One of the most controversial issues, is the DAY OF WORSHIP

[Dkh587]

You can't provide and passage showing the law is required for salvation. Now go ahead and post Mat 19. I'm ready.

???

Where did I say anything about salvation???

 

[Dkh587]

That's not why the Scripture says they couldn't enter God's rest. Sorry.

Please share with us why they didn’t enter God’s rest.

 

[ace of hearts]

Very simple---they feel they are led of the Holy Spirit. The same one that is leading you. They claim Jesus as the Son of God. This website says they are not Christian---and I do not disagree. The point is how do you determine what Spirit is leading. For me it is a thus saith the Lord. Scripture does not contradict itself. Scripture says the commandments are in force and we can not be unrepentant sinners and still be saved. Sin is the transgression of the law. If there is sin--there is law. Believe what you want---unless you show me a verse that state we can be unrepentant sinners and still be saved----the law is still there and only through Jesus can we keep from transgressing the law.

Then explain Luke 16:16, 17.
I also need you to explain how what I presented from Rev 4 and 5 is wrong.

 

[ace of hearts]

???

Where did I say anything about salvation???

They don't have the rest of God.

 

[Dkh587]

They don't have the rest of God.

Who?

 

[ace of hearts]

Please share with us why they didn’t enter God’s rest.

I think it says because of unbelief. It says nothing about disobedience. Abraham had this rest and was very disobedient.

 

[ace of hearts]

Who?

Really? unbelievable.

 

[klutedavid]

Not one thing---same for not eating blood or having illicit sex have nothing to do with circumcision---what they gathered together to discuss was stated several times throughout Chapter 15 was to discuss circumcision. You can't deny that!! It makes no sense to deny what is firmly stated!
Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Act 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Act 15:24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
Are you denying that this what the scriptures say???? Can you not see this? Circumcision is what the argument was about.

It means that there is no circumcision for the only things that Christians are to be concerned about the Mosaic laws is to stay away from blood, meat offered to idols and illicit sex----NOTHING ELSE OF THE MOSIAC LAW WAS TO BE OBSERVED!! Which means----circumcision was also did not need to be observed to be saved as they did not include it in their list of things to observe! It doesn't get any clearer than that!

Well you have an issue with your reading of Acts 15. Circumcision is shorthand for obedience to the law, that is the way Paul uses that term, 'circumcision'. See the example below from the letter to the Romans.

Romans 4:9
Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also?

There you go, the pharisees were actually saying that the Gentiles needed to be under the law. That is what circumcision meant to the Jews in the first century, they called themselves the circumcised. The council in Jerusalem was never talking about the physical act of circumcision.

Anyone who thinks for one moment that the great debate described in Acts 15, is merely about a snip downstairs. Should seriously give up reading the New Testament, your wasting your life trying to read and understand the text.

The answer the apostles gave was an emphatic statement, the Gentiles are not under the law.

The proof is simple, if the Gentiles were under the ten commandments. Then the apostles would have said, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.
But they did not say that, they said, ABSTAIN FROM SEXUAL IMMORALITY.

 

[klutedavid]

A man can not enter God’s rest if he does not keep the Sabbath of God holy as God commanded.

The only rest that matters is the rest that Christ grants, i.e., eternal rest.

Hebrews 4:10
For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His.

Give up your legal works and enter the real rest.

 

[Dkh587]

I think it says because of unbelief. It says nothing about disobedience. Abraham had this rest and was very disobedient.

They didn’t believe and were disobedient because of their unbelief. Faith and obedience go hand in hand. Unbelief and disobedience go hand in hand.

Actually, Abraham was VERY obedient. Abraham’s faith produced obedience.

Genesis 26:4-5 NIV

I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions

 

[Dkh587]

Really? unbelievable.

Can you please show where people who are disobedient to God’s commands are allowed to enter to His rest?

 

[RDKirk]

Just in those verses alone, we see Paul, Jews and Gentiles, all keeping the sabbath over 70 times.

In none of those cases does it say Paul worshiped on the sabbath. Rather it said that he went to the synagogue and debated with the Jews in order to win them to Christ.

He went to the synagogue on the sabbath because that's when people were there.

But Paul himself wrote of the Gentile congregations meeting on the Lord's day--the first day of the week.

BTW, I'd mention that the Romans did not keep a 7-day week. They kept a 30-day month divided into a front half and a second half with a mid-month marker day (the Ides) and various holy days sprinkled around. When we see mention of believers keeping a 7-day week, that is something they as a Body did separately from the culture surrounding them.

 

[mmksparbud]

Then explain Luke 16:16, 17.
I also need you to explain how what I presented from Rev 4 and 5 is wrong.

Please post the verse I asked for----several times now ---in post #96. I stand on this.

 

[mmksparbud]

In none of those cases does it say Paul worshiped on the sabbath. Rather it said that he went to the synagogue and debated with the Jews in order to win them to Christ.

He went to the synagogue on the sabbath because that's when people were there.

But Paul himself wrote of the Gentile congregations meeting on the Lord's day--the first day of the week.

BTW, I'd mention that the Romans did not keep a 7-day week. They kept a 30-day month divided into a front half and a second half with a mid-month marker day (the Ides) and various holy days sprinkled around. When we see mention of believers keeping a 7-day week, that is something they as a Body did separately from the culture surrounding them.

He didn't just debate the Jews. He preached to the Gentiles on the Sabbath, never once asking them to come back on Sunday. Doesn't say he worshiped on Sunday. What do you call worship? What do you think was done in the temple? It was for prayers and the reading of His word, talking about His word--spending time with God---that is worship.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well you have an issue with your reading of Acts 15. Circumcision is shorthand for obedience to the law, that is the way Paul uses that term, 'circumcision'. See the example below from the letter to the Romans.

Romans 4:9
Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also?

There you go, the pharisees were actually saying that the Gentiles needed to be under the law. That is what circumcision meant to the Jews in the first century, they called themselves the circumcised. The council in Jerusalem was never talking about the physical act of circumcision.

Anyone who thinks for one moment that the great debate described in Acts 15, is merely about a snip downstairs. Should seriously give up reading the New Testament, your wasting your life trying to read and understand the text.

The answer the apostles gave was an emphatic statement, the Gentiles are not under the law.

The proof is simple, if the Gentiles were under the ten commandments. Then the apostles would have said, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.
But they did not say that, they said, ABSTAIN FROM SEXUAL IMMORALITY.

Circumcision is circumcision. Circumcision is not one of the 10 commandments--it is never mentioned.

 

[RDKirk]

He didn't just debate the Jews. He preached to the Gentiles on the Sabbath, never once asking them to come back on Sunday. Doesn't say he worshiped on Sunday.

Actually, he did tell the Gentiles to come together on the first day of the week, and several people have already provided those verses.

What do you call worship? What do you think was done in the temple? It was for prayers and the reading of His word, talking about His word--spending time with God---that is worship.

It doesn't say Paul did any of those things. It says he debated with the Jews.

 

[klutedavid]

Circumcision is circumcision. Circumcision is not one of the 10 commandments--it is never mentioned.

Abstain from sexual immorality means the Gentiles were not under the ten commandments.
It is simple logic, if the Gentiles were under the law, then the apostles would not have told them to abstain from sexual immorality!

Circumcision throughout the New Testament means to be under the law.

That is all Acts 15 is about, are Gentiles under the law in Christ.

 

[gordonhooker]

Abstain from sexual immorality means the Gentiles were not under the ten commandments.
It is simple logic, if the Gentiles were under the law, then the apostles would not have told them to abstain from sexual immorality!

Circumcision throughout the New Testament means to be under the law.

That is all Acts 15 is about, are Gentiles under the law in Christ.

Not too sure what you mean by that - if you were a Jew you were circumcised anyway but as a Jew you were under the Law anyway.

In this verse from Acts Timothy was circumcised to keep the Jews happy:

Acts 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and had him circumcised because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

So I am not really sure what your point is sorry...

 

[mmksparbud]

Abstain from sexual immorality means the Gentiles were not under the ten commandments.
It is simple logic, if the Gentiles were under the law, then the apostles would not have told them to abstain from sexual immorality!

Circumcision throughout the New Testament means to be under the law.

That is all Acts 15 is about, are Gentiles under the law in Christ.

Sexual immorality is not in the 10 commandments---just adultery. Sex outside of marriage is condemned by God, but is not mentioned in the 10.

We have understand that the 10 are an expression of the character of God. God is love. Every aspect of the 10 deals in love--our love for God is shown by the 1st 4, the love for others is shown by the last 6. To reject sany of them is to reject love whih is to reject God.
Where is the verse

 

[klutedavid]

Not too sure what you mean by that - if you were a Jew you were circumcised anyway but as a Jew you were under the Law anyway.

In this verse from Acts Timothy was circumcised to keep the Jews happy:

Acts 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and had him circumcised because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

So I am not really sure what your point is sorry...

The point is simply that the mention of 'circumcision' in the text (Acts 15) is not talking so much about the physical rite. The term 'circumcised' is a general term used through the New Testament to refer to the Jews.

When the Pharisees state,“Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” They are actually saying that Gentiles must adhere to the law as Christians to be saved.

This claim made by the Pharisees is what the apostles disagreed with, the apostles actually prove that Gentiles are not under the law. By telling the Gentiles to abstain from sexual immorality and this is the point.

If the Gentiles were under the law, then the Gentiles would not need to be told to abstain from sexual immorality. Because sexual immorality is directly covered within the law.

If the Pharisees were only claiming the physical act of circumcision, then the reply by the apostles. Would have been that the Gentiles or the uncircumcised are not required to be circumcised. We read in plain English that the apostles gave four commands for the Gentiles, to follow and not the law!