The Thing Most Sabbath Keepers Do not Talk About.

Servus · Tuesday at 2:11 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
At least you see the Sabbath started at Creation, that's a good start, when there was no sin. God made everything according to His perfect plan. However where there is no law there is no sin. Rom4:15 Sin started right from the beginning, so therefore so did God's laws. And we know from Scripture the law that defines sin is the Ten Commandments

It's based on God resting on the seventh day. Which extremely obvious.

SabbathBlessings said:
1 John3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
James 2:11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

There are 613 laws as you know.

SabbathBlessings said:
You can find the rest of what God said in the Ten Commandments where God shows they started at Creation Exo20:11 because there was sin shortly after creation and the Bible explains what that is. Why Cain knew it was sin to kill Abel before the Ten Commandments- we see all the principles of the Ten Commandments in Scripture prior to them being codified

Sure, but the circumcision commandment was firmly established by God much earlier.

SabbathBlessings said:
No, you are reading what you want to read into my words and sadly the Scriptures. Circumcision is not required to get access to the cure for sin in the NC. Jesus became our circumcision. It doesn't say we can start deleting commandments or the laws we do not want to keep that is sin because of this. No where does it say circumcision ended, it served a whole other purpose the Bible tells us if we allow the Bible to explain Itself.

Exactly. But Christians don't keep the circumcision commandment because Jesus became our circumcision. Likewise Christians don't keep the sabbath commandment because Jesus became our sabbath rest.

SabbathBlessings said:
Not removing a jot or tittle means just that from the commandments Mat5:18-30, circumcision is not one of the Ten Commandments, never was never will be and served a different purpose than showing us what sin is when breaking them.

It was a very adamant covenant commandment firmly given and established by God for his people to follow.

Carl Emerson · Tuesday at 2:40 PM

HIM said:
What requirement?
Isa 3:5 And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable.

Whoops, senior moment...

Exodus 3:5

My apologies.

Carl Emerson · Tuesday at 2:47 PM

Studyman said:
You never heard of the teaching you yourself posted, that Jesus "Refused to Comply with His Father's Laws"? Now Carl, Jesus is watching us you know.

Continuing the polite conversation...

I have never said Jesus refused to obey the Father.

I am saying that Jesus was seeing the Fathers will and acting accordingly.

As John records this meant at times acting contrary to the OT Law regarding what was acceptable on the Sabbath.

SabbathBlessings · Tuesday at 2:56 PM

Servus said:
It's based on God resting on the seventh day. Which extremely obvious.

Yes, and we are made in His image, why He commanded us the exact same cycle. Exo20:8-11 Why we are told to enter His rest, one also ceased from their works as God did from His, on the seventh day Heb4:10 Heb4:4 Exo20:11 Gen2:1-3 We were never made to do something different. We are made in His image and likeness from the very beginning.

Servus said:
There are 613 laws as you know.

Can you tell me where do you see 613 in what God claimed to be His own Testimony, His covenant, His commandments. He didn't numbers them 8, 9 or 613 and I am pretty sure God knows how to count if that's what He meant. Do we really know better than He when He actually spelled it out for us?

Deu 4:13 So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone.

Exo 34:28 So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.

After He wrote the Ten Commandments, no more were added. Why are you adding something that God didn't?

Deu 5:22 "These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly, in the mountain from the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and gave them to me.

Servus said:
Sure, but the circumcision commandment was firmly established by God much earlier.

It was an ordinance and wasn't established sooner as I already shown through the Scriptures.

Servus said:
Exactly. But Christians don't keep the circumcision commandment because Jesus became our circumcision. Likewise Christians don't keep the sabbath commandment because Jesus became our sabbath rest.

No Scripture says Jesus became the Sabbath commandment so we can profane it. Sorry, this is an un- biblical teaching nor is it following what the Bible says. Circumcision is not one of the Ten Commandments, never was never will be, it served a purpose as the Scriptures clearly tell us. No need to rely on our own reasoning instead.

Servus said:
It was a very adamant covenant commandment firmly given and established by God for his people to follow.

Yes, and Scripture clearly tells us what happened with circumcision that wall of separation is no longer there. The Sabbath Jesus joins everyone into this covenant Isa56:6 and its not something that ends ever thus saith the Lord Isa66:23

But if we are so opposed to Sabbath worship now, would one really be happy in heaven when it continues every Sabbath coming before Jesus to worship Him Isa66:23 Jesus will never take away ones free will, that's why in our test today, it needs to come from the heart.

Carl Emerson · Tuesday at 3:01 PM

Studyman said:
You never heard of the teaching you yourself posted, that Jesus "Refused to Comply with His Father's Laws"? Now Carl, Jesus is watching us you know.

Don't change the subject, you are preaching to others that Jesus "Refused to Comply with His Father's Laws" and that it was Jesus' disobedience to God's Laws that saved the woman. You provide no Spiritual support for this religious philosophy and it is not supported anywhere in scriptures. Therefore it is your opinion. I posted God's Own Law, and the entire event as it is written and examined it Word by Word. This story doe not validate or even imply that Jesus "Refused to Comply with His Father's Laws". This is not my opinion, you can read it for yourself.

Here are some of the "Word of God" that the Jesus "of the Bible" Humbled Himself to, and also said for men to "Live by".

Ex. 18: 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

In fact, God doesn't desire the death of "ANY MAN"?

This doesn't make true your stated philosophy that Jesus "Refused to Comply with His Father's Laws", it exposes the philosophy are wrought in man, and not in God. You are free to adopt it, I just hoped to share what the Spirit of God Inspired Words actually said.

And yet Jesus, according to what is actually written in Scriptures, followed God's Law perfectly in John 8. While you and the Pharisees are trying to prove that Jesus "Refused to Comply with His Father's Laws".

Can you detail for me please, where Jesus refused to comply with His Father's Laws anywhere in John 8? Just post the Scripture within the chapter that you can use to support the Pharisees and your accusation that Jesus "Refused to Comply with His Father's Laws".

John 8: 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God "heareth God's words": ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

So Carl, show me where the Christ "Refused to Comply with His Father's Laws" in John 8. The mainstream preachers of Jesus Time couldn't find it. Maybe you can show me.

The Priesthood Law that was ADDED "because of transgression" was temporary, to be in place "till the Seed (God's High Priest "after the order of Melchizedek, not after the Order of Aaron") should come". But "Be ye Holy for I am Holy", or "Love the Lord thy God with all thy Soul", these are not temporary Laws that vanish as soon as a man calls Jesus Lord, Lord. Jesus did though, warn that there would be "many" "Christians" that promote just that.

Who is teaching you things like "Jesus "Refused to Comply with His Father's Laws", or that the 10 commandments are not still followed in the Kingdom of God? It certainly doesn't come from the Bible. At least you have not presented any Scriptures evidence to support your teaching.

So then, in your religion God commanded His Son to ignore His Commandments, but rejected the Jews because, as the Jesus "of the Bible" teaches, they ignored His Commandments?

Are you not then promoting that when a man ignores God's Written Law, then his eyes shall be opened, and he shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

I would really step back if I were you, and consider the source of such a philosophy.

Show me ONE place where Jesus instructed a man to "bypass" the Word's of His Father? Or show me one place where Jesus Himself "bypassed" the Word's of His Father". And if you can't, then what spirit would prompt men to promote to others that the Jesus "of the bible" "Refused to Comply with His Father's Laws", and promoted that others "bypass the OT Law" .

The Priesthood changed, as prophesied, "because the blood of animals can not take away sins", and taught that "To obey is better than sacrifice". But where is the Word's of Jesus promoting your philosophy to "Bypass the Law and Prophets"?

It doesn't exist in Scriptures Carl. Like the Pharisees you are promoting doctrines and philosophies of men, not God.

Now you are free to do so, and maybe it doesn't matter. Nevertheless, the Bible doesn't support the philosophy that Jesus "Refused to Comply with His Father's Laws".

Probably the most insidious lie, and the most evil and wicked teaching I even encountered being promoted by the religious system of the world God placed me in, is the teaching that the Pharisees were trying to please God and earn salvation by obeying God's Laws. Zacharias, Simeon and Anna "Yielded themselves" in obedience to God's Laws. Jesus humbled Himself in obedience to God's Laws, in fact, every example of Faithful man in the entire Bible "yielded themselves" servants to obey God, not man.

But if I review "EVERY WORD" Jesus spoke to define the Pharisees, there is not "ONE" place where HE says or even implies that the Pharisees were interested in or promoted that a man "Yield himself" a servant to obey God's Laws.

NOT ONE!

And yet, there are "many", who call Jesus Lord, Lord, who promote the lie that the Pharisees promoted God's Laws, and when this lie is shown to them, they get all butthurt, and offended and try to discredit the poor slob who risked a friendship to show a brother his error. This is nothing new, going all the way back to Cain and Abel.

The Pharisees may have made an idol of the Commandments of men that taught for doctrines. But they full well rejected the commandments of God. To preach otherwise, is to deny the Christ Himself.

Well this sounds all preachy, and churchy no doubt. But there is nowhere in the Scriptures that Jesus teaches His People to "ignore God's Words" or "Bypass God's Laws" nor is it written or even implied that Jesus ""Refused to Comply with His Father's Laws".

You can review the Scriptures I posted, and the word by word analysis given, and show me where I am in error in my understanding, and I wish you would. But if all you have in an opinion, then I would humbly invite you to "Yield yourself" to God, and commit to "Living by" the Words that the Jesus "of the Bible" Himself said to live by. And be renewed in the spirit of your mind.

Sadly your take on my position misrepresents my understanding.

Jesus demonstrated what is means to walk in tune to the heart of the Father and we are to do the same.

Having His very presence within us means it is a personal Word from Him within that is our guide and motivation not the Letter of the Law. The OT Law has passed away The New Covenant is our spiritual reality.

This new mode of obedience however is given in the context of mutual submission in the Body of Christ.

Studyman · Tuesday at 3:13 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
Strangers in the OT could get access to the cure for sins and animal sacrifices, and the earthy temple with an earthy priesthood only by circumcision

It was the same for Jews. As God is not a respecter of persons.

SabbathBlessings said:
Numbers9:13 But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and ceases to keep the Passover, that same person shall be cut off from among his people, because he did not bring the offering of the Lord at its appointed time; that man shall bear his sin.

It's important to consider the whole message being taught here.

Numbers 9: 10 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto the LORD. 11 The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 12 They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break any bone of it: according to all the ordinances of the passover they shall keep it.

This would include biological Jews, and non-Jews who sojourned with them, Yes?

SabbathBlessings said:
Exo 12:43And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover:No foreigner shall eat it.

But remember, God has already defined for them what a foreigner is.

34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you "as one born among you", and thou shalt love him as thyself; for "ye were strangers" in the land of Egypt": I am the LORD your God.

So SB, a Non-Jew that joined themselves to the Lord, was "by God's Law", not to be treated as a "foreigner", but as a "home born". Both were to be treated the same as it is written "One Law".https://ref.ly/Exod 12.44;nkjv?t=biblia

SabbathBlessings said:
Exo 12:44But every man's servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him,then he may eat it.

Yes, the Jew and Gentile under the same Law. As Moses taught.

There is no wall of separation here.

SabbathBlessings said:
Exo 12:48And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised,and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.

The Bible teaches that Abraham was already accepted by God before cutting the lose skin off his penis. From the very beginning it was circumcision of the heart that mattered. It is the same Spiritual Truth as "Eating Christ's Flesh".

Let me ask you something. How did anyone know if a man was truly circumcised in Abraham or Moses or Joshua's time? Did they walk around flashing their privates?

SabbathBlessings said:
Jesus clearly removed that wall of separation where anyone can gain access to cure for sins since there is no more earthy temple or earthy priesthood, everything is through Jesus now, He is our Mediator and High Preist.

Carl Emerson said:
Continuing the polite conversation...

I have never said Jesus refused to obey the Father.

I am saying that Jesus was seeing the Fathers will and acting accordingly.

As John records this meant at times acting contrary to the OT Law regarding what was acceptable on the Sabbath.

This is your philosophy Carl, and very popular. But isn't true according to the Bible, just as the Scriptures clearly shows that Jesus was obedient to Gods laws concerning the adulterous woman and there is no law of God against anything Jesus did on Gods Holy Sabbath.

But religious traditions of this world God placed us in is a powerful influence. It was hard for the mainstream preachers of Jesus time to choose Gods word over their own traditions, and as Jesus Himself told us about the Many Christians in the judgment, it was difficult for them to believe in God over this world's religious philosophy as well.

Have a good evening Carl

Carl Emerson · Tuesday at 3:22 PM

Heb 8

those who offer the gifts according to the Law;
5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things by the pattern which was shown to you on the mountain.”

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, to the extent that He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second.

SabbathBlessings · Tuesday at 3:33 PM

Studyman said:
It was the same for Jews. As God is not a respecter of persons.

Of course not, but are you saying that an uncircumcised person could partake in animal sacrifices at an earthy temple for the forgivness of their sins in the OC without being circumcised. Can you should me where it says this?

The Scriptures clearly say something else

Exo 12:43And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover:No foreigner shall eat it.
Exo 12:44But every man's servant who is bought for money, when you have circumcised him,then he may eat it.
Exo 12:48And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised,and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.

Num 9:10 But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.

That’s why Ezekiel later says:

Ezekiel 44:7,“You brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary… 9Thus says the Lord GOD: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary.”

Studyman said:
It's important to consider the whole message being taught here.

Numbers 9: 10 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto the LORD. 11 The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 12 They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break any bone of it: according to all the ordinances of the passover they shall keep it.

This would include biological Jews, and non-Jews who sojourned with them, Yes?

If they were circumcised. What the word means for your forbeareth or posterity

דּוֹר dôwr, dore; or (shortened) דֹּר dôr; from H1752; properly, a revolution of time, i.e. an age or generation; also a dwelling:—age, × evermore, generation, (n-) ever, posterity.

Studyman said:
Let me ask you something. How did anyone know if a man was truly circumcised in Abraham or Moses or Joshua's time? Did they walk around flashing their privates?

The bible doesn't say, but it very much says its literal and there is a medical reason why it was done on the 8th day that doctors to this day still do so.

SabbathBlessings · Tuesday at 3:38 PM

Carl Emerson said:
Heb 8

those who offer the gifts according to the Law;
5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things by the pattern which was shown to you on the mountain.”

6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, to the extent that He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second.

Strange it wasn't posted but the very next verse gives us the context of who was at fault and why....

8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord

The covenant was not the issue, why He wrote the exact words of the covenant Psa89:34 Exo34:28 2Cor3:3 just established His New Covenant on better promises Heb8:6 (if we cooperate with Him) on what He will do, if we allow Him to Heb8:10 John14:15-18

Carl Emerson · Tuesday at 4:06 PM

Studyman said:
This is your philosophy Carl

Your choice of words is interesting - let me interpret...

Your denomination and teaching is from God - all else is from man.

Now we have settled that - hope of a listening ear is rather unlikely.

However all is not lost because I am here to encourage the readers to walk in the New Covenant and not the OT Law which has passed away as Paul taught. (commenting that all his Law keeping was like dung compared to His new found freedom in Christ.)

Carl Emerson · Tuesday at 4:08 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
Strange it wasn't posted but the very next verse gives us the context of who was at fault and why....

8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord

The covenant was not the issue, why He wrote the exact words of the covenant Psa89:34 Exo34:28 2Cor3:3 just established His New Covenant on better promises Heb8:6 (if we cooperate with Him) on what He will do, if we allow Him to Heb8:10 John14:15-18

Yes you have to work quite hard to argue against what is clearly stated... sorry for that.

Studyman · Tuesday at 4:59 PM

Carl Emerson said:
Sadly your take on my position misrepresents my understanding.

Jesus demonstrated what is means to walk in tune to the heart of the Father and we are to do the same.

Having His very presence within us means it is a personal Word from Him within that is our guide and motivation not the Letter of the Law. The OT Law has passed away The New Covenant is our spiritual reality.

This new mode of obedience however is given in the context of mutual submission in the Body of Christ.

But only to those who refuse to live by every word of God, or those who refuse to press toward the Perfection Jesus and His Father commands, which was in Jesus.

The reason why I reply to these kinds of post, is because the seductive religious doctrine you promote is contrary to Gods own definition of His own New Covenant which promises God law written on the hearts of men who believe Him. As if God is incapable of defining His own Covenant, so He needs the Catholic or her Protestant daughters to define His covenant for the masses.

As is always the case, anyone who questions the popular religious philosophy, like Stephen or John or even a nobody like me, with actual scripture are not taken seriously.

Truly there is nothing new under the sun.

With the hart of man, there is always a better way, just like Eve deduced.

You are free to follow a religious system who rejects the Feasts of the Lord, and creates their own high days. Who rejects the Judgments of God concerning what is Holy, Clean, and Righteous, and sets about establishing their own definition of these things.

You can even re-write God's own definition of His Own New covenant and live by your own definition. And maybe it doesn't matter. But the Jesus "of the Bible" never engaged in this behavior, and the scriptures make that crystal clear.

So I will not be adopting the religious philosophy you are promoting, popular as it is.

And I'm not ashamed of doing so.

Studyman · Tuesday at 5:10 PM

Carl Emerson said:
Your choice of words is interesting - let me interpret...

Your denomination and teaching is from God - all else is from man.

I posted god's Own Words, you refused to even acknowledge them, much less discuss them. So at least, lets be honest about our own positions.

Carl Emerson said:
Now we have settled that - hope of a listening ear is rather unlikely.

Should I listen to a man who preaches "that Jesus "Refused to Comply with His Father's Laws"?

I'm not sorry that I won't be taking Spiritual advice from you.

Carl Emerson said:
However all is not lost because I am here to encourage the readers to walk in the New Covenant

In God's definition of His New Covenant, HE writes His Laws on the hearts of His People. "Many" people call Jesus Lord, Lord, but who strives not to "work iniquity"? Certainly Paul did, as His words clearly teach. So whose "New Covenant" are you promoting people to walk in? Your new covenant, when God's Laws have vanished. Or God's New covenant where His Laws are written on the hearts of the Faithful?

Remember, it's the "doers" of Christ's Sayings, whose house will stand, not the "hearers only".

Carl Emerson said:
and not the OT Law which has passed away as Paul taught. (commenting that all his Law keeping was like dung compared to His new found freedom in Christ.)

Can you show me where Paul, as a Pharisee, was obedient to God's Laws?

You philosophy is grounded in the teaching of men, "who come in Christ's Name", not in the Just, Good and Holy Laws of God.

But so has it been for the religions of this world since Noah.

SabbathBlessings · Tuesday at 5:18 PM

Carl Emerson said:
Yes you have to work quite hard to argue against what is clearly stated... sorry for that.

I appreciate the consideration of the scriptures. At the end, we should be seeking for Truth.

God bless.

Carl Emerson · Tuesday at 5:19 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
The covenant was not the issue, why He wrote the exact words of the covenant Psa89:34 Exo34:28 2Cor3:3 just established His New Covenant on better promises Heb8:6 (if we cooperate with Him) on what He will do, if we allow Him to Heb8:10 John14:15-18

According to Jeremiah, the promised New Covenant involved being sealed to obedience by the 'Spirit of the Fear of the Lord' it was not to be a matter of salvation by works.

Jer 32:40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts, so that they will not turn away from Me.

Carl Emerson · Tuesday at 5:23 PM

Studyman said:
The reason why I reply to these kinds of post, is because the seductive religious doctrine you promote is contrary to Gods own definition of His own New Covenant which promises God law written on the hearts of men who believe Him. As if God is incapable of defining His own Covenant, so He needs the Catholic or her Protestant daughters to define His covenant for the masses.

I am astounded at your false accusations.

I have noticed a pattern - condemn the member and then pretend he believes in heresy.

This is pretty shocking.

SabbathBlessings · Tuesday at 5:25 PM

Carl Emerson said:
According to Jeremiah, the promised New Covenant involved being sealed to obedience by the 'Spirit of the Fear of the Lord' it was not to be a matter of salvation by works.

Jer 32:40 I will make an everlasting covenant with them that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; and I will put the fear of Me in their hearts, so that they will not turn away from Me.

Why would only worshipping God be considered work? If that's work for someone perhaps they need to re-evaluate ones priorities. The Holy Spirit is Who wrote the Law, why would He be against His own laws, He is the One who enables us to keep His commandments through our love and cooperation John 14:15-18

And if you are only singling out the Sabbath as work, God asks us not to work but to rest from our works and labors on His holy Sabbath day.

Carl Emerson · Tuesday at 5:26 PM

Studyman said:
Should I listen to a man who preaches "that Jesus "Refused to Comply with His Father's Laws"?

Do you expect that repeating a lie will gain you theological ground. ?

I do not do as you claim and your accusations amount to slander.

Studyman · Tuesday at 5:27 PM

Carl Emerson said:
I am astounded at your false accusations.

I have noticed a pattern - condemn the member and then pretend he believes in heresy.

This is pretty shocking.

Addressing your own statements seems to offend you.

Perhaps it's time to move on

Carl Emerson · Tuesday at 5:32 PM

Studyman said:
Can you show me where Paul, as a Pharisee, was obedient to God's Laws?

Phil 3:2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision;
3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and take pride in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh,
4 although I myself could boast as having confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he is confident in the flesh, I have more reason:
5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

The Thing Most Sabbath Keepers Do not Talk About.

<><

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency