Irrefutable evidence of 4th Commandment support by pro-Sunday sources

[Angelquill]

Let me just say, for everyone's benefit, that reading over Gramma's shoulder when she's on the 'puter just became everyone's favorite pastime. What can I say...kids is kids...
So, please, ladies and gentlemen...could we all try to show these little ones...mine, that we all know are gonna be "eavesdropping" till the heat dies down...and who knows how many more that might be peeking over other shoulders...could we pretty please, try our very best to show them what a community of Christians ought to be?

And, yes...I am including myself. I am very much aware that I have often posted in too much haste, without giving enough thought to how I might sound to other people.
Yesterday's fiasco taught me a very valuable lesson.

I only pray we can ALL benefit from it.

 

[Cribstyl]

Some posters know that these threads are designed to stay on the topic of the Original Post (OP). When the OP poster request we go back to topic, that request should be honored or we'll have chaos.

 

[BobRyan]

Some posters know that these threads are designed to stay on the topic of the Original Post (OP). When the OP poster request we go back to topic, that request should be honored or we'll have chaos.

Agreed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,"the rest that REMAINS" according to Paul in Heb4 is God's rest from creation. This proves that God's rest and the weekly Sabbath is not the same.
The context says plainly, that those who got the first invite, did not enter because of unbelief.
Now you chose to embellish by isolating for word value, and I expect denial or ignore to respond against to facts.

in true "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19 fashion.
​

Here we go again with your embellishments with keywords from isolated texts. Anyone who reads all of 1Cor 7 can know that Paul was giving Godly and personal counsel about women issues that the Corinthian had questions about. So 'commandment of God' in this context is not your ten commandments. Why are you so desperate to mishandle God's word with no shame?

In 1Cor 7 Paul compares the ceremonial law regarding circumcision to the moral law of the Commandments of God - and so this clear distinction is also firmly stated and admitted by the pro-sunday scholarship noted in the OP.

In Heb 4, in Gen 2:1-3, in Ex 20:11 all affirm God's rest on the 7th day and apply this to mankind -- just as does Paul in his "there remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God".

And Christ in Mark 2:27 also applies it to all mankind "Sabbath was made for mankind".

As does God in Is 66:23 "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all Mankind come before Me to Worship".

An "all mankind" scope in both NT and OT not missed by those in the OP.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Cribstyl]

Here we go again with your embellishments with keywords from isolated texts. Anyone who reads all of 1Cor 7 can know that Paul was giving Godly and personal counsel about women issues that the Corinthian had questions about. So 'commandment of God' in this context is not your ten commandments. Why are you so desperate to mishandle God's word with no shame?

In 1Cor 7 Paul compares the ceremonial law regarding circumcision to the moral law of the Commandments of God - and so this clear distinction is also firmly stated and admitted by the pro-sunday scholarship noted in the OP.

Prove it BP. You dont want to admit that the commandments in question were about relationship issues
1 Corinthians 7 New King James Version (NKJV)
Principles of Marriage

7 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Keep Your Marriage Vows

10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
Live as You Are Called

17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.
To the Unmarried and Widows

25 Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy. 26 I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is: 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31 and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away.
32 But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. 33 But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife. 34 There is[a] a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. 35 And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction.
36 But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry. 37 Nevertheless he who stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will, and has so determined in his heart that he will keep his virgin,[b] does well. 38 So then he who gives her[c] in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better.
39 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord. 40 But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment—and I think I also have the Spirit of God.

 

[listed]

In 1Cor 7 Paul compares the ceremonial law regarding circumcision to the moral law of the Commandments of God - and so this clear distinction is also firmly stated and admitted by the pro-sunday scholarship noted in the OP.

In Heb 4, in Gen 2:1-3, in Ex 20:11 all affirm God's rest on the 7th day and apply this to mankind -- just as does Paul in his "there remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God".

And Christ in Mark 2:27 also applies it to all mankind "Sabbath was made for mankind".

As does God in Is 66:23 "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all Mankind come before Me to Worship".

An "all mankind" scope in both NT and OT not missed by those in the OP.

in Christ,

Bob

Could the OP misunderstand the people referenced in his OP? I think the OP is at least misrepresenting them for the purpose of deception if not misunderstanding them. I think if the OP misunderstands them the OP is not interested in understanding them as evidenced in this thread and through out CF.

 

[BobRyan]

Could the OP misunderstand the people referenced in his OP?

If we note "the details" in the OP where each point is singled out and numbered for us - then we observe that it is 100% accurate and that no actual "detail" has been found so far to be in error even by those strongly opposed to God's TEN Commandments.

I think the OP is at least misrepresenting them for the purpose of deception

Interesting accusation - did you have an actual "detail" in the OP where that accusation holds up?

Or are you content to simply surmise the accusation sans-all-details.

Such a strongly worded false accusation yet no apparent interest in providing a shred of detail from the OP in support of that accusation?

Really??

That practice should pass for objective debate?

Might you be violating a CF board rule by using such a tactic?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In 1Cor 7 Paul compares the ceremonial law regarding circumcision to the moral law of the Commandments of God - and so this clear distinction is also firmly stated and admitted by the pro-sunday scholarship noted in the OP.

In Heb 4, in Gen 2:1-3, in Ex 20:11 all affirm God's rest on the 7th day and apply this to mankind -- just as does Paul in his "there remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God".

And Christ in Mark 2:27 also applies it to all mankind "Sabbath was made for mankind".

As does God in Is 66:23 "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall all Mankind come before Me to Worship".

An "all mankind" scope in both NT and OT not missed by those in the OP.

And even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship as noted in the OP strongly affirm the TEN Commandments while a few here on this board oppose all 7 points listed.

Prove it BP. You dont want to admit that the commandments in question were about relationship issues

The entire TEN Commandments are about "relationship issues" - love for God and Love for our neighbor.

Is this a red herring you are offering as an excuse for ignoring Paul's "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"??

In making that statement Paul compares the ceremonial law of circumcision to the moral law of COMMANDMENTS of God.

17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.
.

Clearly this text does not allow us an excuse for ignoring the strong support we find for the "Commandments of God" in vs 19 as they are compared to the ceremonial law of "circumcision".

A point not lost on the majority of even pro-sunday scholarship as noted in the OP.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[listed]

If we note "the details" in the OP where each point is singled out and numbered for us - then we observe that it is 100% accurate and that no actual "detail" has been found so far to be in error even by those strongly opposed to God's TEN Commandments.


Interesting accusation - did you have an actual "detail" in the OP where that accusation holds up?

Or are you content to simply surmise the accusation sans-all-details.

Such a strongly worded false accusation yet no apparent interest in providing a shred of detail from the OP in support of that accusation?

Really??

That practice should pass for objective debate?

Might you be violating a CF board rule by using such a tactic?

in Christ,

Bob

I have read this site and particularly this subject content for several years and make well founded observations. You pretend yesterday did not happen. Unfortunately we have a record not in your favor.

 

[listed]

If we note "the details" in the OP where each point is singled out and numbered for us - then we observe that it is 100% accurate and that no actual "detail" has been found so far to be in error even by those strongly opposed to God's TEN Commandments.


Interesting accusation - did you have an actual "detail" in the OP where that accusation holds up?

Or are you content to simply surmise the accusation sans-all-details.

Such a strongly worded false accusation yet no apparent interest in providing a shred of detail from the OP in support of that accusation?

Really??

That practice should pass for objective debate?

Might you be violating a CF board rule by using such a tactic?

in Christ,

Bob

I have read this site and particularly this subject content for several years and make well founded observations. You pretend yesterday did not happen. Unfortunately we have a record not in your favor.

Why do you resort to partial quotes of even a sentence?

 

[BobRyan]

Could the OP misunderstand the people referenced in his OP?

If we note "the details" in the OP where each point is singled out and numbered for us - then we observe that it is 100% accurate and that no actual "detail" has been found so far to be in error even by those strongly opposed to God's TEN Commandments.

I think the OP is at least misrepresenting them for the purpose of deception

Interesting accusation - did you have an actual "detail" in the OP where that accusation holds up?

Or are you content to simply surmise the accusation sans-all-details.

Such a strongly worded false accusation yet no apparent interest in providing a shred of detail from the OP in support of that accusation?

Really??

That practice should pass for objective debate?

Might you be violating a CF board rule by using such a tactic?

I have read this site and particularly this subject content for several years and make well founded observations. You pretend yesterday did not happen. Unfortunately we have a record not in your favor.

Why do you resort to partial quotes of even a sentence?

You choose to continue to not provide a shred of "detail" from the OP in support of your false accusation - as if that satisfies you. Well if it does then just know that I prefer actual facts by contrast - as noted in the post of mine - listed above.

When you find some detail in the OP that actually supports the false accusation you made - be sure and let us know. As it stands now you seem to have no interest in providing actual facts to go along with your false accusations.

But to be fair to you -- I think we can all assume that you would be honest enough to provide actual facts if you had them.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[listed]

You choose to continue to not provide a shred of "detail" from the OP in support of your false accusation - as if that satisfies you. Well if it does then just know that I prefer actual facts by contrast - as noted in the post of mine - listed above.

When you find some detail in the OP that actually supports the false accusation you made - be sure and let us know. As it stands now you seem to have no interest in providing actual facts to go along with your false accusations.

But to be fair to you -- I think we can all assume that you would be honest enough to provide actual facts if you had them.


in Christ,

Bob

They have already been provided to you. I see no sense in c&p something every time you wish to present something. What you are doing amounts to spam. It is why you changed some of your material to your signature. I do not recall any new material quoted by you in this thread. You do refer to some past posts without reference though.

 

[BobRyan]

They have already been provided to you.

Just not on this thread??

Just not on any thread that you care to link to??

Why make the false accusation here about the OP on this thread if you have no inclination to support your false accusation with something like an actual fact??

Don't you think that is a little too transparently obvious regarding the lack of support for the false accusation you make about the OP on this thread?

really??

If one is going to make such strong false accusations regarding the OP - one should be willing to provide a shred of fact to go with it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Cribstyl]

Clearly this text does not allow us an excuse for ignoring the strong support we find for the "Commandments of God" in vs 19 as they are compared to the ceremonial law of "circumcision".



Bob

Originally Posted by Cribstyl View Post
Prove it BP. You dont want to admit that the commandments in question were about relationship issues

The entire TEN Commandments are about "relationship issues" - love for God and Love for our neighbor.

Is this a red herring you are offering as an excuse for ignoring Paul's "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God"??

In making that statement Paul compares the ceremonial law of circumcision to the moral law of COMMANDMENTS of God.



17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.
.
Clearly this text does not allow us an excuse for ignoring the strong support we find for the "Commandments of God" in vs 19 as they are compared to the ceremonial law of "circumcision".

Read it again, you're twisting the facts. There is no comparing of any of the situations that Paul mentioned. By isolating those text from the chapter you're still wrong in your supposition.
What does it mean to be called to be circumcised? What does it mean to be called to be uncircumcised? What does it mean to be called as a slave? What does it means to be called as free? What does it mean to be called as married? What does it mean to be called as a single person?

Your war is against the fact that Christian are called primarily in uncircumcision. So the commandments of God in this context is not the law, unless we're all called to be circumcised. Anyone who read the entire chapter, knows that Paul is referring to commandment from God about questions the Corinthians wanted clarification.
1Co 7:1
¶
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

 

[BobRyan]

In making this 1Cor 7:17-19 statement Paul compares the ceremonial law of circumcision to the moral law of COMMANDMENTS of God.



17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.
.
Clearly this text does not allow us an excuse for ignoring the strong support we find for the "Commandments of God" in vs 19 as they are compared to the ceremonial law of "circumcision".

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

Read it again, you're twisting the facts. There is no comparing of any of the situations that Paul mentioned. By isolating those text from the chapter you're still wrong in your supposition.
What does it mean to be called to be circumcised? What does it mean to be called to be uncircumcised? What does it mean to be called as a slave? What does it means to be called as free? What does it mean to be called as married? What does it mean to be called as a single person?

Your war is against the fact that Christian are called primarily in uncircumcision. So the commandments of God in this context is not the law, unless we're all called to be circumcised. Anyone who read the entire chapter, knows that Paul is referring to commandment from God about questions the Corinthians wanted clarification.
1Co 7:1

again 'you quote you" to make your case while ignoring "the details" in 1Cor 7:17-19

"1 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it;". That is about real physical human slavery vs freedom -- being married is not slavery, being a Jew is not slavery. Being a gentile is not slavery.

" 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised."

Even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship in the OP "notice the details" that you are ignoring -- namely that the comparison of circumcision to the "Commandments of God" is a comparison between ceremonial law ended - and moral law continued which are the "Commandments of God".

It is not "just SDAs" that notice these Bible details.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[listed]

Just not on this thread??

Just not on any thread that you care to link to??

Why make the false accusation here about the OP on this thread if you have no inclination to support your false accusation with something like an actual fact??

Don't you think that is a little too transparently obvious regarding the lack of support for the false accusation you make about the OP on this thread?

really??

If one is going to make such strong false accusations regarding the OP - one should be willing to provide a shred of fact to go with it.

in Christ,

Bob

Seems like only yesterday you had a similar conversation with from scratch who did provide quotes. You played the same tune then also.

 

[listed]

In making this 1Cor 7:17-19 statement Paul compares the ceremonial law of circumcision to the moral law of COMMANDMENTS of God.



17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.
.
Clearly this text does not allow us an excuse for ignoring the strong support we find for the "Commandments of God" in vs 19 as they are compared to the ceremonial law of "circumcision".

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

again 'you quote you" to make your case while ignoring "the details" in 1Cor 7:17-19

"1 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it;". That is about real physical human slavery vs freedom -- being married is not slavery, being a Jew is not slavery. Being a gentile is not slavery.

" 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised."

Even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship in the OP "notice the details" that you are ignoring -- namely that the comparison of circumcision to the "Commandments of God" is a comparison between ceremonial law ended - and moral law continued which are the "Commandments of God".

It is not "just SDAs" that notice these Bible details.

in Christ,

Bob

Sorry but circumcision is not a ceremony.

 

[Cribstyl]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

In making this 1Cor 7:17-19 statement Paul compares the ceremonial law of circumcision to the moral law of COMMANDMENTS of God.



17 But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. 20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. 22 For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24 Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called.
.
Clearly this text does not allow us an excuse for ignoring the strong support we find for the "Commandments of God" in vs 19 as they are compared to the ceremonial law of "circumcision".

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

again 'you quote you" to make your case while ignoring "the details" in 1Cor 7:17-19

"1 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it;". That is about real physical human slavery vs freedom -- being married is not slavery, being a Jew is not slavery. Being a gentile is not slavery.

" 18 Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised."

Even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship in the OP "notice the details" that you are ignoring -- namely that the comparison of circumcision to the "Commandments of God" is a comparison between ceremonial law ended - and moral law continued which are the "Commandments of God".

It is not "just SDAs" that notice these Bible details.

in Christ,

Bob
​

If "to compare" means: to measure two or more against each other.
Paul did no such thing.
Being a slave was not compare to being free, but rather, both extremes are called.
Being circumcised was not compared to being uncircumcised, but rather, both extremes are called.
Being single is not compared to being married, but rather, both extremes are called.

There is no comparecent of the law to circumcision because circumcison means your must keep the law.

You dont want to admit that being circumcized means being under of the law, and being uncircumcized means not being under the law.

We can agree that keeping the commandment of God is what matters because there are plenty of commandments listed by Paul in this context and elsewhere. We wont agree that Paul is talking exclussively about the ten commandments.

 

[BobRyan]

Could the OP misunderstand the people referenced in his OP?

If we note "the details" in the OP where each point is singled out and numbered for us - then we observe that it is 100% accurate and that no actual "detail" has been found so far to be in error even by those strongly opposed to God's TEN Commandments.

I think the OP is at least misrepresenting them for the purpose of deception

Interesting accusation - did you have an actual "detail" in the OP where that accusation holds up?

Or are you content to simply surmise the accusation sans-all-details.

Such a strongly worded false accusation yet no apparent interest in providing a shred of detail from the OP in support of that accusation?

Really??

That practice should pass for objective debate?

Might you be violating a CF board rule by using such a tactic?

I have read this site and particularly this subject content for several years and make well founded observations. You pretend yesterday did not happen. Unfortunately we have a record not in your favor.

Why do you resort to partial quotes of even a sentence?

You choose to continue to not provide a shred of "detail" from the OP in support of your false accusation - as if that satisfies you. Well if it does then just know that I prefer actual facts by contrast - as noted in the post of mine - listed above.

When you find some detail in the OP that actually supports the false accusation you made - be sure and let us know. As it stands now you seem to have no interest in providing actual facts to go along with your false accusations.

But to be fair to you -- I think we can all assume that you would be honest enough to provide actual facts if you had them.

They have already been provided to you.

Just not on this thread??

Just not on any thread that you care to link to??

Why make the false accusation here about the OP on this thread if you have no inclination to support your false accusation with something like an actual fact??

Don't you think that is a little too transparently obvious regarding the lack of support for the false accusation you make about the OP on this thread?

really??

If one is going to make such strong false accusations regarding the OP - one should be willing to provide a shred of fact to go with it.
[/quote]

In the above email exchange we see a new false accusation by "listed" regarding the OP of THIS thread - -- and when asked for a shred of evidence in support of it we get ...nada.

Seems like only yesterday you had a similar conversation with from scratch who did provide quotes. You played the same tune then also.

scratch was never able to find a shred of evidence for his false accusation regarding the OP of that other thread.

The two of you seem to be at least consistent in that regard.

so then ... is "now" a good time for you to provide at least a shred of actual detail from the OP regarding your false accusation made on THIS thread about THIS OP??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry but circumcision is not a ceremony.

The Bible includes it in the ceremonial law.

Paul includes it in the ceremonial law in 1Cor 7;17-19.

And so also do the majority of even pro-sunday scholars as noted in the OP.

Your argument is with the text.

in Christ,

Bob