Time for the truth 7

[BobRyan]

*EDIT* Reviewing other threads on this sub-forum suggests that you're importing posts from another thread in an effort to circumvent moderator actions that have closed your other thread. Your post has no relation with this thread, does it?

When a thread is closed for clean up -- it is almost never because the point of the thread or the subject of the thread is "evil" -- it is usually because the ad hominem nature of a few post is getting out of control and wayyy off topic.

As we probably all know by now - but a point worth remembering.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

. I remind you of the effort CF staff members have made in reminding members that your soteriology via the old covenant Law is against the rules.

No moderator has reminded members of anything regarding my "soteriology" nor have they ever stated that my soteriology is "against the rules" --

As we all know by now.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here we have another one of your posts that asserts we should abide by the commandments of God, synthesized with the soteriology Jesus affirmed as the central tenet of Judaism. This comes as a result of dissecting Scripture into sound bites devoid of its narrative depicting the dispensation and recipients contradictory commandments are quoted from. I remind you of the effort CF staff members have made in reminding members that your soteriology via the old covenant Law is against the rules.

However, it is your post that asserts Listed's dependency on "your own pro-sunday scholarship" - but you didn't quote his dependency on pro-Sunday scholarship. Please do so now, since your post depends on that prerequisite.

I remember now that you were asked months ago to show us what "pro-sunday scholarship" is/was. What is this "pro-Sunday" dependency, and why should others adopt their views in deference to Scripture?

*EDIT* Reviewing other threads on this sub-forum suggests that you're importing posts from another thread in an effort to circumvent moderator actions that have closed your other thread. Your post has no relation with this thread, does it?

The fact that the majority of your own pro-sunday scholarship affirms the Ten Commandments binding on all the saints to this very day - whereas it cannot be said that the majority of pro-Saturday scholarship affirms the idea that the Ten Commandments are abolished -- means that I have a objective, obvious point that is made by even the majority of the pro-sunday side of the debate.

Impossible to refute.

Impossible to ignore.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[VictorC]

Here we have another one of your posts that asserts we should abide by the commandments of God, synthesized with the soteriology Jesus affirmed as the central tenet of Judaism. This comes as a result of dissecting Scripture into sound bites devoid of its narrative depicting the dispensation and recipients contradictory commandments are quoted from. I remind you of the effort CF staff members have made in reminding members that your soteriology via the old covenant Law is against the rules.

However, it is your post that asserts Listed's dependency on "your own pro-sunday scholarship" - but you didn't quote his dependency on pro-Sunday scholarship. Please do so now, since your post depends on that prerequisite.

I remember now that you were asked months ago to show us what "pro-sunday scholarship" is/was. What is this "pro-Sunday" dependency, and why should others adopt their views in deference to Scripture?

*EDIT* Reviewing other threads on this sub-forum suggests that you're importing posts from another thread in an effort to circumvent moderator actions that have closed your other thread. Your post has no relation with this thread, does it?

The fact that the majority of your own pro-sunday scholarship affirms the Ten Commandments binding on all the saints to this very day - whereas it cannot be said that the majority of pro-Saturday scholarship affirms the idea that the Ten Commandments are abolished -- means that I have a objective, obvious point that is made by even the majority of the pro-sunday side of the debate.

Impossible to refute.

Impossible to ignore.

in Christ,

Bob

You didn't answer any of my questions - in this post or the previous since my last post.

• You didn't document Listed's "your own pro-sunday scholarship".
• You haven't defined what "pro-sunday scholarship" is/was.
• You've given no reason why others should adopt their views in deference to Scripture.
• You haven't responded to the question of relevance between your post and this thread.

It is doubtful that you can show relevance, and your inability to respond to this question affirms it. You pasted it from some other unrelated thread. Adding insult to injury, your own phrase "your own pro-sunday scholarship" appears once again in this post, and is addressed to me instead of Listed.

It is absurd to attribute "your own pro-sunday scholarship" to someone else when you can't document it nor even define it. I suspect this is the case for Listed. I know you've invented a straw-man fallacy when you address me with the same absurdity.

 

[bugkiller]

You didn't answer any of my questions - in this post or the previous since my last post.

• You didn't document Listed's "your own pro-sunday scholarship".
• You haven't defined what "pro-sunday scholarship" is/was.
• You've given no reason why others should adopt their views in deference to Scripture.
• You haven't responded to the question of relevance between your post and this thread.

It is doubtful that you can show relevance, and your inability to respond to this question affirms it. You pasted it from some other unrelated thread. Adding insult to injury, your own phrase "your own pro-sunday scholarship" appears once again in this post, and is addressed to me instead of Listed.

It is absurd to attribute "your own pro-sunday scholarship" to someone else when you can't document it nor even define it. I suspect this is the case for Listed. I know you've invented a straw-man fallacy when you address me with the same absurdity.

VictorC I wasn't aware you had some pro-Sunday scholars doing your bidding.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

You didn't answer any of my questions - in this post or the previous since my last post.

• You didn't document Listed's "your own pro-sunday scholarship".
• You haven't defined what "pro-sunday scholarship" is/was.
• You've given no reason why others should adopt their views in deference to Scripture.
• You haven't responded to the question of relevance between your post and this thread.

It is doubtful that you can show relevance, and your inability to respond to this question affirms it. You pasted it from some other unrelated thread. Adding insult to injury, your own phrase "your own pro-sunday scholarship" appears once again in this post, and is addressed to me instead of Listed.

It is absurd to attribute "your own pro-sunday scholarship" to someone else when you can't document it nor even define it. I suspect this is the case for Listed. I know you've invented a straw-man fallacy when you address me with the same absurdity.

I'm certain Listed told Bob he'd report him for saying it was his (Listed) pro-Sunday scholars one more time. Bet it why the change in wording.

bugkiller

 

[disciple1]

Hebrews chapter 7

11. If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

12. For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.




18. The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

19. (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

 

[bugkiller]

No moderator has reminded members of anything regarding my "soteriology" nor have they ever stated that my soteriology is "against the rules" --

As we all know by now.

in Christ,

Bob

Your "soteriology" is fine as long as you don't try and force it on others. When you do it then becomes a problem.

bugkiller

 

[Elder 111]

Hebrews chapter 7

11. If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

12. For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.




18. The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless

19. (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

Why did you leave out the other verses?
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

 

[VictorC]

VictorC I wasn't aware you had some pro-Sunday scholars doing your bidding.

bugkiller

Unlikely, since I don't even know what a 'pro-Sunday scholar' is, and I have already dismissed Sunday Sabbatarianism because it shares many of the faults Saturday Sabbatarianism has. Adherance to a sola Scriptura view of the Gospel displaces both for their retention of shadows that have passed in favor of the reality we have in Christ's redemption.

 

[bugkiller]

Unlikely, since I don't even know what a 'pro-Sunday scholar' is, and I have already dismissed Sunday Sabbatarianism because it shares many of the faults Saturday Sabbatarianism has. Adherance to a sola Scriptura view of the Gospel displaces both for their retention of shadows that have passed in favor of the reality we have in Christ's redemption.

Then is BobRyan confessing something for you as yours?

bugkiller

 

[VictorC]

Then is BobRyan confessing something for you as yours?

bugkiller

BobRyan was caught fabricating a straw-man fallacy which remains solely in his domain, and others don't share responsibility for his fabrications.

 

[bugkiller]

BobRyan was caught fabricating a straw-man fallacy which remains solely in his domain, and others don't share responsibility for his fabrications.

bugkiller

 

[Sophrosyne]

BobRyan was caught fabricating a straw-man fallacy which remains solely in his domain, and others don't share responsibility for his fabrications.

He straw mans a lot..... including his "Sunday Keeping" and Pro-Sunday" sources equating them as things that they are not then either promoting them or attacking them. Let's face it I don't know any non Sabbath keeper posting in these threads that advocate "keeping" of Sunday in an equivalent fashion of keeping the Sabbath the two are just not the same as to make comparison. It requires forcing them to be the same by fabricating this idea of "pro-Sunday" and/or "Sunday Keepers".