God's TEN commandments: Bend or Edit them?

[alex2165]

Yes Larry, my English is really bad, but it does not make me any lesser to understand the passages of the Bible no matter in which way they are written, interpreted, or explained.

But Bob Ryan is absolutely right.

Paul in Colossians 2.13-18, generally speaking, called the rituals of the Law of Moses as the shadow of the past, and pointed out that the substance belongs to Christ.

And this is true that the majority of the physical rituals of the Law of Moses have been expired, but not completely, because under the Christ they became spiritual in their nature, and can be accessed through the prayer to the Lord.

Yes, they are shadow of the past as Paul mentioned, but spiritually became the substance of Christ together with all spiritual commandments of the Law of Moses, and because of it, entire Law of Moses with its spiritual and physical-ritual commandments become reality and substance of the spiritual Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Because all physical rituals of the Law of Moses always symbolized something spiritual in their performance and nature, and when Christ came, their physical essence disappeared, but their spiritual symbolism became a part of Christ’ spiritual substance.

But still, concerning Sabbath, Sabbath’s essence is not in the Law of Moses, but in the beginning of the creation of the world, and from this point of view the Sabbath is universal to all physical beings on Earth and in the whole physical universe as the Holiday to observe, in respect to our Heavenly Father Who established it, and Who sanctified it, and blessed it, before any other holiday, ceremony, and observance of GOD ever issued.

And no wonder that the Sabbath also will be observed and in the future, at the second coming of Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

Colossians 2 is not trashing the Ten Commandments or even the 4th commandment - as even pro-sunday sources freely admit.

In Colossians 2 it is our "certificate of debt" that is nailed to the cross - our sins being paid for -- not the Law of God "have no other gods before Me" being abolished (as those at war with the law have often claimed).

And of course Romans 14 says not one word about the 4th commandment.

Here's what the sources you so deceitfully quote in support of your Sabbath argument.

I have direct quotes from each and every single source you list as supporting your Sabbath <obligatory factless rant ended here to spare the reader>

[FONT=&quot]Col 2:14-15 note[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Matthew Henry
III. Whatever was in force against us is taken out of the way. He has obtained for us a legal discharge from the hand-writing of ordinances, which was against us (v. 14), which may be understood, 1. Of that obligation to punishment in which consists the guilt of sin. The curse of the law is the hand-writing against us, like the hand-writing on Belshazzar's wall. Cursed is every one who continues not in every thing. This was a hand-writing which was against us, and contrary to us; for it threatened our eternal ruin. This was removed when he redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, Gal. 3:13. He cancelled the obligation for all who repent and believe. "Upon me be the curse, my father.' He vacated and disannulled the judgment which was against us. When he was nailed to the cross, the curse was as it were nailed to the cross. And our indwelling corruption is crucified with Christ, and by virtue of his cross. When we remember the dying of the Lord Jesus, and see him nailed to the cross, we should see the hand-writing against us taken out of the way. Or rather, 2. It must be understood of the ceremonial law, the hand-writing of ordinances, the ceremonial institutions or the law of commandments contained in ordinances (Eph. 2:15), which was a yoke to the Jews and a partition-wall to the Gentiles. The Lord Jesus took it out of the way, nailed it to his cross; that is, disannulled the obligation of it, that all might see and be satisfied that it was no more binding. When the substance came, the shadows fled away. It is abolished (2 Co. 3:13), and that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away, Heb. 8:13. The expressions are in allusion to the ancient methods of cancelling a bond, either by crossing the writing or striking it through with a nail.

John Gill
[FONT=&quot]John Gill[/FONT]
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances
[FONT=&quot] this the Jews http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/colossians-2-14.html#zcall (bwx) (rjv) , "the writing of the debt", and is the very phrase the Syriac version uses here: now this was as a debt book, which showed and testified the debts of men; that is, their sins, how many they are guilty of, and what punishment is due unto them: and may well be said to be that[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]that was against us, which was contrary to us[/FONT][FONT=&quot];
its nature being holy, just, good, and spiritual, is contrary to the unholy and carnal heart of man, and its commands disagreeable to his mind and will; nor can he perform what it requires; nor can he be subject to it without the grace of God, any more than he can like its precepts; and besides, it is contrary to him, and against him, as it charges him with debts, and proves them upon him, so that he has nothing to say in his defence; yea, it proceeds against him, and curses and condemns, and kills him: but God has "blotted" it out, Christ having engaged as a surety for his people, to pay off all their debts; and this being done by him, God has crossed the debt book of the law, has blotted it out, so that this book is of no force; it does not stand against these persons, it cannot show or prove any standing debt, it cannot demand any, or inflict any penalty: nay, he has[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]took it out of the way[/FONT][FONT=&quot];
it is not to be seen or looked into as a debt book; it is abolished and done away; it is no more as administered by Moses, as a covenant of works, or as to its rigorous exaction, curse, and condemnation; this is true of the whole law of Moses, as well as of the ceremonial, which is utterly abolished and disannulled in every sense, because of the weakness and unprofitableness of it:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]nailing it to his cross[/FONT][FONT=&quot]:
to the cross of Christ, showing that the abolition of it is owing to the cross of Christ; where and when he bore the curse and penalty of the law for his people,


[/FONT]

 

[LarryP2]

I can sympathies with the horror that you must feel about the Truth, but your REAL "source" for your total fixation and worship of the Ten Commandment tablets does not come from the Protestant preachers that you deceitfully cite. They had NOTHING to do with your sect's restoration of the Ebionite/Judaizing heresy. What appalls you and revolts you is the true source of your Ten Commandments worship. It is the name you are simply too embarrassed to admit or acknowledge. Your TRUE source for your heretical obsession and worship of the Ten Commandments was a brain-damaged, desperately mentally ill woman barely past puberty that probably had epileptic seizures that caused her bizarre and insane "visions." You are extremely embarrassed by this, because it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the founder of your Church was a pathological liar, an inveterate thief who stole 90 percent or more of what she wrote, and a horrific False Prophet. Here are the actual incredibly dishonest and deceitful words that are the source of your discredited anti-Christian heresy:

"E.G. White stated, “The holy Sabbath looked glorious- a halo of glory was all around it."(Early Writings of E.G. White, p. 33, also Desire of the Ages p.763)

“I saw the Ten Commandments written on them with the finger of God. On one table were Four and on the other six. The four on the first table shone brighter than the other six. But the fourth, the Sabbath commandment, shone above them all; for the Sabbath was set apart to be kept in honor of God's holy name. The holy Sabbath looked glorious[bless and do not curse] a halo of glory was all around it." (Early Writings of Ellen G. White, page 33, Official Adventist publication)

These are the words of an obviously extremely mentally ill woman and the founder of your Church. THAT is your source. Quit being so embarrassed and appalled about your REAL source.

I am glad the following authorities stand for precisely the OPPOSITE of what is deceitfully-misrepresented by the Sabbath Spam Posters. All of these authorities actually RENOUNCE 7th Day Sabbath Keeping and support the Christian view that has been condemning the Ebionite and Judaizing heresies for the last 2,000 years. The Sabbath spammers are so embarrassed and humiliated by their own "Prophet" and her unbiblical "vision" about the 4th Commandment that they deceitfully use the following sources instead. The following sources would be horrified and outraged to know that they were being used in such a deceptive manner:

Baptist Confession of Faith
"From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ this was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ it was changed to the first day of the week and called the Lord's Day. This is to be continued until the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week having been abolished.
The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)

Westminster Confession of Faith
"As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him:[34] which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week: and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week,[35] which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day,[36] and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.
Westminster Confession of Faith

DWIGHT MOODY

"When I was a boy, the Sabbath lasted from sundown on Saturday to sundown on Sunday....."
....
"A man ought to turn aside from his ordinary employment one day in seven. There are many whose occupation will not permit them to observe Sunday, but they should observe some other day as a Sabbath."
.....
"A Christian man was once urged by his employer to work on Sunday. "Does not your Bible say that if your ass falls into a pit on the Sabbath you may pull him out?"

"If working men got up a strike for no work on Sunday, they would have the sympathy of a good many."
How Shall We Spend the Sabbath? by Dwight L. Moody

R.C Sproul

"And whatever was temporary about the Mosaic Sabbath must be left behind as the reality of the intimate communion of the Adamic Sabbath is again experienced in our worship of the risen Savior on the first day of the week — the Lord’s Day.

MATHEW HENRY

"The day and time in which he had this vision: it was the Lord’s day, the day which Christ had separated and set apart for himself, as the eucharist is called the Lord’s supper. Surely this can be no other than the Christian Sabbath, the first day of the week, to be observed in remembrance of the resurrection of Christ. Let us who call him our Lord honour him on his own day, the day which the Lord hath made and in which we ought to rejoice."
The Sabbath -- Saturday or Sunday?

THOMAS WATSON

"Our Christian Sabbath comes in the room of the Jewish Sabbath: it is called the Lord's day, Rev. i.10. from Christ the author of it. Our Sabbath is altered by Christ's own appointment. He arose this day out of the grave, and appeared on it often to His disciples, 1 Cor. xvi. 1: to intimate to them (saith Athanasius) that he transferred the Sabbath to the Lord's day. And St. Austin saith that by Christ's rising on the first day of the week, it was consecrated to be the Christian Sabbath, in remembrance of his resurrection.

The Christian Soldier by Thomas Watson - Part 6 - by sanctifying the Lord' Day and holy conversation


CATHOLIC CATECHISM
2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."104 Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath,105 it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The third commandment

"Seventh Day Adventists deny the resurrection by observing the Sabbath. We come to church on Sunday, the Lord's Day, to worship Him who "died for our sins, and rose again for our justification." We worship a living Savior, and with thanksgiving, can sing:
"He lives, He lives, Christ Jesus lives today!"
If I worship Christ on Saturday I deny that His work is finished, that He is a resurrected, living Savior.
Why I Am A Baptist And Not A Seventh Day Adventist

 

[BobRyan]

I can sympathies with the horror that you must feel about the Truth ...<factless rant deleted here to spare the readers>

At some point you should make a point that has substance.

We can all have a conversation that way.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You quote Catholic sources - as if you never read them. Yet they make "the 7 point list" you are so at war against.

Originally Posted by LarryP2

CATHOLIC CATECHISM
2174 Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week."104 Because it is the "first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath,105 it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) Sunday:
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The third commandment

​

You quote Catholic sources? They sure do love those SEVEN points from post #2

Wonderful! Me too!

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

2056 The word "Decalogue" means literally "ten words."11 God revealed these "ten words" to his people on the holy mountain. They were written "with the finger of God,"12 unlike the other commandments written by Moses.13 They are pre-eminently the words of God. They are handed on to us in the books of Exodus 14 and Deuteronomy.15 Beginning with the Old Testament, the sacred books refer to the "ten words,"16 but it is in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ that their full meaning will be revealed.

2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations.They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. the Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.

2063.... the words of the Decalogue remain likewise for us Christians. Far from being abolished, they have received amplification and development from the fact of the coming of the Lord in the flesh.26

2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christiansand that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 The Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."29


(Application in James 2)
2069 The Decalogue forms a coherent whole. Each "word" refers to each of the others and to all of them; they reciprocally condition one another. the two tables shed light on one another; they form an organic unity. To transgress one commandment is to infringe all the others.30 One cannot honor another person without blessing God his Creator. One cannot adore God without loving all men, his creatures. the Decalogue brings man's religious and social life into unity.




Dies Domini pt 13 -
"the Sabbath ...is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why unlike many other laws - it is not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart!! In setting this commandment within the context of the basic structure of ethics, Israel and then the church declare that they consider it not just a matter of community religious discipline but a defining and indelible expression of our relationship to God, announced and expounded by biblical revelations.






The two views state their positions as “The Catholic church fully endorses the Sabbath commandment as edited by the Catholic Church" vs "the Catholic church fully endorsed the Sabbath commandment as worded by God at Sinai"
.

The Faith Explained (an RC commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican ii) states on Page 242 that
====================begin short summary
changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".


page 243

"Nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day From Saturday to Sunday. We know of the change only from the tradition of the Church - a fact handed down to us...that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many Non-Catholics, who say that they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and Yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"



====================================== begin expanded quote
. (from "The Faith Explained" page 243.))

"we know that in the O.T it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...

The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...

nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church

[FONT=&quot]====================end quote
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

Why resort to sources that keep making my point for me in my discussion with ProgMonk??
[/FONT]

 

[LarryP2]

At some point you should make a point that has substance.

We can all have a conversation that way.

in Christ,

Bob

Okay then, lets get some questions out of the way, how about it? Once I get some answers on the facts that you say you want to discuss, then we can have a solid basis for some agreement on some critical facts. I have helpfully provided some "Yes" and "No" answers, because I know how you want to wiggle your way out of the quotes and avoid the extremely distressing implications. .So here goes:

Were the Protestant Ministers and the Catholic Catechism that you frequently cite the Source for your Church’s doctrine of the Sabbath? ________YES___________NO

Was Ellen G. White the source for your Church’s Sabbath Doctrine? ________YES___________NO

Is this an accurate quote that describes Ellen G. White’s views on the Sabbath?: “The holy Sabbath looked glorious- a halo of glory was all around it." ________YES___________NO

Did this quote have More or Less influence on your Church’s Sabbath Doctrine than the Protestant Ministers and other sources that you Cite? ___________MORE_____________LESS

Is this an accurate quote that describes Ellen G. White’s views on the Sabbath? ________YES___________NO.
“I saw the Ten Commandments written on them with the finger of God. On one table were Four and on the other six. The four on the first table shone brighter than the other six. But the fourth, the Sabbath commandment, shone above them all; for the Sabbath was set apart to be kept in honor of God's holy name. The holy Sabbath looked glorious[bless and do not curse] a halo of glory was all around it."

Did this quote have More or Less influence on your Church’s Sabbath Doctrine than the Protestant Ministers and other sources that you Cite? ___________MORE_____________LESS

 

[from scratch]

Yes Larry, my English is really bad, but it does not make me any lesser to understand the passages of the Bible no matter in which way they are written, interpreted, or explained.

But Bob Ryan is absolutely right.

Paul in Colossians 2.13-18, generally speaking, called the rituals of the Law of Moses as the shadow of the past, and pointed out that the substance belongs to Christ.

And this is true that the majority of the physical rituals of the Law of Moses have been expired, but not completely, because under the Christ they became spiritual in their nature, and can be accessed through the prayer to the Lord.

Yes, they are shadow of the past as Paul mentioned, but spiritually became the substance of Christ together with all spiritual commandments of the Law of Moses, and because of it, entire Law of Moses with its spiritual and physical-ritual commandments become reality and substance of the spiritual Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Because all physical rituals of the Law of Moses always symbolized something spiritual in their performance and nature, and when Christ came, their physical essence disappeared, but their spiritual symbolism became a part of Christ’ spiritual substance.

But still, concerning Sabbath, Sabbath’s essence is not in the Law of Moses, but in the beginning of the creation of the world, and from this point of view the Sabbath is universal to all physical beings on Earth and in the whole physical universe as the Holiday to observe, in respect to our Heavenly Father Who established it, and Who sanctified it, and blessed it, before any other holiday, ceremony, and observance of GOD ever issued.

And no wonder that the Sabbath also will be observed and in the future, at the second coming of Christ.

I'd say that's a matter of unfounded opinion.

 

[from scratch]

At some point you should make a point that has substance.

We can all have a conversation that way.

in Christ,

Bob

If we agreed there would be no conversation. There isn't much that resembles one anyway as you noted.

What I'd really like to see is how you might show Larry's quotes to be a fraud or something to the effect your witnesses aren't reliable for truth.

 

[BobRyan]

Okay then, lets get some questions out of the way, how about it?

This question was asked numerous times on this section of the board recently and answered numerous times - here is one of them #[FONT=&quot]744[/FONT]

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

But in general -- we have this so far.

1. First Larry opens with classic "factless Larry rant" which must be deleted for the sake of the reader. #628

2. Then he unwittingly makes my case for point 7 (of the 7 point list #2 ) for pro-Sunday sources BCF and WCF. #182

And so of course - I keep reminding him that "bending the 4th commandment to point to week-day-1" is the 7th point in my list on post #2. (see this in #114 )


3. Then he makes the case for all 7 of those points by pointing us to RCC sources #186 as if he had never read the RCC position on this subject.


4. Then FromScratch argues that a verbatim quote from D.L. Moody's major point on the 4th commandment is "misleading" simply because Moody is making all 7 of the points in my list. #741


5. Even ProgMonk cannot make the case stick that the term "Sabbath" in the NT does not apply to "week-day-1" #184

then they suppose that by repeating these flawed tactics "often" it will befuddle someone who is an objective Bible student.

Who goes for such tactics?.

Then we have the argument that attacking Ellen White would solve the logical fallacies in their arguments as listed above even though they know full well that the pro-Sunday sources arguing in favor of the continued 4th Commandment binding on the saints today - are not making an appeal to the writings of Ellen White. #744

 

[LarryP2]

This question was asked numerous times on this section of the board recently and answered numerous times - here is one of them #[FONT=&quot]744[/FONT]

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

But in general -- we have this so far.

1. First Larry opens with classic "factless Larry rant" which must be deleted for the sake of the reader. #628

2. Then he unwittingly makes my case for point 7 (of the 7 point list #2 ) for pro-Sunday sources BCF and WCF. #182

And so of course - I keep reminding him that "bending the 4th commandment to point to week-day-1" is the 7th point in my list on post #2. (see this in #114 )


3. Then he makes the case for all 7 of those points by pointing us to RCC sources #186 as if he had never read the RCC position on this subject.


4. Then FromScratch argues that a verbatim quote from D.L. Moody's major point on the 4th commandment is "misleading" simply because Moody is making all 7 of the points in my list. #741


5. Even ProgMonk cannot make the case stick that the term "Sabbath" in the NT does not apply to "week-day-1" #184

then they suppose that by repeating these flawed tactics "often" it will befuddle someone who is an objective Bible student.

Who goes for such tactics?.

Then we have the argument that attacking Ellen White would solve the logical fallacies in their arguments as listed above even though they know full well that the pro-Sunday sources arguing in favor of the continued 4th Commandment binding on the saints today - are not making an appeal to the writings of Ellen White. #744

My aren't you being particularly slippery and deceptive today! You have made worship of the 4th Commandment the centerpiece of your blatantly heretical religion, blatantly in Opposition Christianity's focus on the Resurrection. You need to honestly disclose your sources. You've been slippery and dishonest long enough.

I will post the questions again, and let's see if we can get some answers here....

Were the Protestant Ministers and the Catholic Catechism that you frequently cite the Source for your Church&#8217;s doctrine of the Sabbath? ________YES___________NO

Was Ellen G. White the source for your Church&#8217;s Sabbath Doctrine? ________YES___________NO

Is this an accurate quote that describes Ellen G. White&#8217;s views on the Sabbath?: &#8220;The holy Sabbath looked glorious- a halo of glory was all around it." ________YES___________NO

Did this quote have More or Less influence on your Church&#8217;s Sabbath Doctrine than the Protestant Ministers and other sources that you Cite? ___________MORE_____________LESS

Is this an accurate quote that describes Ellen G. White&#8217;s views on the Sabbath? ________YES___________NO.
&#8220;I saw the Ten Commandments written on them with the finger of God. On one table were Four and on the other six. The four on the first table shone brighter than the other six. But the fourth, the Sabbath commandment, shone above them all; for the Sabbath was set apart to be kept in honor of God's holy name. The holy Sabbath looked glorious[bless and do not curse] a halo of glory was all around it."

Did this quote have More or Less influence on your Church&#8217;s Sabbath Doctrine than the Protestant Ministers and other sources that you Cite? ___________MORE_____________

Its just remarkable and amazing that such anti-Christian heresy coupled with so much willful deception is allowed on a Christian site. One of the things I think we CAN agree on is that NONE of the alleged "sources" for your 4th Commandment worship were available to, or quoted by your nutso founding Prophet. I did some searches last night, and I can find NOTHING that indicates that ANY of your "sources" had the slightest effect whatsoever on your Church's foundation of 4th Commandment worship, and outright rejection and emphatic rejection of the Resurrection. You deceptively-use respectable Christian sources to deceitfully disguise the guts of your recruiting effort. You "sink the hook" in using respectable Christians, and the insanity of the Investigative Judgment, Salvation by Sabbath Keeping and Vegetarianism and the Insane Prophet are disclosed later, right?

 

[BobRyan]

As already given in my answer above --

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


Then we have the argument that attacking Ellen White would solve the logical fallacies in their arguments as listed above even though they know full well that the pro-Sunday sources arguing in favor of the continued 4th Commandment binding on the saints today - are not making an appeal to the writings of Ellen White. #744

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

You then circle back to your already-answered-question because you have no genuine interest in the subject.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[from scratch]

You quote Catholic sources - as if you never read them. Yet they make "the 7 point list" you are so at war against.

[FONT=&quot]

Why resort to sources that keep making my point for me in my discussion with ProgMonk??
[/FONT]

I see it as trying to have a conversation on the issues brought up. Seems you want to swap quotes. You've been asked to address what other have presented. Instead you only repost what they're refuting. You fail to acknowledge the quotes are even legit.

 

[from scratch]

This question was asked numerous times on this section of the board recently and answered numerous times - here is one of them #[FONT=&quot]744[/FONT]

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

But in general -- we have this so far.

1. First Larry opens with classic "factless Larry rant" which must be deleted for the sake of the reader. #628

2. Then he unwittingly makes my case for point 7 (of the 7 point list #2 ) for pro-Sunday sources BCF and WCF. #182

And so of course - I keep reminding him that "bending the 4th commandment to point to week-day-1" is the 7th point in my list on post #2. (see this in #114 )


3. Then he makes the case for all 7 of those points by pointing us to RCC sources #186 as if he had never read the RCC position on this subject.


4. Then FromScratch argues that a verbatim quote from D.L. Moody's major point on the 4th commandment is "misleading" simply because Moody is making all 7 of the points in my list. #741


5. Even ProgMonk cannot make the case stick that the term "Sabbath" in the NT does not apply to "week-day-1" #184

then they suppose that by repeating these flawed tactics "often" it will befuddle someone who is an objective Bible student.

Who goes for such tactics?.

Then we have the argument that attacking Ellen White would solve the logical fallacies in their arguments as listed above even though they know full well that the pro-Sunday sources arguing in favor of the continued 4th Commandment binding on the saints today - are not making an appeal to the writings of Ellen White. #744

The way I see things is you're attacking others and trying to drag them down. You refuse to acknowledge the quotes and certainly don't refute or discuss them in any way. You do discuss your quotes from the same people/sources. Why is this?

 

[LarryP2]

The way I see things is you're attacking others and trying to drag them down. You refuse to acknowledge the quotes and certainly don't refute or discuss them in any way. You do discuss your quotes from the same people/sources. Why is this?

It's just typical behavior. One lie covering up for another lie. Ten layers of plagiarized intertwined lies. Ten lies deep, skillfully intertwined with Ten other major lies. Adventism is simply just revived heretical Ebionite Sabbath porn that was sharply condemned, denounced and excommunicated in the First and Second Centuries by fledgling Christianity. There's nothing new here, except for thrilling multi-media presentations that demonstrate their Scripture Sculpting to its maximum benefit.

What? You thought you were going to get one of their Carnival Side Show Barkers to seriously discuss the Bible or Doctrine? Are you serious?

The Sabbath? There is no "there".......there. History is absolutely crystal clear: Sabbath Keeping was abandoned by the first Jewish Christians starting within hours after the Resurrection.

 

[BobRyan]

This question was asked numerous times on this section of the board recently and answered numerous times - here is one of them #[FONT=&quot]744http://www.christianforums.com/t7802949-75/#post65412506

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

But in general -- we have this so far.

1. First Larry opens with classic "factless Larry rant" which must be deleted for the sake of the reader. #628

2. Then he unwittingly makes my case for point 7 (of the 7 point list #2 ) for pro-Sunday sources BCF and WCF. #182

And so of course - I keep reminding him that "bending the 4th commandment to point to week-day-1" is the 7th point in my list on post #2. (see this in #114 )


3. Then he makes the case for all 7 of those points by pointing us to RCC sources #186 as if he had never read the RCC position on this subject.


4. Then FromScratch argues that a verbatim quote from D.L. Moody's major point on the 4th commandment is "misleading" simply because Moody is making all 7 of the points in my list. #741


5. Even ProgMonk cannot make the case stick that the term "Sabbath" in the NT does not apply to "week-day-1" #184

then they suppose that by repeating these flawed tactics "often" it will befuddle someone who is an objective Bible student.

Who goes for such tactics?.

Then we have the argument that attacking Ellen White would solve the logical fallacies in their arguments as listed above even though they know full well that the pro-Sunday sources arguing in favor of the continued 4th Commandment binding on the saints today - are not making an appeal to the writings of Ellen White. #744

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

in each case... data... .evidence from both the Bible and from even pro-Sunday sources so obviously opposed to those who are at war with God's TEN Commandments.


[/FONT]

The way I see things is you're attacking others

Because that is how you treat data... evidence.... facts... that do not agree with your bias.

I think we can see that.

But just because you yourself are opposed to evidence contrary to your bias does not mean that this data... evidence...facts.. should not be presented.

And the endless vitriol, acrimony, diatribe, ad hominem that those use who join you in your "at war with the TEN Commandments" when presented with data... evidence...facts... - is evident in almost all of their posts.

Notice that in the many quotes provided in the on-topic posts -- You refuse to acknowledge the quotes and certainly don't refute or discuss them in any way apart from offhanded sweeping assertions no evidence provided.

. You do discuss your quotes from the same people/sources. Why is this?

I point out that the mind-numbing tactic of simply opposing me by using those quotes and making my point for me - when it comes to the 7 point list - is not the all-impressive solution that some have "imagined to themselves".

you keep questioning me in that regard as if the point is not obvious - which simply means you are not reading the posts.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Instead you only repost what they're refuting. You fail to acknowledge the quotes are even legit.

They use the mind-numbing tactic of "making my points for me" in that 7 point list by showing that pro-Sunday sources 'keep Sunday" while claiming that they have a bent Sabbath Commandment.

Where is the stellar logic in that that you would like to have me respond to???

I had already made that point obvious in the 7 point list.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here you have the crux of the matter - for those who accept the BCF and the WCF - whether to run away from supporting those documents as soon as the 'at-war-with-God's-Ten-Commandments' crowd shows up - or to stand and be counted.

Interesting how that one is turning out.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[from scratch]

It's just typical behavior. One lie covering up for another lie. Ten layers of plagiarized intertwined lies. Ten lies deep, skillfully intertwined with Ten other major lies. Adventism is simply just revived heretical Ebionite Sabbath porn that was sharply condemned, denounced and excommunicated in the First and Second Centuries by fledgling Christianity. There's nothing new here, except for thrilling multi-media presentations that demonstrate their Scripture Sculpting to its maximum benefit.

What? You thought you were going to get one of their Carnival Side Show Barkers to seriously discuss the Bible or Doctrine? Are you serious?

The Sabbath? There is no "there".......there. History is absolutely crystal clear: Sabbath Keeping was abandoned by the first Jewish Christians starting within hours after the Resurrection.

Very fitting description.

 

[from scratch]

This question was asked numerous times on this section of the board recently and answered numerous times - here is one of them #[FONT=&quot]744http://www.christianforums.com/t7802949-75/#post65412506

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

But in general -- we have this so far.

1. First Larry opens with classic "factless Larry rant" which must be deleted for the sake of the reader. #628

2. Then he unwittingly makes my case for point 7 (of the 7 point list #2 ) for pro-Sunday sources BCF and WCF. #182

And so of course - I keep reminding him that "bending the 4th commandment to point to week-day-1" is the 7th point in my list on post #2. (see this in #114 )


3. Then he makes the case for all 7 of those points by pointing us to RCC sources #186 as if he had never read the RCC position on this subject.


4. Then FromScratch argues that a verbatim quote from D.L. Moody's major point on the 4th commandment is "misleading" simply because Moody is making all 7 of the points in my list. #741


5. Even ProgMonk cannot make the case stick that the term "Sabbath" in the NT does not apply to "week-day-1" #184

then they suppose that by repeating these flawed tactics "often" it will befuddle someone who is an objective Bible student.

Who goes for such tactics?.

Then we have the argument that attacking Ellen White would solve the logical fallacies in their arguments as listed above even though they know full well that the pro-Sunday sources arguing in favor of the continued 4th Commandment binding on the saints today - are not making an appeal to the writings of Ellen White. #744

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

in each case... data... .evidence from both the Bible and from even pro-Sunday sources so obviously opposed to those who are at war with God's TEN Commandments.


[/FONT]



Because that is how you treat data... evidence.... facts... that do not agree with your bias.

I think we can see that.

But just because you yourself are opposed to evidence contrary to your bias does not mean that this data... evidence...facts.. should not be presented.

And the endless vitriol, acrimony, diatribe, ad hominem that those use who join you in your "at war with the TEN Commandments" when presented with data... evidence...facts... - is evident in almost all of their posts.

Notice that in the many quotes provided in the on-topic posts -- You refuse to acknowledge the quotes and certainly don't refute or discuss them in any way apart from offhanded sweeping assertions no evidence provided.

I point out that the mind-numbing tactic of simply opposing me by using those quotes and making my point for me - when it comes to the 7 point list - is not the all-impressive solution that some have "imagined to themselves".

you keep questioning me in that regard as if the point is not obvious - which simply means you are not reading the posts.

in Christ,

Bob

There are so many valid ways to respond I'm in somewhat of a tither on how best to respond. So I'll say this -

It boils down to covenants for me that you won't acknowledge in reality.

 

[BobRyan]

This question was asked numerous times on this section of the board recently and answered numerous times - here is one of them #[FONT=&quot]744http://www.christianforums.com/t7802949-75/#post65412506

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

But in general -- we have this so far.

1. First Larry opens with classic "factless Larry rant" which must be deleted for the sake of the reader. #628

2. Then he unwittingly makes my case for point 7 (of the 7 point list #2 ) for pro-Sunday sources BCF and WCF. #182

And so of course - I keep reminding him that "bending the 4th commandment to point to week-day-1" is the 7th point in my list on post #2. (see this in #114 )


3. Then he makes the case for all 7 of those points by pointing us to RCC sources #186 as if he had never read the RCC position on this subject.


4. Then FromScratch argues that a verbatim quote from D.L. Moody's major point on the 4th commandment is "misleading" simply because Moody is making all 7 of the points in my list. #741


5. Even ProgMonk cannot make the case stick that the term "Sabbath" in the NT does not apply to "week-day-1" #184

then they suppose that by repeating these flawed tactics "often" it will befuddle someone who is an objective Bible student.

Who goes for such tactics?.

Then we have the argument that attacking Ellen White would solve the logical fallacies in their arguments as listed above even though they know full well that the pro-Sunday sources arguing in favor of the continued 4th Commandment binding on the saints today - are not making an appeal to the writings of Ellen White. #744

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

in each case... data... .evidence from both the Bible and from even pro-Sunday sources so obviously opposed to those who are at war with God's TEN Commandments.


[/FONT]



Because that is how you treat data... evidence.... facts... that do not agree with your bias.

I think we can see that.

But just because you yourself are opposed to evidence contrary to your bias does not mean that this data... evidence...facts.. should not be presented.

And the endless vitriol, acrimony, diatribe, ad hominem that those use who join you in your "at war with the TEN Commandments" when presented with data... evidence...facts... - is evident in almost all of their posts.

Notice that in the many quotes provided in the on-topic posts -- You refuse to acknowledge the quotes and certainly don't refute or discuss them in any way apart from offhanded sweeping assertions no evidence provided.

I point out that the mind-numbing tactic of simply opposing me by using those quotes and making my point for me - when it comes to the 7 point list - is not the all-impressive solution that some have "imagined to themselves".

you keep questioning me in that regard as if the point is not obvious - which simply means you are not reading the posts.

As has been shown those at war with all 7 points listed above can barely hide it - if at all.

in Christ,

Bob