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

[BobRyan]

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.

In Mark 7:6-13 Christ Himself argues that the OT text of Ex 20 is not only 'the Word of God" but also the "Commandment of God".

Impossible to imagine that Christ was referring to the writing of Paul.

Even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship accepts the Bible fact regarding OT and the "Commandments of God" applicable to all mankind as the moral law of God from Eden to this very day.

Are all those pro-Sunday scholars -- SDA's in your view?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Cribstyl]

In Mark 7:6-13 Christ Himself argues that the OT text of Ex 20 is not only 'the Word of God" but also the "Commandment of God".

Impossible to imagine that Christ was referring to the writing of Paul.

Even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship accepts the Bible fact regarding OT and the "Commandments of God" applicable to all mankind as the moral law of God from Eden to this very day.

Are all those pro-Sunday scholars -- SDA's in your view?

in Christ,

Bob

When we stop talking about
1cor7, I'll take a seat from this thread thank you.

 

[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.

If "to compare" means: to measure two or more against each other.

So then...

19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

Paul did no such thing.

Until you read 1 Cor 7:17-19.

Being a slave was not compare to being free,

Paul did not say "being a slave is nothing and not being a slave is nothing but what matters is having two hands" or something of that sort - because that would be comparing slavery to having two hands - something both the slave and non-slave may participate in.

And keeping the Commandments of God can be done by those who observe the ceremonial law and by those who do not - and Paul argues that whether or not they are keeping the ceremonial law of circumcision is totally meaningless - but rather the important thing is keeping the moral law of God.

Something so glaringly obvious - that even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship gets this distinction easily - as noted in the OP.

the slave owner.

but rather, both extremes are called.

Most of us would not argue that being a free man rather than slave -- is NOT an example of an "extreme".

Most of us would argue that neither circumcision not uncircumcision "is an extreme".

Again stating the obvious.

Being circumcised was not compared to being uncircumcised, but rather, both extremes are called.

Neither is an extreme. They are simple two groups into which all fell into.

Obviously.

Being single is not compared to being married, but rather, both extremes are called.

Neither is an extreme. They are simply two groups into which all fell into.

But regardless of which of those groups one is in -- "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" according to Paul in 1Cor 7.

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

Until you read 1Cor 7:19.

19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters.

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.

Christ quotes from the Commandments of God in Mark 7:6-13 -- and He is not quoting Paul.

obviously.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting that the false accusations regarding the OP seems to be falling by the wayside. Dying for lack of evidence. I like the trend.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Sophrosyne]

Interesting that the false accusations regarding the OP seems to be falling by the wayside. Dying for lack of evidence. I like the trend.

in Christ,

Bob

More like dying for lack of interest in your style of debating.

 

[listed]

In Mark 7:6-13 Christ Himself argues that the OT text of Ex 20 is not only 'the Word of God" but also the "Commandment of God".

Impossible to imagine that Christ was referring to the writing of Paul.

Even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship accepts the Bible fact regarding OT and the "Commandments of God" applicable to all mankind as the moral law of God from Eden to this very day.

Are all those pro-Sunday scholars -- SDA's in your view?

in Christ,

Bob

If you have not noticed many here do not give a flying flip about the pro-Sunday scholarship.

 

[Sophrosyne]

If you have not noticed many here do not give a flying flip about the pro-Sunday scholarship.

With the term "scholarship" used rather loosely.

 

[listed]

With the term "scholarship" used rather loosely.

True

 

[BobRyan]

If you have not noticed many here do not give a flying flip about the pro-Sunday scholarship.

For those that actually read the posts - it is "instructive" that the OP points out that the ones on this section of the board - that are at war with the Ten Commandments - and who try to pretend that this means "only SDAs notice their problem" in that regard - are in fact at war with all SEVEN of the points listed in the OP - as affirmed by the majority of even pro-sunday scholarship.


Thus it is NOT "just seventh-day Sabbath keeping Christians" that accept the Bible over the war against the Ten Commandments - but even the majority of pro-Sunday scholarship gets to be "opposed" by those who war against God's Ten Commandments.

your post essentially AFFIRMS the point in the OP saying that you would oppose those 7 points.

You cannot refute my OP by agreeing with its statement about your opposition to the SEVEN points listed.

And you have still not ventured to add a single shred of evidence from the OP in support of your false accusation regarding the OP post.

As we may have all suspected would be the case by now.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Several times the OP or some post near it has been falsely accused as being "deceptive" or "dishonest" and each time the response is "please provide a shred of evidence for that false accusation".

So far no takers when it comes to offering a shred of evidence when making those false accusations --

for example...

(from a related Sabbath and the Ten Commandments debate thread -- #162 )
================================================

The Sabbath Commandment is still binding on Christians today and has been applicable to the saints - the people of God from Eden to this very day. This is affirmation of the Commandments of God, of the Sabbath Commandment's origin, of the continued authority of the Sabbath commandment from the Bible in Ex 20:8-11, from Gen 2:1-3, from Mark 2:27, from Is 66:23 from 1Cor 7:19 from 1John 5:1-4, from Mark 7:6-13, from Eph 6:2 from Rev 14:12 ... etc is not only affirmed by Seventh-day Adventists, and not only by other Bible believing Christians who keep the seventh day Sabbath as God gave it to mankind in Eden ... but also by the majority of even pro-sunday Christian scholarship as we see here... #1.

The fiction that it is only the SDAs that see these Bible details is not supportable given the facts in that link and the associated discussion that follows up -- indeed "that ship has sailed" even by the standards of the majority of Christian scholarship.

Thus even MoreCofee is reduced to nothing more than the penguins that suffer the difficulty of "an Antarctican day" in his attempts to oppose

Nice of you to bring this thread up.

You are welcome - sooo many people have mentioned my debate here and supposed that maybe there was a point made here that they would like to reference .... just trying to help out.

Where do you get the idea the Sabbath is binding on the Christian?

The same place the majority of even pro-sunday scholarship get it from --

Gen 2:1-3
Is 66:23 , Mark 2:27 (all mankind)
1Cor 7:19,
1John 5:1-4
Heb 4: 9 So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God
Rev 14:12
Mark 7:6-13

Who is the Sabbath given to?

Mankind - according to God Is 66;23 -- and according to Christ Mark 2:27.

Were you wondering if Jews were part of mankind?

Why did God command the Israelites to keep the Sabbath if it was given to all men

You ask that question is if it is logcal not to ask Israel to keep a Law that all mankind is supposed to keep.

Interesting that the majority of even pro-sunday scholarship does not go to that extreme.

Moses himself does not support your position

Until you read Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11 and notice that it is the Gen 2 event alone - given to mankind that establishes the fact that Christ Himself affirms in Mark 2:27.

Are you are supposing that "I wrote" Mark 2:27??

. See Deut 5:3. Moses does not say all men. He says Israel only.

Deut 5:3 does not say "Israel only is to keep the Commandments of God" nor does it say "Israel only is to keep the Sabbath".

But it does speak of the entire Sinai event - including God speaking from the midst of fire - as being something that Israel only was part of -

4 The Lord spoke to you face to face at the mountain from the midst of the fire, 5 while I was standing between the Lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the Lord; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain. He said,

Hint - that includes "Love your neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18 given at Sinai and also "Love God with all your heart" Deut 6:5

The Sabbath did not originate in Genesis.

God appears to differ with your view when HE says that HE made Sabbath in Eden - see Ex 20:11 speaking of the Eden event.

To use MK 2:27 for support you must divorce it from the context

Not true at all.

There are numerous places in the Bible where God is said to be creator - one can not "delete those statements" because the context is in reference to some message given by a prophet to Israel at a time of rebellion.

The same goes with Mark 2:27 the universal truth given there cannot be "deleted" because it happens to be said in a debate with Jews.

The argument there were non Israelites present

"Non-Israel" is present in Is 66:23 "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship".

"Non Israel" is present in Is 56 when gentiles are blessed for keeping the Sabbath.

"Non Israel" is included in the "Mankind" of Mark 2:27.

Which is the way the scope for "mankind" works -- by definition.

Interesting how even the majority of pro-sunday sources get this Bible detail right.

If God gave the Sabbath to Israel as a sign of the covenant, it would be special. If all mankind were told to observe it, it could have no special meaning to Israel. See Ex 31:13.

On the contrary See Romans 2: refutes that idea - showing that God INClUdes the obedient Gentile in the term "Jew" rather than excluding them.

25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Is 66:23 does not say anything about the Sabbath.

Until you read the text. "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to worship".

interesting that the majority of even pro-sunday scholarship gets this Bible detail.

The verse merely is the way time was referenced. "From ... to" has nothing to do with on.

Until you read the verse - and find TWO cycles given there 'from new Moon to new Moon - AND FROM -- Sabbath to Sabbath"

You are trying to munge it into "daily I just mean daily... every day" as if there was even one Bible argument for such a bend or wrench of the text.

In 1 Cor 7:19 Paul is not teaching nor addressing the 10 Cs the rest of the law.

Until you read 1Cor 7:18 "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" which Christ also affirms in Mark 7:6-13 as a reference to the TEN Commandments.

To take your position Paul is double speaking. Double speaking is lying to deceive. God does not use such a tactic.

Indeed. We all wonder why your argument is meandering down that road to make your point.


you are being sooooo careful not to actually quote these texts... how odd.

As for 1 John 5:1-4 and Rev 14:12 you and John are not referencing the same commandments

Until you read the actual Bible where it is the "Commandments of God" mentioned in both 1John 5:1-4 and Rev 14:12 and by Christ in Mark 7:6-13 when Christ speaks of the TEN Commandments.

as is evident with 1 JN 3:23 and John 1:17 and 15:10.

Not quite true. Post cross 1John 3:23 and pre-cross ( John 1:17 and John 15:10) make no attempt at all to delete scripture.

Concerning MK 7:6-13 Jesus is talking specifically Jews about the law.

Almost all of the Gospel preaching of Christ was to Jews.

If that were the excuse for ignoring Christ we would all have a big problem.

Outside of that context the passage has no meaning. In the USA we have no law or tradition about washing cups and hands is a certain fashion. There is law concerning food handling requiring the washing of hands and to my knowledge only applies in the public preparation of foods at eating establishments or food manufacturing places.

Turns out that is not the point of Mark 7.

To use Eph 6:2 as a proof Paul is teaching and requiring Christians to keep the law is absurd in light of Romans and Galatians.

Until you read Eph 6:2 where we are told to keep the 5th Commandment and that this is the FIRST commandment in that unit of Ten "with a promise".

So then 20 different scriptures above making the case that is soooo obvious that even the majority of your own pro-sunday scholarship notice those Bible details.

only to follup up with this false accusation having not one shred of evidence to support it.

. In short you are being dishonest about the matter. This is intentional. The very commandments you say you uphold condemn you. .... I get very tired of your ignoring Scripture.... You do and will not examine the Scripture. I am stating observable facts and not attacking you.

Your self-conflicted statement is shown to be both an ad hominem false accusation and then a claim in the midst of it -- that you are not doing that.

And this in response to no less than a dozen texts of scripture offered in support of the Bible Ten Commandments -- a post so obvious that even your own pro-sunday scholarship claims to notice those Bible details.

You cannot refute that point so you choose to assemble a response containing false accusations and then claim in the middle of it that you are not doing ... what you are doing.

choose a more compelling form of debate. Choose to follow your false accusation with at least a shred of evidence.

==================================== end of example

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If you have not noticed many here do not give a flying flip about the pro-Sunday scholarship.

I think it is "a given" that those that find themselves in the embarrassing position of wanting to "pretend" that their war against the TEN commandments is just about their dislike of the SDA denomination's stand for the Bible Ten Commandments -- do not want to come to terms with the glaringly obvious fact that even their own PRo-Sunday scholarship debunks their arguments against the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God binding on all the saints to this very day.

The OP even notes this point and shows that Bible Sabbath keeping Christians are in agreement with 6 of the 7 summary points listed - but you and others choose a position that has you in opposition with the Bible and Christians like me that accept the Bible Sabbath as unchanged - and ALSO you are in opposition to the majority of pro-sunday scholarship!!

At some point there would be a wake up call.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[listed]

I think it is "a given" that those that find themselves in the embarrassing position of wanting to "pretend" that their war against the TEN commandments is just about their dislike of the SDA denomination's stand for the Bible Ten Commandments -- do not want to come to terms with the glaringly obvious fact that even their own PRo-Sunday scholarship debunks their arguments against the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God binding on all the saints to this very day.

The OP even notes this point and shows that Bible Sabbath keeping Christians are in agreement with 6 of the 7 summary points listed - but you and others choose a position that has you in opposition with the Bible and Christians like me that accept the Bible Sabbath as unchanged - and ALSO you are in opposition to the majority of pro-sunday scholarship!!

At some point there would be a wake up call.

in Christ,

Bob

First I admire those who will stand up for what they believe.

Second I am not embarrassed by the so called pro-Sunday scholarship as you present them.

Third I am not at war with the 10 Cs. They are not part of the NC as you contend. I could also say pretend.

Fourth it is the SDA people who do not wish to accept the NC demanding works of the amended law for salvation. The Scripture will not support the SDA doctrine or their FBs.

Fifth I have been delivered from your miserable form of Christianity.

Sixth I love full grace and will never go back to law or partial law either in practice or doctrine. My deliverance is full deliverance as the Scripture says.

Seventh I do not associate with your pro-Scholarship religious smut. I belong to none of them and for good reason.

 

[listed]

Several times the OP or some post near it has been falsely accused as being "deceptive" or "dishonest" and each time the response is "please provide a shred of evidence for that false accusation".

So far no takers when it comes to offering a shred of evidence when making those false accusations --

for example...

(from a related Sabbath and the Ten Commandments debate thread -- #162 )
================================================




So then 20 different scriptures above making the case that is soooo obvious that even the majority of your own pro-sunday scholarship notice those Bible details.

only to follup up with this false accusation having not one shred of evidence to support it.




Your self-conflicted statement is shown to be both an ad hominem false accusation and then a claim in the midst of it -- that you are not doing that.

And this in response to no less than a dozen texts of scripture offered in support of the Bible Ten Commandments -- a post so obvious that even your own pro-sunday scholarship claims to notice those Bible details.

You cannot refute that point so you choose to assemble a response containing false accusations and then claim in the middle of it that you are not doing ... what you are doing.

choose a more compelling form of debate. Choose to follow your false accusation with at least a shred of evidence.

==================================== end of example

In Christ,

Bob

Jesus did not teach nor bring the law according to JN 1:17. Jesus gave His own commandments according to JN 15:10.

Refusing to accept Rom 7:6; 10:4; Gal 3-5 is throwing out Scripture and unbelief. You can say that is ad hominem if you like.

I do not give much Scripture because of your attitude toward it. You even throw out quotes from the law, the Psalms and the prophets. You have shown you have little regard for the Scripture especially for one who calls them self a Christian.

 

[BobRyan]

Jesus did not teach nor bring the law according to JN 1:17.

That is not what John 1:17 says

And Christ specifically addresses the argument you are making in Matt 5 saying "think NOT that I came to abolish the Law".

You are trying to "infer" something from John 1:17 that does not work at all. By contrast Jesus actual speaks to the point in Matt 5 - where you avoid it.

Jesus gave His own commandments according to JN 15:10.

John 15:14 "Keep My CommandMENTS"

John 14:15 "Keep My CommandMENTS"

Is it true that Jesus came to set aside the Commandments of God and replace them with the different "Commandment of Jesus"???

John did not thing so.

"2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome." 1John 5:2-3

This is why the majority of even pro-sunday scholarship will not take the short-sighted path of trying to argue against God's Commandments - God's TEN Commandments.

Jesus tells us that one of the Commandments of God - is the 5th commandment in Mark 7:6-13.

Refusing to accept Rom 7:6; 10:4; Gal 3-5 is throwing out Scripture and unbelief. You can say that is ad hominem if you like.

You have never found a single quote of me throwing out Romans 7:6 or 10:4 or Galatians 3 where I keep reminding you that the ONE Gospel of Gal 1 was "preached to Abraham" as we are told in Gal 3.

or that the LAW of Galatians 3 -- the OT Law of the Ten Commandments - according to Galatians 3 holds all the world under the condemnation of sin still to this day as Romans 3 also agrees.

Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God"

No wonder even the majority of pro-Sunday scholarship will not go against the Bible by opposing the TEN Commandments as the moral law of God.

I do not give much more Scripture than this (though at times more) because of your attitude toward it when you are presented with Romans 6, Romans 2, Rom 3:31, 1Cor 7:19 Rev 14:12, James 2, Matt 5, Eph 6:2 you know -- the usual list.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Second I am not embarrassed by the so called pro-Sunday scholarship as you present them.

Third I am not at war with the 10 Cs. They are not part of the NC as you contend. I could also say pretend.

Fourth it is the SDA people who do not wish to accept the NC demanding works of the amended law for salvation. The Scripture will not support the SDA doctrine or their FBs.

...

Seventh I do not associate with your pro-Scholarship religious smut....

It is the SDA people that affirm 6 of the 7 points in the OP that are all affirmed by the majority of your own pro-sunday scholarship. (in that we all agree that pro-sunday scholarship is not another way to say "Seventh-day Adventist" -- by every standard of measure). They get 6 of those points right according to actual scripture, even though they are pro-sunday.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[AndOne]

It is the SDA people that affirm 6 of the 7 points in the OP that are all affirmed by the majority of your own pro-sunday scholarship. (in that we all agree that pro-sunday scholarship is not another way to say "Seventh-day Adventist" -- by every standard of measure). They get 6 of those points right according to actual scripture, even though they are pro-sunday.

in Christ,

Bob

Which one do they get wrong?

 

[listed]

That is not what John 1:17 says

What does it say? I read

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

And Christ specifically addresses the argument you are making in Matt 5 saying "think NOT that I came to abolish the Law".

You are trying to "infer" something from John 1:17 that does not work at all. By contrast Jesus actual speaks to the point in Matt 5 - where you avoid it.

No way. I read

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

This has to be a reference to the Sermon on the Mount.

I also read

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

This can not happen without making God a sinner just like you and me. I find that completely absurd.

I read

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Righteousness used to be established by the law. It does not have that position any longer. What is the difference in abolished and not have any jurisdiction? Jeremiah says that covenant would be replaced. Jesus said it is replaced by a new covenant. What give here?

John 15:14 "Keep My CommandMENTS"

John 14:15 "Keep My CommandMENTS"

Is it true that Jesus came to set aside the Commandments of God and replace them with the different "Commandment of Jesus"???

John did not thing so.

"2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome." 1John 5:2-3

You have a pronoun problem like I used to have. John is not talking about the law. I have shown this with John 15:10. John is talking about His Master Jesus and not Jesus' Father in your reference.

This is why the majority of even pro-sunday scholarship will not take the short-sighted path of trying to argue against God's Commandments - God's TEN Commandments.

Jesus tells us that one of the Commandments of God - is the 5th commandment in Mark 7:6-13.

And I tell you there are 10 commandments recorded in Exodus 20. Number 9 on the line is a favorite child saying. Of course it is a reference to a train, I think.

You have never found a single quote of me throwing out Romans 7:6 or 10:4 or Galatians 3 where I keep reminding you that the ONE Gospel of Gal 1 was "preached to Abraham" as we are told in Gal 3.

On both practice and theory you throw them out.

or that the LAW of Galatians 3 -- the OT Law of the Ten Commandments - according to Galatians 3 holds all the world under the condemnation of sin still to this day as Romans 3 also agrees.

It does not apply to the righteous (Christians) according to the same author.

Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God"

Establish does not mean in force. I certainly acknowledge the existence of the law.

No wonder even the majority of pro-Sunday scholarship will not go against the Bible by opposing the TEN Commandments as the moral law of God.

I do not give much more Scripture than this (though at times more) because of your attitude toward it when you are presented with Romans 6, Romans 2, Rom 3:31, 1Cor 7:19 Rev 14:12, James 2, Matt 5, Eph 6:2 you know -- the usual list.

in Christ,

Bob

I have dealt with your references and quotes with additional Scripture you choose to disregard by various methods negating your claims. I have addressed the definition problems you create for others who do not understand what you are saying. Can I please have the same courtesy from you?

 

[BobRyan]

Matt 5
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;

But listed said -- "Jesus did not teach nor bring the law according to JN 1:17. Jesus gave His own commandments "

How instructive then that the majority of even pro-sunday scholars admit to the Matt 5 Bible facts and do not insert the text of listed's doctrine into John 1:17.

Christ said in Luke 16 that those who refuse to listen to Moses are not really listening to the one who rose from the dead either. And the reason for that is that is seen in Christ's teaching Matt 5 and in Mark 7:6-13 where the Commandments of God are strongly affirmed by Christ - the Giver of the Law.

His position is that the Law is codified in stone at the time of Moses - and Grace comes in flesh in the form of Christ. BOTH remain in the New Covenant where Jeremiah 31:31-33 says that the LAW of God as known to Jeremiah is "written on the heart and mind" and Paul affirms this in Heb 8.

Another Bible point the majority of even pro-sunday scholarship accepts gladly.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Rom 3:31 "do we then make VOID the Law of God by our faith? God forbid!! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law of God"
​

Establish does not mean in force. I certainly acknowledge the existence of the law.

Paul does not say that as Christians "we admit the Law exists". He argues that our FAITH establishes the Law of God and we see that in Rev 14:12 in the case of the "saints who KEEP the Commandments of God AND their Faith in Jesus".

Another point that the OP would find affirmed in the case of even the majority of pro-sunday scholarship.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Second I am not embarrassed by the so called pro-Sunday scholarship as you present them.

Third I am not at war with the 10 Cs. They are not part of the NC as you contend. I could also say pretend.

Fourth it is the SDA people who do not wish to accept the NC demanding works of the amended law for salvation. The Scripture will not support the SDA doctrine or their FBs.

...

Seventh I do not associate with your pro-Scholarship religious smut....

It is the SDA people that affirm 6 of the 7 points in the OP that are all affirmed by the majority of your own pro-sunday scholarship. (in that we all agree that pro-sunday scholarship is not another way to say "Seventh-day Adventist" -- by every standard of measure). They get 6 of those points right according to actual scripture, even though they are pro-sunday.

Which one do they get wrong?

According to the OP they get the 7th point wrong. page 1, post 1 and 4... #1 click here.

Posters such as listed, victor etc - argue that those pro-sunday scholars get all 7 points wrong - so there are at least two camps for the pro-sunday idea. But it appears that by far the larger one is what we find in the OP. We agree with 6 of their 7 points while their fellow pro-sunday peers in the "other group" oppose all SEVEN of those points.

in Christ,

Bob