RND
Senior Veteran
- Jul 20, 2006
- 7,807
- 145
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Take the blinders off when you read it:Don't be shy - share it with us.
Not me brother. I have quoted your comments each and every time. If anyone is bearing false witness it's you regarding what you write!Review your own posts, and acknowledge that you have borne false witness.
No. it's a label for those that say there is no more 10C's. Like you Victor.That is the label slapped on those who comply with the Pauline epistles.
Paul never advocated breaking the law....not once.You haven't found any alternative to the theology he documented consistently of God's redemption, as I showed you both in my very first post on this thread.
That was the opening request; the link is not helpful.Take the blinders off when you read it:
This post borders on a personal attack, and you still haven't supported the ideas you have introduced.Not me brother. I have quoted your comments each and every time. If anyone is bearing false witness it's you regarding what you write!
No. it's a label for those that say there is no more 10C's. Like you Victor.
Paul never advocated breaking the law....not once.
Victor, if someone rapes your daughter or steals your car then you'll have to agree no law has been broken since you believe the 10C's have been done away with. Right?
No personal attack. You said I was bearing false witness. I quote your words and comment on them. If you think I've personally attacked you my apologies but be sure they are your words I'm quoting and commenting on, I'm not making anything up.This post borders on a personal attack, and you still haven't supported the ideas you have introduced.
So sorry for you.That was the opening request; the link is not helpful.
I've expressed it fairly clearly. Have you decided to take the blinders off? If you do you'll be able to see that God is extremely consistent.You seem to be shy about sharing what God's "My law" that isn't according to Sinai with us. Why?
I have a canned answer to address that attitude:So sorry for you.
What blinders? I asked you to share what you found concerning God's "My law" that isn't according to Sinai with us, and you steadfastly refuse to.I've expressed it fairly clearly. Have you decided to take the blinders off? If you do you'll be able to see that God is extremely consistent.
I can see why you call that answer "canned" because it seems to have come straight from the trash can.I have a canned answer to address that attitude:
I am sorry that you have not entered into God's rest, and have chosen to remain in the sabbath shadow that pointed to God's rest. That shadow exists only in the first covenant mediated by Moses (the ten commandments) and not outside of it. Those who remain in Sinai will expire, just like that covenant did when it was replaced by God's new covenant in the Blood of Jesus: "Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." (Galatians 4:30).
Nope. God has never changed. It's always been about love. Love to Him love to neighbor. That, for some reason, you can't see.What blinders? I asked you to share what you found concerning God's "My law" that isn't according to Sinai with us, and you steadfastly refuse to.
It demonstrates the point that your contention that we need to abide in the sabbath instead of entering into God's rest is met with equal disdain for very sound theological reasons.I can see why you call that answer "canned" because it seems to have come straight from the trash can.
You can't help but return to your own condemnation even when it was pointed out a number of times that it is a red herring foisted upon the church ever since its inception.Is not wanting to have sex with your neighbors wife or kill his child or steal his car bondage? Really?
What a weird assertion this is!Nope. God has never changed. It's always been about love. Love to Him love to neighbor. That, for some reason, you can't see.
RND;That is so true. Even SDA's can get the meaning of the sabbath all screwed up but just because they do doesn't negate the sabbath commandment. I had a pastor once that told me when he was growing up wading in water past the knee was considered swimming. Wow, just like the Pharisees! Missing the point.
Swimming is part of enjoying God's creation and is no different than taking a hike or a bike ride or a drive into the country for a picnic. When we heap man made thoughts on what can/can't be done on the sabbath we immediately begin to lose the point of it. Yet the other extreme is saying as Victor and so many others do that the law is no more; looking for excuses as to why to ignore God's law instead of looking at Hs word as good advice.
The disparity you describe on how to "keep" a sabbath is indicative of a departure from a codified standard governing it. One generation looks down on you and considers you noncompliant, while you write them off as ignorant of the "purpose" of the sabbath known only to you. Admission of "a slow change" is relegating the law that ordained it to irrelevance. It is the tendency of carnal man to push the envelope on what he deems permissable while he hoping it is compliant with the law. Keeping the sabbath entailed remaining in your dwelling (Exodus 16:29) and don't light any fires (Exodus 35:3). The nature walks spawn from the same vein of thought that invented the sabbath-day's journey, which doesn't exist in the law anywhere. Neither one of you is compliant with the sabbath. Don't even think about dwelling in a car you lit a fire under the hood in.Amen...I think many of the old time SDA's carry many of the ritualistic thoughts of Sabbath keeping but I believe there is a slow change coming down the pike within the SDA that will usher in the true purpose of the Sabbath, which is to cease work to enjoy God, His people and all that He has created. I believe God protected the Sabbath with His Law for the sake of His people, our relationship with God and to bear witness of a Creator God who love us.Swimming is part of enjoying God's creation and is no different than taking a hike or a bike ride or a drive into the country for a picnic. When we heap man made thoughts on what can/can't be done on the sabbath we immediately begin to lose the point of it.
Sound? In your mind only.It demonstrates the point that your contention that we need to abide in the sabbath instead of entering into God's rest is met with equal disdain for very sound theological reasons.
So then you agree it's OK to rape your wife and steal your car.You can't help but return to your own condemnation even when it was pointed out a number of times that it is a red herring foisted upon the church ever since its inception.
For the sight impaired no doubt.What a weird assertion this is!
Um, the Bible. God is love. Will there be any hate tolerated in His Kingdom?Where do you make this up? Can you find any Scripture to support this?
The disparity you describe on how to "keep" a sabbath is indicative of a departure from a codified standard governing it. One generation looks down on you and considers you noncompliant, while you write them off as ignorant of the "purpose" of the sabbath known only to you. Admission of "a slow change" is relegating the law that ordained it to irrelevance. It is the tendency of carnal man to push the envelope on what he deems permissable while he hoping it is compliant with the law. Keeping the sabbath entailed remaining in your dwelling (Exodus 16:29) and don't light any fires (Exodus 35:3). The nature walks spawn from the same vein of thought that invented the sabbath-day's journey, which doesn't exist in the law anywhere. Neither one of you is compliant with the sabbath. Don't even think about dwelling in a car you lit a fire under the hood in.
The Pharisees knew the law better than any other subset of Jewish society, which is why Jesus included them in His requisite for righteousness in Matthew 5:20: "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven". If you want to base your righteousness on the law, then you need to comply with it - and the example of those who were the most compliant falling short is one you need to consider. If you're going to make your claim to keep the sabbath bear any credibility, then you need to abide by the sabbath the law describes, instead of replacing it with a rendition noncompliant with the law that ordained the sabbath. Another Pharisee who was taught by Gamaliel and then Jesus Christ pointed this out:Spoken like a true Pharisee.
It takes only a modicum of observation to recognize that your appeal is to the first covenant, of which the sabbath remains a component of.For someone who is so against the old covenant why do you return to it to clarify how to keep the Sabbath when the new covenant is founded on the words of Jesus.
This is a good place to insert my initial post, which has languished without a response:Sound? In your mind only.
Two logical faults appear here:So then you agree it's OK to rape your wife and steal your car.
Appealing to Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 shows your dependence on the law ordained under the first covenant, and you fail to recognize that the greatest law in the entire covenant relationship was neither spoken by God nor inscribed on tables of stone. I have offered what I believe God's "My law" that isn't according to Sinai refers to, and neither of you have an answer for it. What you're describing here isn't described in Scripture. I also know what Adventism teaches, and you aren't describing that, either. This is something you made up on your own to see if it floats.For the sight impaired no doubt. Um, the Bible. God is love. Will there be any hate tolerated in His Kingdom?
Love neighbor, love God. All the law hangs on these two principles, amember Buckwheat? Before Sinai did God not want love to neighbor and thus love to God? If not then He owes those in the first age an apology.
Victor, your view is so myopic that you can't even see that the basic attributes of God are eternal and thus never change. God is love.
Do you always have to have an exact scripture to figure things out or can you take a little here and a little there and begin to paint a picture of God's character?
You're unfamiliar with how Paul responded to the same argument that you're using, even though I had encouraged you to read Romans 3:7-8 on your own.Victor how is me asking you if it is OK to rape your wife and steal your ride any indication of "a license to hate your brethren"?
News break: the "7th and 8th" are references to the ten commandments, which was the covenant dictated at Mount Sinai. Sinai is according to Sinai, in case that basic fact eludes you. That law is not written on anyone's heart or mind as a promise in the new covenant, and that is borne out in Paul's observation that the Gentiles "show the work of the law written in their hearts" prior to the new covenant in Romans 2:15, showing that it wasn't a new covenant promise anyway. You have made no effort to determine what God's "My law" that isn't according to Sinai refers to.It's obvious that these are still considered crimes in most every civilized country in the world and as such is a very good indication that the 7th and 8th commandments are still in effect. Written on the heart if you will.
You aren't honest, and you continue to appeal to a premise that has been demonstrated to be false according to Scripture.Instead of being honest and answering the question directly, which would condemn your premise to begin with, you have to try and twist things and put it on me. Nice.
Your argument is flawed bro.Your argument is flawed bro. I do have to say this however for I hope it never happens to you or any member of your family. I pray that your car is never stolen or that your wife is never attacked because you would thus make yourself a hypocrite to then consider those crimes and call the cops, in that you believe the law has been done away with.
In your book rape and stealing aren't crimes anymore. My pointing out to they are makes me the one that hates the brethren.
Welcome to Victor's bizarro world.
News break: the "7th and 8th" are references to the ten commandments, which was the covenant dictated at Mount Sinai. Sinai is according to Sinai, in case that basic fact eludes you. That law is not written on anyone's heart or mind as a promise in the new covenant, and that is borne out in Paul's observation that the Gentiles "show the work of the law written in their hearts" prior to the new covenant in Romans 2:15, showing that it wasn't a new covenant promise anyway. You have made no effort to determine what God's "My law" that isn't according to Sinai refers to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?