Why we are not supposed to keep the Sabbath

[truthuprootsevil]

I did not see any spelling errors. I meant that the information in the link you provided did not back up what you said.

Yes but it also meant house of the Lord which is why I chose those specific three verses because they refer to the Christian church.

Which building was that?

The seven churches depicted in Revelation 1 are all located in modern day Turkey not Rome.

Non were part of Rome during biblical times. They were not established by Rome.

Be blessed

Thank you / likewise

The Great History of the Roman Empire in Turkey The Great History of the Roman Empire in Turkey

Anatolia is named Turkey in these modern days.

Roman Republic / Roman empire in 133 BCE - 395 CE governed what is now called Turkey.
The Historical and Future Importance of Turkey - Property Turkey The Historical and Future Importance of Turkey - Property Turkey

History of Turkey: From Ancient Empires to Modern Times | Rough Guides share.google

When a country is conquered that country becomes a part of the conqueror. Rome conquered much of Asia, Europe, and Northern Africa. What is called Turkey today was a part of Rome in those days, which means the seven churches spoken up in Revelation were a part of Rome.

Google Image Result for https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333938773/figure/fig1/AS:772407442804736@1561167693737/Roman-provinces-and-modern-Romania-Map-Christina-Unwin-Reproduced-with-permission.png

I've already stated but I'll State again, many of the churches Paul wrote to were a part of Rome. I started give reference, well I'll give one since I already started looking it up.
Galatians | Research Starters | EBSCO Research Galatians | Research Starters | EBSCO Research

If you had taken the time to read through the information I gave you would have seen it supported what I said.

For others who may read I've given enough information and to continue would be pointless.

Thank you again and you likewise Be Blessed

 

[HIM]

That is not true. Your posts show otherwise. And I think you know it.

Typical. When you cant beat the argument then discredit the poster.

No, when you are shown a blatant truth like the fact the word IF is in the text and still deny it, that is what discredits said poster, you. Maybe if you said, "yes I see that, I wonder why other translations don't translate it properly?"


You haven't proven anything. All you done is post your opinion based on feelings. like these posts below.

Your opinion and not supported by scripture.

No if is in the text not "shall not'

Your opinion. The translation is fine.

No if is in the text not, "shall not"

There is no if in verse 5. You continue in error here.

Not so. Everyone can see it here below. Why can't you?

Heb 4:5 καὶ And ἐν In τούτῳ This ' Place ' πάλιν Again Εἰ If εἰσελεύσονται They Shall Enter εἰς Into τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου My Rest.

My friend you don’t have to defend the error in the KJV. The fact is obvious. All other translations do not inject an “if” into the verse

Yet there it is in black and white.

Heb 4:3 εἰσερχόμεθα γὰρ For We Enter εἰς Into τὴν The κατάπαυσιν Rest, οἱ Who πιστεύσαντες Believed; καθὼς As εἴρηκεν He Has Said, Ὡς So ὤμοσα I Swore ἐν In τῇ ὀργῇ μου My Wrath, Εἰ If εἰσελεύσονται They Shall Enter εἰς Into τὴν κατάπαυσίν μου My Rest; καίτοι Though Verily τῶν The ἔργων Works ἀπὸ From 'The' καταβολῆς Foundation κόσμου Of 'The' World γενηθέντων Were Done.

 

[Dan1988]

They did not ignore them. They read them in their context. It is a letter. The context of Romans 3 must be read with the entire letter in consideration. Do you see that?

Romans 3:10-18 is a perfect description of every natural man (unconverted man). Those of us who God elected onto salvation are not any of those things, God slew our old man (natural man) and He made us new creatures.

10 As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
13 “Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

I don't understand why some professing Christians never make the distinction between saved people and unsaved. they think that the scriptures apply equally to both but that's simply not true, because none of the above verses describe me.

 

[Studyman]

Abraham, after his death, knew clearly that they would not hear Moses or the prophets.

This is what you are preaching, and truly "many" refuse to hear Moses and the Prophets, to this very day. But the Holy Scriptures teach that although "many" would choose to ignore Moses and refuse to hear God's Words that Moses was chosen to deliver, there were Faithful men who would hear God through HIS Chosen Vessels. Like Caleb, Joshua, David, Rahab, Danial, Shadrack, Zacharias, Simeon and a host of others. And of course, the Lord's Christ Himself who lived by, and instructed that all men Live by Every Word of this same God. You can actually read about them in Heb. 11, and the also the Law and Prophets should you become interested. It's right there in the Bible for you to hear.

Abraham never said for them to hear his law.

The teaching that Abraham never said to his children to "hear" God's Law is simply false, and absurd given what is actually written.

"For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

If it is the same law then why would Abraham point them to Moses?

Because He knew, just as Jesus knew, that God chose Moses to record God's Laws, Statutes, and Commandments. And if a man refuses to believe Moses, who God sent, Jesus knows they will not believe Jesus, who the very same God sent.

Therefore the Jesus "of the Bible's" Teaching:

"And he said unto him, If they "hear not" Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Truer words have not been spoken.

 

[Hentenza]

Thank you / likewise

The Great History of the Roman Empire in Turkey The Great History of the Roman Empire in Turkey

Anatolia is named Turkey in these modern days.

Roman Republic / Roman empire in 133 BCE - 395 CE governed what is now called Turkey.
The Historical and Future Importance of Turkey - Property Turkey The Historical and Future Importance of Turkey - Property Turkey

History of Turkey: From Ancient Empires to Modern Times | Rough Guides share.google

When a country is conquered that country becomes a part of the conqueror. Rome conquered much of Asia, Europe, and Northern Africa. What is called Turkey today was a part of Rome in those days, which means the seven churches spoken up in Revelation were a part of Rome.

Google Image Result for https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333938773/figure/fig1/AS:772407442804736@1561167693737/Roman-provinces-and-modern-Romania-Map-Christina-Unwin-Reproduced-with-permission.png

I've already stated but I'll State again, many of the churches Paul wrote to were a part of Rome. I started give reference, well I'll give one since I already started looking it up.
Galatians | Research Starters | EBSCO Research Galatians | Research Starters | EBSCO Research

If you had taken the time to read through the information I gave you would have seen it supported what I said.

For others who may read I've given enough information and to continue would be pointless.

Thank you again and you likewise Be Blessed

My brother just because the land was taken over by Rome does not mean that Rome planted the churches or even sanctioned the churches. The early Christian church was persecuted for refusing to perform sacrifices to the Roman gods and for refusing to bow to the Roman emperor. In particular, research the Christian persecutions under Nero and later under Decius.

The Christian church in the city of Rome was just as persecuted, if not more, as the other Christians living under Roman occupation. The churches depicted in the NT were not established by Rome but by the apostles. That they were in Roman occupied land was dangerous for the Christians and yet continued to grow. The Roman Empire certainly did not endorse or even tolerated at times the Christian churches and believers.

It wasn’t until the Edict of Milan in 313ad by Constantine that the church in Rome began to gain power which was fully cemented by 380ad when Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the religion of the state. In my opinion here is where we see the progressive increase in power of the pope to eventually almost match that of the emperor before the fall of the western Roman Empire in 476ad.

The Christian church grew in spite of the Roman persecutions sometimes defined by the sacrifices of the martyrs. I don’t want to presume to understand your thoughts but history does not support your argument.

Be blessed.

 

[Hentenza]

Because He knew, just as Jesus knew, that God chose Moses to record God's Laws, Statutes, and Commandments.

Citation please.

 

[Studyman]

Citation please.

Not that you have ever addressed or even acknowledged most of the Scriptures I have posted, but so as not to return evil for evil, I will grant your request.

Ex. 4: 10 And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. 11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? 12 Now therefore go, "and I will be with thy mouth", and teach thee "what thou shalt say".

Ex. 12: 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Ex. 31: 18 And he (God) gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

John 1: 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

John 14: 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. ( Jn. 10: 30 I and my Father are one. , Jn. 17:8 For I have given unto them the words "which thou gavest me"; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.) 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

And why did the religions of this world at that time, not know Him, according to the Jesus "of the Bible's own Words"?

John 5: 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye "believe not" his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Thus the reason for the Christ "of the Bible's", Own Words I posted for you in Luke 16. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

If you are not persuaded by these Words, who was chosen to record and carry God's Laws, Statutes and Commandments throughout the nations, it is clear why, according to Christ's Own Words.

 

[Hentenza]

Not that you have ever addressed or even acknowledged most of the Scriptures I have posted, but so as not to return evil for evil, I will grant your request.

Ex. 4: 10 And Moses said unto the LORD, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. 11 And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? 12 Now therefore go, "and I will be with thy mouth", and teach thee "what thou shalt say".

Ex. 12: 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Ex. 31: 18 And he (God) gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

John 1: 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

John 14: 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. ( Jn. 10: 30 I and my Father are one. , Jn. 17:8 For I have given unto them the words "which thou gavest me"; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.) 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

And why did the religions of this world at that time, not know Him, according to the Jesus "of the Bible's own Words"?

John 5: 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye "believe not" his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Thus the reason for the Christ "of the Bible's", Own Words I posted for you in Luke 16. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

If you are not persuaded by these Words, who was chosen to record and carry God's Laws, Statutes and Commandments throughout the nations, it is clear why, according to Christ's Own Words.

None of these verses prove your premise that Abraham, while alive on earth, knew that Moses was going to record God’s laws or even what those laws would be. You are reading your doctrine into scripture.

 

[truthuprootsevil]

My brother just because the land was taken over by Rome does not mean that Rome planted the churches or even sanctioned the churches. The early Christian church was persecuted for refusing to perform sacrifices to the Roman gods and for refusing to bow to the Roman emperor. In particular, research the Christian persecutions under Nero and later under Decius.

The Christian church in the city of Rome was just as persecuted, if not more, as the other Christians living under Roman occupation. The churches depicted in the NT were not established by Rome but by the apostles. That they were in Roman occupied land was dangerous for the Christians and yet continued to grow. The Roman Empire certainly did not endorse or even tolerated at times the Christian churches and believers.

It wasn’t until the Edict of Milan in 313ad by Constantine that the church in Rome began to gain power which was fully cemented by 380ad when Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the religion of the state. In my opinion here is where we see the progressive increase in power of the pope to eventually almost match that of the emperor before the fall of the western Roman Empire in 476ad.

The Christian church grew in spite of the Roman persecutions sometimes defined by the sacrifices of the martyrs. I don’t want to presume to understand your thoughts but history does not support your argument.

Be blessed.

My brother just because the land was taken over by Rome does not mean that Rome planted the churches or even sanctioned the churches. The early Christian church was persecuted for refusing to perform sacrifices to the Roman gods and for refusing to bow to the Roman emperor. In particular, research the Christian persecutions under Nero and later under Decius.

The Christian church in the city of Rome was just as persecuted, if not more, as the other Christians living under Roman occupation. The churches depicted in the NT were not established by Rome but by the apostles. That they were in Roman occupied land was dangerous for the Christians and yet continued to grow. The Roman Empire certainly did not endorse or even tolerated at times the Christian churches and believers.

It wasn’t until the Edict of Milan in 313ad by Constantine that the church in Rome began to gain power which was fully cemented by 380ad when Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the religion of the state. In my opinion here is where we see the progressive increase in power of the pope to eventually almost match that of the emperor before the fall of the western Roman Empire in 476ad.

The Christian church grew in spite of the Roman persecutions sometimes defined by the sacrifices of the martyrs. I don’t want to presume to understand your thoughts but history does not support your argument.

Be blessed.

My brother just because the land was taken over by Rome does not mean that Rome planted the churches or even sanctioned the churches. The early Christian church was persecuted for refusing to perform sacrifices to the Roman gods and for refusing to bow to the Roman emperor. In particular, research the Christian persecutions under Nero and later under Decius.

The Christian church in the city of Rome was just as persecuted, if not more, as the other Christians living under Roman occupation. The churches depicted in the NT were not established by Rome but by the apostles. That they were in Roman occupied land was dangerous for the Christians and yet continued to grow. The Roman Empire certainly did not endorse or even tolerated at times the Christian churches and believers.

It wasn’t until the Edict of Milan in 313ad by Constantine that the church in Rome began to gain power which was fully cemented by 380ad when Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the religion of the state. In my opinion here is where we see the progressive increase in power of the pope to eventually almost match that of the emperor before the fall of the western Roman Empire in 476ad.

The Christian church grew in spite of the Roman persecutions sometimes defined by the sacrifices of the martyrs. I don’t want to presume to understand your thoughts but history does not support your argument.

Be blessed.

This is why there are so many so named churches / denominations in Christianity.

And history does support my arguments. Going any further is pointless