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.
That is one thing you don't want. You intent to refute all truth to maintain your position. Jesus even raised the dead even after four days and still the Jews asked for a sign that He was the Christ. You were given, the dead was raised and still you ask for a sign.Complaining won't do you any good. We want a solid irrefutable defense of your position. So far its absent.
No I do want that very thing. I want irrefutable proof. That means you explain exactly what the Bible says. No assumptions and no claiming things as facts without evidence. No saying new means renewed, amended, refurbished etc. You simply can't do it.That is one thing you don't want. You intent to refute all truth to maintain your position. Jesus even raised the dead even after four days and still the Jews asked for a sign that He was the Christ. You were given, the dead was raised and still you ask for a sign.
Personally I find the real issue is refusing to believe Moses, the prophets and most importantly Jesus and the Apostles.Don't be too surprised that the response to your Bible-based position is to think up some ad hominem retort against you personally. That is just so much to be "expected" when they run out of logical responses.
The other option for the failed arguments against God's Sabbath is to imagine some false either or fallacy "Would you rather have Christ or the command to love one another" or "Christ or God's Sabbath rest" idea placing them in opposition.
Simplistic fallacies are to be expected as the only resort left to the arguments against God's Sabbath.
in Christ,
Bob
The real fact is Saturday evening isn't the Sabbath. You wish it to be while even practicing the Sabbath is over at dusk. You still want to call it the Sabbath and deny its the first day of the week because it isn't yet our Sunday. You're double speaking which is really a lie.The fact is that the text says it is in the evening - and that midnight was also included in this " week-day-1" statement for the meeting.
And in the Bible - fact is that the evening of week-day-1 is what we today call Saturday evening.
Which means the plan was to travel all day Sunday - and have Christian worship on Saturday - or at the very least - Saturday evening.
No escaping that.
in Christ,
Bob
It doesn't come as a surprise to find you calling argumentum ad hominem posts "Bible-based", nor does it come as a surprise to find you urging others to reject God's redemption. However, mmksparbud contradicted herself in her post, and it remains her decision whether or not she wants to rectify her own contradiction. You can't help her.Don't be too surprised that the response to your Bible-based position is to think up some ad hominem retort against you personally. That is just so much to be "expected" when they run out of logical responses.
The other option for the failed arguments against God's Sabbath is to imagine some false either or fallacy "Would you rather have Christ or the command to love one another" or "Christ or God's Sabbath rest" idea placing them in opposition.
Simplistic fallacies are to be expected as the only resort left to the arguments against God's Sabbath.
in Christ,
Bob
It stands up! Denial is the problem!No truth will save a man who denies it. Why do you think Jesus said things like, "they gave eye but do not see? It Got so bad that Jesus spoke in parables. Mark 4:No I do want that very thing. I want irrefutable proof. That means you explain exactly what the Bible says. No assumptions and no claiming things as facts without evidence. No saying new means renewed, amended, refurbished etc. You simply can't do it.
You want everyone to except without question anything you say. If it won't stand up to examination it isn't the truth.
I don't think so Elder. I asked and made an honest request. Look at what I got for a response. Nothing but a request for me to believe what you say without examination. I look for facts of your argument/defense and get nothing solid. What I get is refusal to accept common definitions and clear statements. My recent quoting of Moses and the prophets is a great example. Why no refutation. A your wrong statement won't do the trick. Neither will not responding to them. Like VictorC often notices and states, what he says is ignored or taken as a personal attack. I need you to show me why I'm wrong.That is one thing you don't want. You intent to refute all truth to maintain your position. Jesus even raised the dead even after four days and still the Jews asked for a sign that He was the Christ. You were given, the dead was raised and still you ask for a sign.
OK you can imply I'm ignorant all you want. That doesn't aid you position and is off topic to boot.It stands up! Denial is the problem!No truth will save a man who denies it. Why do you think Jesus said things like, "they gave eye but do not see? It Got so bad that Jesus spoke in parables. Mark 4:
10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
It doesn't come as a surprise to find you calling argumentum ad hominem posts "Bible-based", nor does it come as a surprise to find you urging others to reject God's redemption. .
So far you say the 7th day of creation is the Sabbath. Yet Moses doesn't say that anywhere.
As does the actual Bible.Yes you'll quote and say Ex 20:8-11 says its the 7th day
Jesus alone was sinless. Thus fulfilling the law to love God and love our neighbor.A favorite passage of yours is Mat 5:17. What's the point of Jesus fulfilling the law if everyone also has to fulfill the law?
Why do you choose to make up something like that - about a poster on this board?The Old Testament teaches substitutionary atonement via innocent blood sacrifices. Yet you won't accept this substitutionary aspect
By contrast the actual Bible says that the LAW of God defines sin - as we see in 1John 3:4 and in Romans 4 and 5 where we are reminded that where there is no law there is no sin.How is Gal 5 referring to the law as a requirement by naming selected sins? This simply isn't a reference to the law
Paul says "Where there is no law there is no sin".. Paul said sin was before the law;
Moses is not the author of scripture - God is -- see 2Tim 3:16 and 2Peter 1;20-21.Why don't you understand Jesus is agreeing with Moses in MK 2:27
They most certainly are included in the Law of God - even the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below admit to this obvious fact.Why do you say the Ten Commandments aren't the law
Until you read Gen 26:5Abraham didn't keep the Ten Commandments as you claim Gen 26:5 says.
What exactly do the words wherefore and therefore mean?Until you actually read the Bible in places like Gen 2:1-3 and Ex 20:11.
I don't think they say what you explain them to say. Remember Bugkiller using the very same sources showing the context from those people meaning Sunday and not Saturday. The ones Bugkiller c & p all worshipped on Sunday. Not a single one of them admitted to keeping the 7th day Sabbath as you contend. So in fact they don't support the 7th day Sabbath.What is amazing is that even the pro-sunday sources at the signature line below understand this obvious Bible point.
Such as... Essentially I don't know what you're talking about without an example from a post of mine.You cannot simply take the statements of the Bible and prefix them with your "not" -- as if this truly gets them to stand on their head. It does not work - even your fellow sunday-keeping sources won't go to such extremes or condone such tactics.
No sir I don't add to the Bible. It seems you refuse to deal with the words wherefore and therefore. You claim that Ex 20 says the 7th day of creation is the Sabbath. That isn't supportable from the Bible. Mose had the option of saying Sabbath in Gen 2 and didn't use that word. So is Moses talking about the Sabbath in Gen 2 or is Moses talking about the7th day of creation? Ex 20 doesn't say the 7th day of creation is the Sabbath. If you can prove me wrong with an interlinear, go for it. Please c & p with a link.As does the actual Bible.
Meanwhile you argue for the insert of the word "not" into the text.
If Jesus did this, why do you insist we also fulfill the law? Do you believe in the substitutionary innocent blood sacrifice for sin?Jesus alone was sinless. Thus fulfilling the law to love God and love our neighbor.
Which means specifically what to you? Do you mean the Ten Commandments? Is this what Paul is talking about? Or is Paul in league with John on this point? What exactly do I mean?Paul says to the saints "what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19
The Psalms (14 and 53) say no one is. Paul concurs in Rom 3:23. Paul doesn't say anywhere the Christian can achieve this in the flesh. Nor does Paul anywhere endorse keeping the law. What does Isaiah say about our righteousness? Filthy rags. Do you know what filthy rags are? Do you know what is done with them?Paul says only the lost are unable to keep God's Law Rom 8:5-8.
You're saying the Ten Commandments. The text doesn't imply this at all. Read my above verses.John says the saints show that they truly love God by keeping God's Commandments 1 John 5:1-4
Because its true. You both say the Christian must fulfill the law in the flesh with their carcass in a pew on Saturday. There simply is not such requirement in the New Testament or covenant requiring such behavior of the Christian.Why do you choose to make up something like that - about a poster on this board?
Why do you overlook my comment on what the Old Testament teaches about substitutionary atonement? Instead you want to make it strictly a personal vendetta. What do you believe?Making stuff up about someone who is exposing the point of your argument that flatly contradicts the Bible - does not help support your view.
How often has the word also in that verse been pointed out and ignored? The law didn't invent sin. Sin was before the law - Rom 5:13. Why do you ignore this fact? This verse states the law was added because of sin -By contrast the actual Bible says that the LAW of God defines sin - as we see in 1John 3:4 and in Romans 4 and 5 where we are reminded that where there is no law there is no sin.
No sir that's part of a sentence. Hers' what Paul says -Paul says "Where there is no law there is no sin".
Which verse specifically are you talking about? I don't see what you seem to say.Paul points to the formal writing of the law on stone in Gal 3 as the giving of the law.
What does Moses say about the Sabbath? You can argue all you want that Moses said or wrote nothing. Moses was God's mouth piece here unless you're contending that God actually wrote Genesis to Deuteronomy.I think we all knew that.
Moses is not the author of scripture - God is -- see 2Tim 3:16 and 2Peter 1;20-21.
Christ was agreeing with scripture in Mark 2:27 - with God.
Why do you continue to over look the word "new" and the phrase "Not according to..."? Please explain how that means exactly the same.They most certainly are included in the Law of God - even the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below admit to this obvious fact.
And that law is "written on the heart and mind" under the New Covenant as we see in Jer 31:31-33.
Yes that's exactly what I said.I beg you to put up. You must agree with the whole Bible. Its not self contradictory as it seems you assume and make it.
What does Moses say -Until you read Gen 26:5
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and My Laws.
- Genesis 26:5 because Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My laws.”
- Leviticus 26:3 If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments so as to carry them out,
- Leviticus 26:15 if, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant,
Laws that were not written in stone until the time of Moses.
So is Moses talking about the Sabbath in Gen 2 or is Moses talking about the7th day of creation?
Do you believe in the substitutionary innocent blood sacrifice for sin?
Until you read what John said in 1John 5:1-417 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
These verse show without a doubt John isn't talking about the Ten Commandments.
You both say the Christian must fulfill the law
FromScratch said:A favorite passage of yours is Mat 5:17. What's the point of Jesus fulfilling the law if everyone also has to fulfill the law?
FromScratch said:Why do you say the Ten Commandments aren't the law
BobRyan said:They most certainly are included in the Law of God - even the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below admit to this obvious fact.
And that law is "written on the heart and mind" under the New Covenant as we see in Jer 31:31-33.
FromScratch said:Why do you continue to over look the word "new" and the phrase "Not according to..."? Please explain how that means exactly the same.
3 The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.
4 The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire,
5 (I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to shew you the word of the Lord: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount saying,
6 I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me.
8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth:
9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,
10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.
11 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee....
Who is Abraham identified as? Is he not one of their father's? The Jews told Jesus he was.
In your dreams maybe.They are the same thing according to God in Ex 20:11.
I thought we all knew that by now.
Do you believe Jesus fulfilled the law for your or do you believe you must fulfill the law yourself? BTW where did the scribes and Pharisees get their righteousness from? And what does Jesus say about the righteousness required? Something about exceeding, I believe.obviously I do. Why do you ask?
Yeah I forgot about 1 JN 3:23.Until you read what John said in 1John 5:1-4
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. 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. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the worldour faith.
I think that too has been pointed out possibly a dozen times.
Are you trying to say you don't have to keep the law for some reason?I assume you are quoting me somehow...
Or are you quoting Paul in Romans 13?
Please clarify.
Nope!!! I don't complain to you in my posts.Maybe you were trying to followup on this
[/INDENT]
Jesus alone was sinless. Thus fulfilling the law to love God and love our neighbor.
Paul says to the saints "what matters is Keeping the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19
Paul says only the lost are unable to keep God's Law Rom 8:5-8.
John says the saints show that they truly love God by keeping God's Commandments 1 John 5:1-4
Where you complaining about this in some way??
The point of the Gospel and the New Covenant is the law is a has been and isn't part of it according to the prophets. Also interesting it isn't part of the New Covenant based on better promises instead of law.====================================
The point is that the Law of God is contained in the New Covenant and that contrary to your prior assertion - God's Law does include the Ten commandments- did you miss that again?
in Christ,
Bob
In your dreams maybe.Do you believe Jesus fulfilled the law for your or do you believe you must fulfill the law yourself? BTW where did the scribes and Pharisees get their righteousness from? And what does Jesus say about the righteousness required? Something about exceeding, I believe.Yeah I forgot about 1 JN 3:23.Are you trying to say you don't have to keep the law for some reason?Nope!!! I don't complain to you in my posts.
Since you visit 1 Cor 7:19 I'll ask you if the cross matters, or if all that matters is the law? This seems to say you don't need Jesus to get into heaven. Its just another out of context proof text which are called lies.The point of the Gospel and the New Covenant is the law is a has been and isn't part of it according to the prophets. Also interesting it isn't part of the New Covenant based on better promises instead of law.
They are the same thing according to God in Ex 20:11.
In your dreams maybe.
Yes - He loved God with all of His heart Deut 6:5 and Loved his Neighbor as himself Lev 19:18 -- perfectly.Do you believe Jesus fulfilled the law for you
I believe the Law is written on the heart and mind under the new covenant - not 'thrown under a bus'.or do you believe you must fulfill the law yourself?
Are you wanting to insert the word "NOT" into 1Cor 7:19??Since you visit 1 Cor 7:19 I'll ask you if the cross matters, or if all that matters is the law?
Nobody seems to say that - but you on these threads?This seems to say you don't need Jesus to get into heaven.
Until you actually read the New Covenant where God says "I will write my LAW on their heart and on their mind".The point of the Gospel and the New Covenant is the law is a has been and isn't part of it
You love to talk about it without actually quoting it because you are at with the statement in the "actual" New Covenant that saysaccording to the prophets. Also interesting it isn't part of the New Covenant based on better promises instead of law.
Nothing more than a deflection and refusal to deal with the covenant. What I said has anything to do with taking or receiving the land of Palestine (the promised land).Moses pointed out that the nation of Israel that would then take possession of the land of Caanan had received a covenant from God that not even Abraham had received for Israel would be given the land -- and Abraham was given almost none of it.
This was a first - because none of their forefathers were given permission to take the land as their own possession. Even Moses wanted to go into the land of Canaan and was not able.
But ... I guess we all knew that already -- so not sure what your point is -- unless you are trying to claim that it was not a sin to murder until Sinai..
Of course we know that is not true once we read Genesis 4.
in Christ,
Bob
You make assumptions and assert things that aren't present in those passages.[They are the same thing according to God in Ex 20:11.
I thought we all knew that by now.
At least for those who take the time to actually read Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 as even the pro-sunday sources listed in my signature line will admit.
Abandon what? Are you trying to say since I don't say something in every post I abandon it?So without showing your point has substance you will now just abandon it??
What on earth are you blubbering about with the above questions? Where did I bait and switch? No I'm not looking for something that will work. I don't use your tactics.really?
Bait and switch?
Casting about you for something that will work?
Why not take your own point seriously - and show that it stands up to the details in the text instead of having to insert "not" into the text at almost every turn?
Certainly! So why do you play them?Yes - He loved God with all of His heart Deut 6:5 and Loved his Neighbor as himself Lev 19:18 -- perfectly.
His perfect obedience stands in the place of my faulty attempts to follow as He calls all the saints to follow - when I am compared to that still-valid perfect standard of the law of God.
I believe the Law is written on the heart and mind under the new covenant - not 'thrown under a bus'.
As Paul said "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1Cor 7:19.
And as John said "the saints are those who KEEP the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12.
No amount of "word games" will change these basic obvious points regarding the saints and the Law of God.
Knew what?I think we all knew that.
We have a cow pie throwing contest here at the state fair. You stand a great chance of winning.Certainly the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below appear to know it.
No. Are you implying that I promote sin? You keep saying that I'm doing such.Are you wanting to insert the word "NOT" into 1Cor 7:19??
No! Paul is right as badly as you wish to discredit him as a false teacher. What do the prophets say on this matter? Are they indeed correctly representing what God told them?Are you wishing to insert the idea that if Paul is right then the Cross must not matter because in your gospel the cross was intended to abolish the Law of God or else it is pointless.
Sure. Now why don't explain exactly what you mean by establish the law?"Do we then abolish the Law of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we establish the Law of God" Rom 3:31
What law? The law issued at Sinai? Hardly according to the passage.And of course that same Jer 31:31-33 law is "written on the heart and mind" under the new Covenant.
Just what exactly do you mean by quoting part of that verse? Personally I believe you are totally by passing Jesus or adding requirements Jesus didn't issue for salvation. I believe you think Christians are required to fulfill the law for salvation.Nobody seems to say that - but you on these threads?
I detest false doctrine and Judaizers.Why keep doing it?
See above statement. I don't argue if Paul is right. I argue he is. There isn't any question in my mind.Why keep arguing that if Paul is right then we do not need Jesus?
Maybe you need to accept the Gospel where both are valid instead of constantly inserting "not" into the text or arguing against Paul.That's impossible, but you try.Until one reads and believes what the passage says. You intend for my law to be the covenant issued to Israel at Sinai against the clear statement of the passage.Until you actually read the New Covenant where God says "I will write my LAW on their heart and on their mind".Yes lies are very easy to accept.A Bible doctrine that even the pro-sunday sources in the signature line below - easily accept.No I've an aversion to people trampling the Bible like trash at the land fill.You love to talk about it without actually quoting it because you are at with the statement in the "actual" New Covenant that says
"I will write my LAW on their heart and on their mind".If I were complaining about the law you'd have a point.In doing so you give evidence of the fact that your complaint about the Law of God at this point is due to a flaw in your gospel model.
in Christ,
Bob
Far from it!OK you can imply I'm ignorant all you want. That doesn't aid you position and is off topic to boot.
Ironic you would say thisFar from it!
I am saying you refuse to acknowledge truth. You stop your ears and shut your eyes.
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?