. You've also been quoted the prophets which you also reject or redefine to alter what they say. You've passed on the Psalms when it doesn't agree with you as well.

Why don't you understand Jesus is agreeing with Moses in MK 2:27 instead of opposing direct statements of Moses. The way you believe and present it requires Moses to be a lair. Do you understand what this in fact does to your argument about the Ten Commandments? If Moses isn't credible in one place why is he credible in another?

Why do you insist there is nothing in the covenant except an agreement? There is no agreement if there aren't any terms or requirements. IOW they agreed to something which is the covenant.

Why do you say the Ten Commandments aren't the law when Jesus and my friends Paul and James say they are? They're both natural blood Jews. Do you in fact understand the law better than the top scholar in the world of law in his day?

One of my philosophies is put up or shut up as taught by my dad. I beg you to put up. You must agree with the whole Bible. Its not self contradictory as it seems you assume and make it.

Answer our points. I didn't say agree with them. You must present facts only. No arguments form silence, assumption or conjecture.

Abraham didn't keep the Ten Commandments as you claim Gen 26:5 says. The law came after Abraham by more the 400 years.

Now are you going to present something of value or continue to complain?

 

[from scratch]

It stands up! Denial is the problem!No truth will save a man who denies it. Why do you think Jesus said things like, "they gave eye but do not see? It Got so bad that Jesus spoke in parables. Mark 4:
10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

OK you can imply I'm ignorant all you want. That doesn't aid you position and is off topic to boot.

 

[BobRyan]

It doesn't come as a surprise to find you calling argumentum ad hominem posts "Bible-based", nor does it come as a surprise to find you urging others to reject God's redemption. .

if you are going to make stuff up like that - how can your post be taken seriously??

Why do that?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So far you say the 7th day of creation is the Sabbath. Yet Moses doesn't say that anywhere.

Until you actually read the Bible in places like Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11.

What is amazing is that even the pro-sunday sources at the signature line below understand this obvious Bible point.

You cannot simply take the statements of the Bible and prefix them with your "not" -- as if this truly gets them to stand on their head. It does not work - even your fellow sunday-keeping sources won't go to such extremes or condone such tactics.

Yes you'll quote and say Ex 20:8-11 says its the 7th day

As does the actual Bible.

Meanwhile you argue for the insert of the word "not" into the text.

A favorite passage of yours is Mat 5:17. What's the point of Jesus fulfilling the law if everyone also has to fulfill the law?

Jesus alone was sinless. Thus fulfilling the law to love God and love our neighbor.

Paul says to the saints "what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19

Paul says only the lost are unable to keep God's Law Rom 8:5-8.

John says the saints show that they truly love God by keeping God's Commandments 1 John 5:1-4

The Old Testament teaches substitutionary atonement via innocent blood sacrifices. Yet you won't accept this substitutionary aspect

Why do you choose to make up something like that - about a poster on this board?

Making stuff up about someone who is exposing the point of your argument that flatly contradicts the Bible - does not help support your view.

How is Gal 5 referring to the law as a requirement by naming selected sins? This simply isn't a reference to the law

By contrast the actual Bible says that the LAW of God defines sin - as we see in 1John 3:4 and in Romans 4 and 5 where we are reminded that where there is no law there is no sin.

. Paul said sin was before the law;

Paul says "Where there is no law there is no sin".

Paul points to the formal writing of the law on stone in Gal 3 as the giving of the law.

I think we all knew that.

Why don't you understand Jesus is agreeing with Moses in MK 2:27

Moses is not the author of scripture - God is -- see 2Tim 3:16 and 2Peter 1;20-21.

Christ was agreeing with scripture in Mark 2:27 - with God.

Why do you say the Ten Commandments aren't the law

They most certainly are included in the Law of God - even the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below admit to this obvious fact.

And that law is "written on the heart and mind" under the New Covenant as we see in Jer 31:31-33.

I beg you to put up. You must agree with the whole Bible. Its not self contradictory as it seems you assume and make it.

Abraham didn't keep the Ten Commandments as you claim Gen 26:5 says.

Until you read Gen 26:5

5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and My Laws.

1. Genesis 26:5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
2. Leviticus 26:3 If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments so as to carry them out,
3. Leviticus 26:15 if, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant,

Laws that were not written in stone until the time of Moses.


Obviously.


And so even the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below get this bible point - easily.



in Christ,


Bob

 

[from scratch]

Until you actually read the Bible in places like Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11.

What exactly do the words wherefore and therefore mean?

What is amazing is that even the pro-sunday sources at the signature line below understand this obvious Bible point.

I don't think they say what you explain them to say. Remember Bugkiller using the very same sources showing the context from those people meaning Sunday and not Saturday. The ones Bugkiller c & p all worshipped on Sunday. Not a single one of them admitted to keeping the 7th day Sabbath as you contend. So in fact they don't support the 7th day Sabbath.

You cannot simply take the statements of the Bible and prefix them with your "not" -- as if this truly gets them to stand on their head. It does not work - even your fellow sunday-keeping sources won't go to such extremes or condone such tactics.

Such as... Essentially I don't know what you're talking about without an example from a post of mine.

As does the actual Bible.

Meanwhile you argue for the insert of the word "not" into the text.

No sir I don't add to the Bible. It seems you refuse to deal with the words wherefore and therefore. You claim that Ex 20 says the 7th day of creation is the Sabbath. That isn't supportable from the Bible. Mose had the option of saying Sabbath in Gen 2 and didn't use that word. So is Moses talking about the Sabbath in Gen 2 or is Moses talking about the7th day of creation? Ex 20 doesn't say the 7th day of creation is the Sabbath. If you can prove me wrong with an interlinear, go for it. Please c & p with a link.

Jesus alone was sinless. Thus fulfilling the law to love God and love our neighbor.

If Jesus did this, why do you insist we also fulfill the law? Do you believe in the substitutionary innocent blood sacrifice for sin?

Paul says to the saints "what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19

Which means specifically what to you? Do you mean the Ten Commandments? Is this what Paul is talking about? Or is Paul in league with John on this point? What exactly do I mean?

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

10 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.

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

These verse show without a doubt John isn't talking about the Ten Commandments. Neither is Jesus.

Paul says only the lost are unable to keep God's Law Rom 8:5-8.

The Psalms (14 and 53) say no one is. Paul concurs in Rom 3:23. Paul doesn't say anywhere the Christian can achieve this in the flesh. Nor does Paul anywhere endorse keeping the law. What does Isaiah say about our righteousness? Filthy rags. Do you know what filthy rags are? Do you know what is done with them?

John says the saints show that they truly love God by keeping God's Commandments 1 John 5:1-4

You're saying the Ten Commandments. The text doesn't imply this at all. Read my above verses.

Why do you choose to make up something like that - about a poster on this board?

Because its true. You both say the Christian must fulfill the law in the flesh with their carcass in a pew on Saturday. There simply is not such requirement in the New Testament or covenant requiring such behavior of the Christian.

Making stuff up about someone who is exposing the point of your argument that flatly contradicts the Bible - does not help support your view.

Why do you overlook my comment on what the Old Testament teaches about substitutionary atonement? Instead you want to make it strictly a personal vendetta. What do you believe?

By contrast the actual Bible says that the LAW of God defines sin - as we see in 1John 3:4 and in Romans 4 and 5 where we are reminded that where there is no law there is no sin.

How often has the word also in that verse been pointed out and ignored? The law didn't invent sin. Sin was before the law - Rom 5:13. Why do you ignore this fact? This verse states the law was added because of sin -

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

It also states very clearly that the law had a period of time to operate. The Seed has come and made atonement for sin.

Paul says "Where there is no law there is no sin".

No sir that's part of a sentence. Hers' what Paul says -

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. KJV

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law. - NIV

Paul points to the formal writing of the law on stone in Gal 3 as the giving of the law.

Which verse specifically are you talking about? I don't see what you seem to say.

I think we all knew that.

Moses is not the author of scripture - God is -- see 2Tim 3:16 and 2Peter 1;20-21.

Christ was agreeing with scripture in Mark 2:27 - with God.

What does Moses say about the Sabbath? You can argue all you want that Moses said or wrote nothing. Moses was God's mouth piece here unless you're contending that God actually wrote Genesis to Deuteronomy.

They most certainly are included in the Law of God - even the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below admit to this obvious fact.

And that law is "written on the heart and mind" under the New Covenant as we see in Jer 31:31-33.

Why do you continue to over look the word "new" and the phrase "Not according to..."? Please explain how that means exactly the same.

I beg you to put up. You must agree with the whole Bible. Its not self contradictory as it seems you assume and make it.

Yes that's exactly what I said.

Until you read Gen 26:5

5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and My Laws.

1. Genesis 26:5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
2. Leviticus 26:3 If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments so as to carry them out,
3. Leviticus 26:15 if, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant,

Laws that were not written in stone until the time of Moses.

What does Moses say -

3 The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

4 The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,

5 (I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to shew you the word of the Lord: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount saying,

6 I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.

8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:

9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

11 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee....

Who is Abraham identified as? Is he not one of their father's? The Jews told Jesus he was.

 

[BobRyan]

So is Moses talking about the Sabbath in Gen 2 or is Moses talking about the7th day of creation?

They are the same thing according to God in Ex 20:11.

I thought we all knew that by now.

Do you believe in the substitutionary innocent blood sacrifice for sin?

obviously I do. Why do you ask?

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

10 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.

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

These verse show without a doubt John isn't talking about the Ten Commandments.

Until you read what John said in 1John 5:1-4

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

I think that too has been pointed out possibly a dozen times.

You both say the Christian must fulfill the law

I assume you are quoting me somehow...

Or are you quoting Paul in Romans 13?

Please clarify.

Maybe you were trying to followup on this

A favorite passage of yours is Mat 5:17. What's the point of Jesus fulfilling the law if everyone also has to fulfill the law?​

​

Jesus alone was sinless. Thus fulfilling the law to love God and love our neighbor.

Paul says to the saints "what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19

Paul says only the lost are unable to keep God's Law Rom 8:5-8.

John says the saints show that they truly love God by keeping God's Commandments 1 John 5:1-4

Where you complaining about this in some way??


====================================

Why do you say the Ten Commandments aren't the law

They most certainly are included in the Law of God - even the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below admit to this obvious fact.

And that law is "written on the heart and mind" under the New Covenant as we see in Jer 31:31-33.

Why do you continue to over look the word "new" and the phrase "Not according to..."? Please explain how that means exactly the same.

The point is that the Law of God is contained in the New Covenant and that contrary to your prior assertion - God's Law does include the Ten commandments- did you miss that again?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

3 The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

4 The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,

5 (I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to shew you the word of the Lord: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount saying,

6 I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.

8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:

9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.

11 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee....

Who is Abraham identified as? Is he not one of their father's? The Jews told Jesus he was.

Moses pointed out that the nation of Israel that would then take possession of the land of Caanan had received a covenant from God that not even Abraham had received for Israel would be given the land -- and Abraham was given almost none of it.

This was a first - because none of their forefathers were given permission to take the land as their own possession. Even Moses wanted to go into the land of Canaan and was not able.

But ... I guess we all knew that already -- so not sure what your point is -- unless you are trying to claim that it was not a sin to murder until Sinai..

Of course we know that is not true once we read Genesis 4.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[from scratch]

They are the same thing according to God in Ex 20:11.

I thought we all knew that by now.

In your dreams maybe.

obviously I do. Why do you ask?

Do you believe Jesus fulfilled the law for your or do you believe you must fulfill the law yourself? BTW where did the scribes and Pharisees get their righteousness from? And what does Jesus say about the righteousness required? Something about exceeding, I believe.

Until you read what John said in 1John 5:1-4

Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

I think that too has been pointed out possibly a dozen times.

Yeah I forgot about 1 JN 3:23.

I assume you are quoting me somehow...

Or are you quoting Paul in Romans 13?

Please clarify.

Are you trying to say you don't have to keep the law for some reason?

Maybe you were trying to followup on this


[/INDENT]
Jesus alone was sinless. Thus fulfilling the law to love God and love our neighbor.

Paul says to the saints "what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19

Paul says only the lost are unable to keep God's Law Rom 8:5-8.

John says the saints show that they truly love God by keeping God's Commandments 1 John 5:1-4

Where you complaining about this in some way??

Nope!!! I don't complain to you in my posts.

Since you visit 1 Cor 7:19 I'll ask you if the cross matters, or if all that matters is the law? This seems to say you don't need Jesus to get into heaven. Its just another out of context proof text which are called lies.

====================================

​

​

The point is that the Law of God is contained in the New Covenant and that contrary to your prior assertion - God's Law does include the Ten commandments- did you miss that again?

in Christ,

Bob

The point of the Gospel and the New Covenant is the law is a has been and isn't part of it according to the prophets. Also interesting it isn't part of the New Covenant based on better promises instead of law.

 

[JacobLaw]

In your dreams maybe.Do you believe Jesus fulfilled the law for your or do you believe you must fulfill the law yourself? BTW where did the scribes and Pharisees get their righteousness from? And what does Jesus say about the righteousness required? Something about exceeding, I believe.Yeah I forgot about 1 JN 3:23. Are you trying to say you don't have to keep the law for some reason?Nope!!! I don't complain to you in my posts.

Since you visit 1 Cor 7:19 I'll ask you if the cross matters, or if all that matters is the law? This seems to say you don't need Jesus to get into heaven. Its just another out of context proof text which are called lies.The point of the Gospel and the New Covenant is the law is a has been and isn't part of it according to the prophets. Also interesting it isn't part of the New Covenant based on better promises instead of law.

Acts 24:22 And when Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way, he deferred them, and said, When Lysias the chief captain shall come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter.
Hebrews 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by from scratch

So is Moses talking about the Sabbath in Gen 2 or is Moses talking about the 7th day of creation?​

They are the same thing according to God in Ex 20:11.


I thought we all knew that by now

At least for those who take the time to actually read Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 as even the pro-sunday sources listed in my signature line will admit.

In your dreams maybe.

So without showing your point has substance you will now just abandon it??

really?

Bait and switch?

Casting about you for something that will work?

Why not take your own point seriously - and show that it stands up to the details in the text instead of having to insert "not" into the text at almost every turn?

Do you believe Jesus fulfilled the law for you

Yes - He loved God with all of His heart Deut 6:5 and Loved his Neighbor as himself Lev 19:18 -- perfectly.

His perfect obedience stands in the place of my faulty attempts to follow as He calls all the saints to follow - when I am compared to that still-valid perfect standard of the law of God.

or do you believe you must fulfill the law yourself?

I believe the Law is written on the heart and mind under the new covenant - not 'thrown under a bus'.

As Paul said "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19.

And as John said "the saints are those who KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12.

No amount of "word games" will change these basic obvious points regarding the saints and the Law of God.

I think we all knew that.

Certainly the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below appear to know it.

Since you visit 1 Cor 7:19 I'll ask you if the cross matters, or if all that matters is the law?

Are you wanting to insert the word "NOT" into 1Cor 7:19??

Are you wishing to insert the idea that if Paul is right then the Cross must not matter because in your gospel the cross was intended to abolish the Law of God or else it is pointless.

"Do we then abolish the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31

And of course that same Jer 31:31-33 law is "written on the heart and mind" under the new Covenant.

This seems to say you don't need Jesus to get into heaven.

Nobody seems to say that - but you on these threads?

Why keep doing it?

Why keep arguing that if Paul is right then we do not need Jesus?

Maybe you need to accept the Gospel where both are valid instead of constantly inserting "not" into the text or arguing against Paul.

The point of the Gospel and the New Covenant is the law is a has been and isn't part of it

Until you actually read the New Covenant where God says "I will write my LAW on their heart and on their mind".

A Bible doctrine that even the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below - easily accept.

according to the prophets. Also interesting it isn't part of the New Covenant based on better promises instead of law.

You love to talk about it without actually quoting it because you are at with the statement in the "actual" New Covenant that says

"I will write my LAW on their heart and on their mind".

In doing so you give evidence of the fact that your complaint about the Law of God at this point is due to a flaw in your gospel model.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[from scratch]

Moses pointed out that the nation of Israel that would then take possession of the land of Caanan had received a covenant from God that not even Abraham had received for Israel would be given the land -- and Abraham was given almost none of it.

This was a first - because none of their forefathers were given permission to take the land as their own possession. Even Moses wanted to go into the land of Canaan and was not able.

But ... I guess we all knew that already -- so not sure what your point is -- unless you are trying to claim that it was not a sin to murder until Sinai..

Of course we know that is not true once we read Genesis 4.

in Christ,

Bob

Nothing more than a deflection and refusal to deal with the covenant. What I said has anything to do with taking or receiving the land of Palestine (the promised land).

Where have I ever made such a stupid claim? You once again try to place words and meaning in my mouth. Only the SDA do this.

 

[from scratch]

They are the same thing according to God in Ex 20:11.


I thought we all knew that by now.

At least for those who take the time to actually read Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 as even the pro-sunday sources listed in my signature line will admit.

You make assumptions and assert things that aren't present in those passages.[

So without showing your point has substance you will now just abandon it??

Abandon what? Are you trying to say since I don't say something in every post I abandon it?

really?

Bait and switch?

Casting about you for something that will work?

Why not take your own point seriously - and show that it stands up to the details in the text instead of having to insert "not" into the text at almost every turn?

What on earth are you blubbering about with the above questions? Where did I bait and switch? No I'm not looking for something that will work. I don't use your tactics.

Yes - He loved God with all of His heart Deut 6:5 and Loved his Neighbor as himself Lev 19:18 -- perfectly.

His perfect obedience stands in the place of my faulty attempts to follow as He calls all the saints to follow - when I am compared to that still-valid perfect standard of the law of God.

I believe the Law is written on the heart and mind under the new covenant - not 'thrown under a bus'.

As Paul said "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19.

And as John said "the saints are those who KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12.

No amount of "word games" will change these basic obvious points regarding the saints and the Law of God.

Certainly! So why do you play them?

I asked if Paul is in league with John or against what John says about commandments of God and quoted the appropriate verses for support. I still see no answer or response to them.

You're right only the keeping of the commandments matter. Jesus is insignificant.

I think we all knew that.

Knew what?

Certainly the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below appear to know it.

We have a cow pie throwing contest here at the state fair. You stand a great chance of winning.

Are you wanting to insert the word "NOT" into 1Cor 7:19??

No. Are you implying that I promote sin? You keep saying that I'm doing such.

Are you wishing to insert the idea that if Paul is right then the Cross must not matter because in your gospel the cross was intended to abolish the Law of God or else it is pointless.

No! Paul is right as badly as you wish to discredit him as a false teacher. What do the prophets say on this matter? Are they indeed correctly representing what God told them?

"Do we then abolish the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31

Sure. Now why don't explain exactly what you mean by establish the law?

And of course that same Jer 31:31-33 law is "written on the heart and mind" under the new Covenant.

What law? The law issued at Sinai? Hardly according to the passage.

Nobody seems to say that - but you on these threads?

Just what exactly do you mean by quoting part of that verse? Personally I believe you are totally by passing Jesus or adding requirements Jesus didn't issue for salvation. I believe you think Christians are required to fulfill the law for salvation.

Why keep doing it?

I detest false doctrine and Judaizers.

Why keep arguing that if Paul is right then we do not need Jesus?

See above statement. I don't argue if Paul is right. I argue he is. There isn't any question in my mind.

Maybe you need to accept the Gospel where both are valid instead of constantly inserting "not" into the text or arguing against Paul.

That's impossible, but you try.

Until you actually read the New Covenant where God says "I will write my LAW on their heart and on their mind".

Until one reads and believes what the passage says. You intend for my law to be the covenant issued to Israel at Sinai against the clear statement of the passage.

A Bible doctrine that even the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below - easily accept.

Yes lies are very easy to accept.

You love to talk about it without actually quoting it because you are at with the statement in the "actual" New Covenant that says

"I will write my LAW on their heart and on their mind".

No I've an aversion to people trampling the Bible like trash at the land fill.

In doing so you give evidence of the fact that your complaint about the Law of God at this point is due to a flaw in your gospel model.

in Christ,

Bob

If I were complaining about the law you'd have a point.

 

[Elder 111]

OK you can imply I'm ignorant all you want. That doesn't aid you position and is off topic to boot.

Far from it!
I am saying you refuse to acknowledge truth. You stop your ears and shut your eyes.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Far from it!
I am saying you refuse to acknowledge truth. You stop your ears and shut your eyes.

Ironic you would say this