F
from scratch
Guest
Paul wasn't a scheduled speaker in the synagogue. The leaders of the synagogue were following the customs of the synagogue during its assembly.
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.
Paul wasn't a scheduled speaker in the synagogue. The leaders of the synagogue were following the customs of the synagogue during its assembly.until you actually read the text of Acts 13.
There is wayyy too much bible-avoidance in the case being made by those at war with God's TEN Commandments.
in Christ,
Bob
The Great Controversy dishonestly claims that the Pope changed Saturday to Sunday.
No it doesn't. Paul is preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ uninvited in the synagogue. .
Paul wasn't a scheduled speaker
For the sake of "full disclosure" and context - I think we need to list all the details related to this subject from the BCF.
[FONT="]1. That the Sabbath Commandment is first given to mankind in Gen 2:1-3
2. That all mankind was obligated by the TEN commandments in the OT and to this very day.
3. That the seventh day as the Sabbath was Saturday the seventh day of the week from Gen 2:1-3 until NT times - including at the cross.
4. That the Ten Commandments are the moral Law of God
5. That the moral law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant
6. that the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God are in no way opposed to grace and the Gospel.
7. That the Sabbath commandment can rightly be BENT by man-made-tradition to point to week-day-1 after the cross[FONT="].
I don't claim to agree with all 7 of the points that the BCF is making - only 6 out of the 7 do I agree with.
But there are many on this board who are at war with all 7.
[/FONT][/FONT]
==============================================================
I think you and I would agree that we both view the other person has having some error on this subject. I would like to think that were I in your shoes I would be as certain of my position as you appear to be.
However there is a "detail" that even in such a case - I would hope I would not so quickly dismiss.
The 7 points listed above are warred against by almost every post that has been listed here against God's commandment.
You have been AWOL/MIA in almost every case. Why such a lack of interest when all SEVEN of the primary points the BCF lists on this doctrine are being slammed almost non-stop here by those at war with the TEN Commandments?
Your only posts (until now) have been to oppose those who agree with 6 out of the 7 points - and to support those who are at war with all 7 when possible. Hardly daring to even mention the BCF 6 points that are constantly being slammed - much less stand in favor of them.
We almost never debate them on the 1 point where you and I differ - because that is the very point 'no changing the 4th commandment' where they agree with us. So that debate point gets no fury or fuss on this section of the board at all.
How is that possible that you prefer to promote the argument that is at war with all 7 of the primary Bible points of the BCF on this doctrine?
The answer is obvious - it is that those who make those 7 point above - and those who are at war with all 7 - do agree on one point. And that is to technically violate the 4th commandment as God actually gave it in the actual Bible. That alone overrides all other considerations even in your view which in theory has 6 of the 7 Bible points correct.
That my friend is telling! Where did we first see that principle in the Bible? Genesis 3? That would be a wake-up-call for me in your shoes. I would at least want to keep an open mind.Quite simply because no one is going to be stopped from warring against the points, or against God's law by pointing to the law and saying "do this" point to Christ and say know him.
Your argument is of the form "they are not saved they will not accept what the Bible teaches about the Law of God so introduce them to Christ".
But even the BCF will admit that the way to reach the lost is to first point to the sin - the need of salvation. After all if there is no problem -- then you do not need a solution.
==================================
And now once again ProgMonk is missing -- could it be because the first 6 points (the very ones upon which we both agree with the BCF) are being challenged "again"???
in Christ,
Bob
I also think that a discussion of Chapters 19 and 22 without discussion of the rest of the Document as a whole is without merit,
So why are folks here questioned about not presenting every thing every time? The merry-go-round never stops here.Each doctrine should be able to stand up to Bible review without having to re-examine the entire universe each time.
And in the case of the BCF and this section of the board - it is not the entire universe of doctrinal statements that are under review.
in Christ,
Bob
I've often thought about playing into their hand for rebuttable proof of what they're up to. It would be fun.Once again you are willfully deceitful. Your silly and deceitful argument that nowhere in the New Testament is there a "changeover from Saturday to Sunday" is just preposterous and a Red Herring. Nobody ever sanctified Sunday because Christians have Christ's rest EVERYDAY.
Colossians 2:14-17; Romans. 14:1-5; Galllatians. 4:10 and 2 Corinthians 3:7 all more than adequately address the Christian's duties versus the Ten Commandments, and support the immediate abandonment of the Sabbath and the rest of the Mosaic law. Especially in light of the extra-Biblical history of the First Century Church. It is totally consistent. Plainly, the Apostle Paul urged the Council of Jerusalem - which agreed - that Gentile Christians would NOT keep the Mosaic Law. That is outlined in Acts 15, but the entire decree is NOT in the New Testament. These five New Testament texts more than adequately detail the immediately rejection of the Mosaic Laws - and the Sabbath - by Christianity.
Deceptively left out of your statements is the fact that Jesus worshiped in the Temple where animal sacrifices were happening and followed all of the Mosaic Law. Any mention of the Sabbath in relation to Him was to show that he violated it with impunity. Because it was HIS and it pointed to HIM. EVERY mention of the Sabbath by Christ is consistent with the Early Christian church abandoning Sabbath keeping. You deceptively focus on Jesus's statements regarding the Sabbath, but completely ignore all of the other ceremonial laws that he kept, which you DO NOT keep. He kept all of the Temple rituals, ALL of the feast days, ALL of the yearly and monthly Sabbaths. Your version of the Sabbath is deceitful on its face, in no way even remotely resembling the Sabbath kept by Jesus. Your desperate attempt to deceitfully compare the Sabbath he kept versus the one you keep just is ridiculous on its face.
Christianity abandoned Sabbath Keeping at the Resurrection. Christianity condemned the "Judaizing" heresy, the Ebionite Heresy and the Gallatians Heresy early within the First Century. The Seventh Day Adventist Church is simply a slicked up modern version of the Ebionite, Judaizing, and Gallatians heresies. You have done NOTHING to dispute this.
Sabbath Keeping and and Judaizer's insistence that the Christians should follow ANY of the Mosaic law is PRECISELY the heresies that were condemned within 50 years after the Resurrection.
You are deceitful because you addressed NONE of my points about the extraordinary deceptive history within the Great Controversy, which plainly does not rely only upon the Bible for making its case for an "Apostasy" of Christianity's abandonment of the Ten Commandments. You know good and well that it gives thousands of years of history that is not in the Bible. Second of all, the Great Controversy is a extremely-deceptive, nasty, slanderous vicious slur on Christianity. From one end of the other, it is a mass of deceitful and vicious anti-Christian church rhetoric.
THIS is what is behind your Sabbath spam posts insisting that Christians should keep the Sabbath: An incredibly deceitful, anti-Christian history written by a False Prophet. Without that horrific and deceitful attack on Christianity, the Seventh Day Adventist Church would not exist.
Sabbath keeping has been condemned by Christianity since the First Century. It has been a heresy of Christianity for 2,000 years. You did NOTHING to address the unrebutted and unequivocal assertions of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Your prophet and your church have NEVER addressed, let alone rebutted its contention that Christians celebrated the Resurrection and Easter from the first year of Christianity. And they did so because they were taught to do so by the Apostles. You and your church reject these clear, explicit orders of the Apostles and come onto a Christian website with your deceptive Sabbath spam posts in an attempt to rebuild three heresies that were specifically and unequivocally denounced by the First Century Church.
Once more, you deceitfully ignore the specific request to address two early Christian saints - who died gruesome and tortuous deaths for their faith - who more than adequately address the abandonment of the Sabbath in the First Century. You know the Pope did not change the date, and your reference to that is once again simply deceptive. Interestingly enough, given your highly-selective reading of the New Testament, is the fact that the Catholic Church also claims that it compiled the entire Biblical Canon! You would NOT have the New Testament without the Catholic church.
Your church, and Sabbath Keeping is based on nothing more than a colossal historical fraud. It opposes both Sunday worship and Easter commemoration because it has severely downgraded the effect of the Resurrection throughout its 150 year history. Its purpose is to reduce Christian's confidence in their salvation through a wide variety of noxious, non-Christian and deceptive doctrines. Your persistent presence on a Christian website with your Sabbath spam posts is to lure biblically-illiterate and gullible Christians into a clear-cut heresy.
NOWHERE, NEVER in the New Testament are Christians ordered to keep the Sabbath! And Gentile Christians were specifically ordered NOT to keep the Sabbath by the Council of Jerusalem, which is referred to in Acts 15.
I also think that a discussion of Chapters 19 and 22 without discussion of the rest of the Document as a whole is without merit,
Each doctrine should be able to stand up to Bible review without having to re-examine the entire universe each time.
And in the case of the BCF and this section of the board - it is not the entire universe of doctrinal statements that are under review.
So why are folks here questioned about not presenting every thing every time? The merry-go-round never stops here.
Quite simply because no one is going to be stopped from warring against the points, or against God's law by pointing to the law and saying "do this" point to Christ and say know him.
What happened to the details? The people asking to hear more weren't the leaders of the synagogue.until you actually read the text of Acts 13.
There is wayyy too much bible-avoidance in the case being made by those at war with God's TEN Commandments.
Acts 13 -
13 Now Paul and his companions put out to sea from Paphos and came to Perga in Pamphylia; but John left them and returned to Jerusalem. 14 But going on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. 15 After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.
16 Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said,
Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen:
Until you read Acts 13 -
42 As Paul and Barnabas were going out, the people kept begging that these things might be spoken to them the next Sabbath.
43 Now when the meeting of the synagogue had broken up, many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, were urging them to continue in the grace of God.
44 The next Sabbath nearly the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord
OK you don't want to discuss the Bible. You wish to discuss religion of which I'm not really interested in.In this case - the discussion above is about Sections 19 and 22 of the BCF which you will find referenced on posts 1 and 2 of this thread.
It was a "back to the topic" post.
Apparently you are not wanting to have any part of the subject of the thread. Well ok - to each his own.
========================
Speaking of the subject of this thread - we have this ...
Your argument is of the form "they are not saved they will not accept what the Bible teaches about the Law of God so introduce them to Christ".
But even the BCF will admit that the way to reach the lost is to first point to the sin - the need of salvation. After all if there is no problem -- then you do not need a solution.
==================================
And now once again ProgMonk is missing -- could it be because the first 6 points (the very ones upon which we both agree with the BCF) are being challenged "again"???
in Christ,
Bob
I find and keep on finding that the SDA emphasis is that it is the Law that gives life and I see no basis for this whether in Scripture or in the normed norms that I accept as true.
I'm not Baptist but I find I have to agree with almost everything you said about the Law and SDAs. However, one area I DO disagree with you on is that plainly, the Mosaic Law was a "shadow" a "type" and something that was designed to point forward to Christ, who actually fulfilled ALL of the Old Testament Law and Prophecies.
Once all of the Old Testament law "was nailed to the Cross" (Colossians 2:13-17), at best it serves as a "mirror" to make sin "visible," although the New Testament writers, and especially those in the Didache, spell it out FAR more clearly than the Old Testament.
I agree with this post, what I think we disagree on is whether the Holy Spirit's conforming us to Christ looks like we follow the Law. You have expressed previously that the Holy Spirit won't help us to follow the Law, I'm assuming that in its place you have the idea of him conforming us to Christ, if Christ is the embodiment of the Law and its fulfillment then us being conformed to Christ should look like "following the Law" right?
"Following the Law" would be the easy cop-out. Especially since nobody can follow it anyway. SDAs just pretend they do and think that everyone should take that seriously. Christianity demands a LOT more than the silly and defunct Mosaic Law. The "Law" (Christ's Great Commandments) that the Early Christians followed often led to their bloody, lion-tooth mangled bones to be sent back to their church in a cardboard box, to be used as a Holy Relic to inspire the Church.
Their silly argument "You just want to sin, that's why you want to get rid of the Law." No, I want to become something beautiful for Jesus.
Bob, I feel as always when I cede something to Adventists that you take it to far,
this is part of the reason why I think it is somewhat unfruitful to talk about the Law from the perspective of the LBCF outside of the context of the rest of the LBCF, ch19 which talks about our obligation to follow the Law also places it firmly as the method by which we know our sinfulness, there is a necessity for the Spirit to subdue our will in order that we are able to do the good,
I find and keep on finding that the SDA emphasis is that it is the Law that gives life
OK you don't want to discuss the Bible. You wish to discuss religion of which I'm not really interested in.
What happened to the details? The people asking to hear more weren't the leaders of the synagogue.
We have already stated on this thread that the lost do not gain eternal life for becoming sinless, by perfect obedience to the Law or any such thing. The effort to "circle back to the view of the law from the POV of the lost" is something those at war with the TEN Commandments have done on this section of the board repeatedly - but the BCF does not do that.
Your thread is about the BCF as we see in the OP.
in Christ,
Bob
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?