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

[mmksparbud]

Do you really believe that keeping the Sabbath has nothing to do with salvation for Sabbatarians? Maybe not for all Sabbatarians, but for certain Sabbatarians, it absolutely does! Here is an example of one such group who teach that the near the end of time the "mark of the best" of Revelation 14 will be placed upon those who worship on Sunday instead of Saturday. - Bible Truth Versus Adventist Truth - Mark of the Beast

Thanks!

 

[ace of hearts]

Not everyone has been raised a Christian--not everyone knows not to curse and yell--and they do so very well---and that includes Christians, actually. The law is there for those who have never heard of those or understood how much God is against these things. Children are brought up without ever having even seen the 10 commandments--once they know, and accept, the Holy Spirit will remind them. It is up to Christians to tell the world of Jesus and His love, which included what not to do. For most--doing wrong, lawless acts, are neither wrong nor lawless.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The pastor's wife of one of the churches I spent time in as a youth complained the young people can't tell you what our church believes, but they can tell you everything they can't do. I think that is because all the time was spent on the negatives (forbidden) instead of the Gospel. What I've found to be true is most all only believe in the things that have always been without question as the truth. Things like how behavior is influenced aren't understood. Indeed Pavlov is largely correct in saying we're a product of our environment. There are a few who notice and question the inconsistencies and pay attention causing them to notice out right errors.

 

[ace of hearts]

And "do not take God's name in vain" is first found in Exodus 20 ... and not found at all in the NT.

Those little games "mean nothing" at all in terms of license to rebel against God's Word.

And we all know it.

Hint: Christ said the Word of God "still matters" no matter how one invents ways to belittle or downsize its importance --- in Mark 7:6-13



Are you trying to illustrate my point or refute it?

Not subjecting one's self to a covenant no longer in force isn't rebellion or sin.

 

[ace of hearts]

Dan points to a attribute of one of the Commandments of God saying that you first see it stated in command form in Exodus 16. His effort is to "infer" that maybe this "detail" works to "Delete the commandment" for anyone who is not a Jew.

I simply point out that same sort of "detail" can be pointed out about other Commandments of God as well - for example "Do not take God's name in vain" which has that feature in even more glaring form than can be found with the case of God's Sabbath Command.

This illustrates the fact that his "new rule" to use for deleting God's commands or declaring that they don't apply to you - does not work , as we all can see in the case of the command "do not take God's name in vain".

So far you've nothing to prove otherwise. Your continued insistence that people are sinning by not keeping the sabbath law through showing other commandments aren't transgressed is futile and false. No one has or is granted eternal life by keeping the law.

 

[ace of hearts]

Who said anything about salvation?

Then what's the purpose of trying to keep the law?

 

[ace of hearts]

True.

"... Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!"



True.

They are playing 'games' with eternal things, and ought to beware, as it is written in most serious tones:

Isa 57:4 Against whom do ye sport yourselves? against whom make ye a wide mouth, and draw out the tongue? are ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood,



Surely I know it.

Since men, as us, know it openly, as a book displayed and turned to the table of 'contents' (for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh; for they are as counterfeit epistles, read and known of all men to be spurious, a walking 'gospel of Thomas, Judas', etc), what then of God, who knoweth all things, even the deepest recesses of the deceitful heart, that loves to deceive and be deceived?



Even beyond that, Jesus said:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Rom_8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

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.

Luk_16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

2Pe_3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

Mat 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother:

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

So why resort to mockery? The point Jesus makes with the incident in Mat 19 is the stark reality the man doesn't in fact keep the law. Some here here think they can while Scripture plainly says there aren't any who do this incredible feat. Those people are free to go against Scripture and prove they're better than him and able to preform the impossible.

 

[ace of hearts]

Try this one (I hear it is scholar friendly, and much more researched and documented than those other cheap knockoff sites passed around in the 'mail', but only if you are interested in actual scripturally sourced, historically documented, reasonable and intelligent presentations, otherwise by all means go with that other one) - Spirit of Prophecy/Testimony of Jesus (Revelation 19:10)

Your site offers nothing but publications. Danthemailman is Scripturally sourced.

 

[mmksparbud]

So why resort to mockery? The point Jesus makes with the incident in Mat 19 is the stark reality the man doesn't in fact keep the law. Some here here think they can while Scripture plainly says there aren't any who do this incredible feat. Those people are free to go against Scripture and prove they're better than him and able to preform the impossible.

LOL! Nothing is impossible through Jesus Christ! Or don't you think so?

 

[ace of hearts]

Besides God Himself telling us in Exodus 20:8-11, have you considered the linguistics we commonly use even today?

such as:

[1] a "gerund"

[2] a "nominalization" Type B (zero derivation)

etc?

Example 1.

(used as Noun) Please give the "solve" for the equation, "2+2=?"

(used as verb) Please "solve" the equation "2+2=?"

(used simulaneously, a little clunky but still valid) Please "solve" the "solve" of the equation "2+2=?"

Example 2.

(used as a noun) I got into my "ride" and took off.

(used as a verb) I need to "ride" to my destination today.

(used simultaneously) I got into my "ride" to "ride" to my destination today.

Example 3.

(used as a noun) I went to "work" today.

(used as a verb) I went to "work" today.

(used simultaneously) It is too much "work" to go into "work" today.

Your argument here doesn't apply because I used two different words. You used the same word spelling as two completely different words. You're reaching to promote a falsehood and deceive. All your examples of the word work are nouns. Otherwise you have double verbs or subjects improperly used.

 

[ace of hearts]

LOL! Nothing is impossible through Jesus Christ! Or don't you think so?

Yes we can invalidate God's Word with our contradictory belief to support any idea we wish. We can try to invalidate God's Word, but that won't change it. So try to by pass any of it you want. Christians aren't by passing the law because they're not subject too it.

 

[ace of hearts]

How does Acts 20:7 (a onetime, latenight farewell gathering for Paul, on 'saturday night' (first [day] of the week (εν δε τη μια των σαββατων)), wherein a recorded gathering took place on a commonly numbered day of the week, as it had from the beginning of time on earth, answer the material about "Israel"?

Easy enough when the verse is read. It indicates a habit by "when the disciples came together to break bread."

 

[ace of hearts]

There is no prohibition from gathering together on any day.

There is a commandment (Exodus 20:8-11) that prohibits common labour/work on the 7th Day, which is the sabbath of the LORD thy God (His Holy day) with a positive command to "rest" as God did.

There's no such commandment to the whole world.

 

[ace of hearts]

I did not say they did. I used that designation to identify what the text (Acts 20:7) means when it says 'first [day] of the week' at evening (night) in our modern day paganly named days of the week.

You clearly promoted the incident as a one time deal. They broke bread as a regular habit. The fact that Paul spoke at one of these meeting has nothing to do with proving the disciples only did this meeting once as you intend to infer.

 

[ace of hearts]

There's an assumption being made upon your part in regards the text cited.

Can you show me "the cup" in Acts 20:7?

Can you show me the words "Lord's supper" in Acts 20:7?

Can you show me the 'footwashing' in Acts 20:7, which is commanded in John 13:14.

You can show me "klasai arton" (break bread), but that is not automatically "kuriakon deipnon" (Lord's supper).

There is a lot being eisegeted into Acts 20:7.

I can show you simple breaking of bread which is simply eating a meal:

Act_2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Act 2:46 καθ ημεραν τε προσκαρτερουντες ομοθυμαδον εν τω ιερω κλωντες τε κατ οικον αρτον μετελαμβανον τροφης εν αγαλλιασει και αφελοτητι καρδιας

If someone wants to tell me that they follow that pattern in Acts 2:46, in desiring to say that each 'breaking bread' is the memorial of the 'Lord's supper', then do they do this 'house to house' each day of the week?

I know of no one who claims to do so.

Why do you requires all the details of a meeting? Do the members of your church meet every day in each others house for fellowship? I doubt it. Yes the church is a long ways from the early church. It does make me ask what is fellowship.

 

[mmksparbud]

Yes we can invalidate God's Word with our contradictory belief to support any idea we wish. We can try to invalidate God's Word, but that won't change it. So try to by pass any of it you want. Christians aren't by passing the law because they're not subject too it.

Haye to tell you this, but God will have the final word. A nd He gave it.

Rev_14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
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.

 

[mmksparbud]

Easy enough when the verse is read. It indicates a habit by "when the disciples came together to break bread."

Yes---to break bread means to eat---they ate pretty much on a regular basis.

 

[ace of hearts]

Haye to tell you this, but God will have the final word. A nd He gave it.

Quite true.

Rev_14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
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.

The above two passages are misused to imply keeping the law for salvation (entrance into heaven). This contradicts the Gospels and especially John's. No where does John promote keeping the famous 10 for salvation.

 

[ace of hearts]

Yes---to break bread means to eat---they ate pretty much on a regular basis.

The phrase takes on much more meaning than to merely consume food as it's used.

 

[mmksparbud]

Quite true.
The above two passages are misused to imply keeping the law for salvation (entrance into heaven). This contradicts the Gospels and especially John's. No where does John promote keeping the famous 10 for salvation.

When I stand before God, He can tell me how I misused this passage---If I did. Otherwise--you might be the one with some explaining to do as it is pretty clear.

 

[mmksparbud]

The phrase takes on much more meaning than to merely consume food as it's used.

Please explain how it is used.