Understanding the Sabbath

[William1]

Adam,
matters not if it was added, it agrees with 3 other sourses, what don't you get? Or would you rather I take your word for it? or for that matter, why not let deu be the authority on this matter.

 

[adam332]

I already did show you, go to the link I gave...

(Greek NT - Byz./Maj.) Revelation 1:10 egenomhn en pneumati en th kuriakh hmera kai hkousa fwnhn opisw mou megalhn wV salpiggoV


(Greek NT - (tr) w/ Grammar tags) Revelation 1:10 egenomhn <1096> (5633) {V-2ADI-1S} en <1722> {PREP} pneumati <4151> {N-DSN} en <1722> {PREP} th <3588> {T-DSF} kuriakh <2960> {A-DSF} hmera <2250> {N-DSF} kai <2532> {CONJ} hkousa <191> (5656) {V-AAI-1S} opisw <3694> {ADV} mou <3450> {P-1GS} fwnhn <5456> {N-ASF} megalhn <3173> {A-ASF} wV <5613> {ADV} salpiggoV <4536> {N-GSF}



Now let's look at your verse in John...

(Greek NT - (tr) w/ Grammar tags) 2 John 1:5 | kai <2532> {CONJ} nun <3568> {ADV} erwtw <2065> (5719) {V-PAI-1S} se <4571> {P-2AS} kuria <2959> {N-VSF} ouc <3756> {PRT -N} wV <5613> {ADV} entolhn <1785> {N-ASF} grafw <1125> (5719) {V-PAI-1S} grafwn <1125> (5723) {V-PAP-NSM} soi <4671> {P-2DS} kainhn <2537> {A-ASF} alla <235> {CONJ} hn <3739> {R-ASF} eicomen <2192> (5707) {V-IAI-1P} ap <575> {PREP} archV <746> {N-GSF} ina <2443> {CONJ} agapwmen <25> (5725) {V-PAS-1P} allhlouV <240> {C-APM}


Do you see? The word in John and the one in Rv. is not the same! This is from the tr and byz just like the ones you showed!
Kuria and kuriakh are not the same thing!
Even your own sources agree with me!
You better look again...

 

[adam332]

here's what you showed....

Reve 1:10 (byz) egenomhn en pneumati en th kuriakh hmera kai hkousa fwnhn opisw mou megalhn wV salpiggoV

Reve 1:10 (n26) egenomhn en pneumati en th kuriakh hmera kai hkousa opisw mou fwnhn megalhn wV salpiggoV

Reve 1:10 (tr) egenomhn en pneumati en th kuriakh hmera kai hkousa opisw mou fwnhn megalhn wV salpiggoV


kuriakh = 2960 !
kuria = 2959 !

All you have done is shown that you were wrong from the moment that you suggested lady...I will accept your apology at any time.
Wake up buddy.

 

[William1]

Ok Adam, now that we are on the same page, let me try again. Kuriakh hmera does not mean Lord’s day. Obviously I failed to communicate what I was trying to reveal to you. I took a short cut, for that is my way. I should have gone long hand to make sure you didn’t miss a step.

What I was trying to show and say was that the word kuria or kuriakh, do not appear in the entire Bible, except for Rev 1:10. In all instances where we read of the Lord’s Day, it reads as KU, KC, KN.

What I have found is that whenever “the Lord” is portrayed in the Bible, it appears in the form of an acronym. Either, KU, KC, KN with a solid line above them but never as KA or KH. This is confirmed in the Codex which I have in my possession. There is no way for you to know this if all you are doing is reading translated manuscripts for they have filled in the blanks.

What I mean to say is that when these translators saw KU with a line above it, they filled in what they thought was the word ie, kuriou, or in the case of KC, kurios etc etc.

Now, with the codex in hand, when I come to Rev 1:10, no acronym appears but rather the spelt word as kuria and the kh has another meaning which I won’t bother getting into at this time for sake of clarity.

As for the notion that the #2960 means, the Lord’s, that may or may not be, but 2960 is not the spelling of the word in Rev 1:10 plus it does not appear as an acronym.

Now this post might get a little too confusing so I will try and show you one example and only one, at least for now.

Zephaniah 1:8 And it shall come to pass in the day of the LORD'S sacrifice,
ZEPH 1:8 kai estai en hmera qusiaV kuriou.......Here we have the Lord’s and it is spelt kuriou, or is it? When I compare this with what I have discovered in the Codex, I find the acronym KU. Consequently the word in Rev 1:10 can not possibly mean Lord. Add to that, that the exact same spelling is found in 2 John plus it is not in the form of an acronym in either passage.
If this doesn’t clear things up, maybe I’ll try again.
William

 

[adam332]

That's my point your Vatican codex of revelation is INFERIOR! And you have already as much as conceded to that point. I have already cited sources showing it was added in the 1500's and is not part of the 1800 yr old part as the rest of the manuscript. The byz and the tr confirm that this is so and the tyr and byz grammar tags show it as being #2960 (Lord's), not #2959.

So far, all you have done is claim that a book you have in your hand which has an inferior and much later copy of Rev. than you originally thought, says something different than everyone else.

Did you know that there are now over 5300 manuscripts that have been discovered? The one part they added to the VC 500yrs ago does not negate the majority or more complete and older manuscripts that are out there! You are basing your conclusion on next to nothing. I can not find a single scholarly translator over the last 2000 years that has sought to agree with you. You are alone.

 

[Justme]

Hi William,

I agree with Adam...methinks your theory stinketh...

Justme

 

[William1]

Adam;
I find no comfort in numbers, if alone I be, so be it. But the very references which you refer to witness my findings. Kuria does not mean KC, not to mention that all mss agree with the translation of Kuria found in 2 John as that of lady, referring to the church.

Add to this that Rev 1:10's message is to the churches in their day. Hmm.

William

 

[adam332]

If you want to base your interpretation on a single manuscript out of thousands...I certainly can't stop you. Needless to say there are many well versed scholars on the subject of ancient Biblical manuscripts and their method of deducing what is superior included a strict ethical criteria.

Your choice in the matter goes against everything that is logical. Oddly enough I doubt that you would stand by an OT and NT version translated from an inferior, recent, uncoroborated, manuscript that not a single translator in all of history sought to agree with. Yet, you choose to do it with the book of Revelation simply because you own the copy...how strange. But, I'm sure you know best.

Explain to me why you would even go to the trouble of obtaining your own copy of the VC. Surely it is because of it's extremely old authorative nature. I'm truly sorry that you found out today that such authority does not apply to the book of revelation in your VC. It probably was quite a disappointment to realize it was added nearly a thousand yrs later. But to hold on to the VC's Rev. so rigidly after knowing this, goes against the very reason for why one would choose the VC in the first place.

BTW...the sources that you and I both cited disagree with you...look at the grammar tags that they saw fit to apply in the tr...you are wrong...they do not agree.

 

[deu58]

Adam and William

What a team. for one seeings I use KJV and yes my bible does say Jesus did refer to himself as I AM. What does yours say? Never mind don't answer that, put your Rocky and Bullwinkle secret scripture decoder ring away. If you interpret Rev1:10 to be ladies night or ladies day or what ever other silly thing you come up with I am might be guilty of leading you into commiting blasphemy.

Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Secondly And I will put this to you bluntly William, Any one who holds that Christians should offer animal sacrifices to God is not fit to teach the Word of God.

Third, I see know where in the Scripture where Jesus told us to go and sin somemore.

Fourth, although I do not condemn the Homosexual I do condemn the sin nor do I condone any kind of same sex marriage.

Fifth, I do not care if you are 170 years my senior, It means nothing to me.

Sixth to me you are paper tigers. You are not here to be Objective you are here to teach. Any one who does not agree with you or ask questions you see as irrelavant You deal with sarcasticly and dismiss them with an imperious wave of your scholarly hand.{BRO BROWN, JOHN, MEGAPORT}

Sixth, Rebuttals? I must have missed something. I will Have to go back and look. All as I saw was the usaual wishy washy answers most Sabbath keepers have.

Seventh, You accuse people of using the writings of men, Any writing out side of the scripture falls under that description so you are guilty of the same thing. Can you say Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi. Actually if you can you are doing better that me. I can hardly spell it and I am looking right at it.

Williams comment to you Adam is pretty is pretty obvious to me. Ye are on the edge of falling from grace. Hurry, go sacrifice a goat.

You accuse me of being selective in my use of scripture, the posts here are already long. For me to be contextual, which is my prefered choice, would take pages instead of paragraphs. Actually you seem to be fairly selective yourself.

As to being decietful, William claims he came to serve, But now we can see he has come to teach us all a better way. As to Adam being objective, Your treatment of people who do not agree with you, And your idea that those who do not see things your way should ask questions and learn,three guesses who the teacher of choice should be, show that you to did not come here to be objective either.

As to your rebuttals, Like I said, I saw nothing of any great substance that gave me pause for a eureka moment so considering you deem these as serious replies I will go back and look again.
yours in Christ
deu58

 

[Symes]

Revelation 12:17

"Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring--those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus."

Revelation 14:12

"This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus."

Both these texts show us that God does require His followers to keep His commandments. Not nine of them but all of them.

 

[deu58]

Oh deu;

When you go out on a limb, you pick a twig. If you suppose that a few letters and accounts of the historic events of Christ to be the sum total of all that is required, you are deceived. Remember this, if you dare take away any of God’s Words, or add to it, you are a doomed man.

Lastly if you suppose that Abraham’s walk is not to be emulated, then I suppose you are not of His Seed.

Too bad, so sad.

His son
William

If You will notice, I did say that if you are trying to walk in obediance,emulating Abraham in that manner, this is well and good. But if you are trying to imatate, ie,animal sacrififes this is not walking in the obediance that God requires of us today.
you have failed in both of your endeavors. You are not walking in faith or obediance.

As to your comment a few letters and historic accounts, thes are straight from the word of God. You do not bother to go out on a limb. You just walk straight off the cliff.
yours in Christ
deu58

 

[William1]

Oh well, such is death, yawn.

 

[adam332]

deu,
your pretty funny when you want to be. To bad your not able to read. As far a Bacchichi is concerned...if you pay attention to what I've posted in these forums or knew anything about me whatsoever....I do not read ANYONES Biblical conclusions EVER until I have already searched the scripture for myself and come to my own conclusions based on the weight of Biblical evidence alone. When and if I have my own conviction on a subject, I then will partake in a conversation about it or perhaps read what others have concluded. This is how I keep myself objective and unbias. I will only post anothers material, as I did his, if I agree with it's conclusions based on my own previous study, and have not had the time to write my own study.

I expect no one to take my word as teacher or anything, the Bible facts stand for themselves either it backs me or it doesn't. What I said about your Gal. 4 and Rom.14 references were dead on. It is not my opinion but a fact, you did try to pass off a single verse out of a whole chapter whose subject was specifically referring to feasting and fasting days ONLY! I am sure as ever, that you knew fully well there was no mention of the Sabbath or anthing to do with any of his ten commands yet you tried to pass it off as applicable anyway...this makes your actions deceitful, unobjective and dangerous to those who have a lesser grasp on the scriptures. This as well you did with Ignatius, you placed a single passage as an attempt to show that Sabbath keeping was done away with at that time, surely hoping I was ignorant as to what else he continued to say. Which told us specifically that he and the others were still keeping the Sabbath. Matter of fact he instructed it!

You are plainly sneaky and willing to twist the words of God and other information to convince people when you have no real evidence. It is desparate and blatantly so and speaks volumes for your character. You also use the very pathetic tactic of pitting one Sabbath keepers views against the other. Whether I agree with William or not has NO BEARING on what I say to you...I don't know him, don't belong to his denomination, and obviously have areas that we disagree. This is only a ploy to take the focus off you, so you can point the finger at us and say "See, they don't even agree with each other...so what am I to believe?".

Thats where we differ and your unobjectivity comes out...I don't care how many Sunday keepers come out of the woodwork. I can take each one individually when I stand on the foundation of His word.

Furthermore, william nor I need that one verse in Rev. 1:10 to prove anything. The weight of evidence speaks for itself. And we both know that a single verse does not a doctrine make. Our discussion over that verse was simply a tangent between two people who have obviously gone the extra mile to fully understand every facet of a verse that you sunday advocates keep throwing in our faces.

 

[deu58]

Adam
I posted where you could read the entire discourse for your self due to to the fact that the article is rather long. Do you really wish me to post the entire chapter? If that is your wish I will do so. Apparently there was enough there for you to label him a sell out so obviuosly you saw something you did not like. Tough.

Romans 14 deals with several issues, He uses the same basic teaching stlyle that he used in 1 Cor 6:19

1co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Here the focus of the teaching is on is on fornication and yet there is obviously a greater meaning for we use this verse to help people see that any ungodly behavior or action defiles the temple. Even though Paul did not list a whole slew of actions that defile as he does in other places still the meaning is clear. Adventists use this verse often to promote their health minisitry and it is a valid point.

So to with Rom.14. They only people who really do not believe that this includes the Sabbath is Sabbath keepers themselves. I am not a Sabbath keeper so why should I interpret this different than any other non Sabbath Christian? Especially when taken with the Statements such as these.

Ga 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Ga 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days

Again you use the premise of a three part law which I have already said else where is not Scriptural. You really do not have much choice because to acknowledge that the law is a single unit would weaken, but not destroy, your own posistion

But I know you already know this. For you too have done extensive research, In which you must have done some research on Judaism. I was on a Jewish website one time disscusing the Sabbath and one respondent claimed that for a Gentile to try to observe the Sabbath is liking trying to walk through a mine field wearing snowshoes. The Jews have never taught that a Gentile should observe the Sabbath. Gentile proslytes where not Jewish converts. In fact although Judaism permits full conversion if a Gentile wishes it, They strongly advise against it. The proslyte is called a Child Of the Gate. He is permitted to attend synagogue worship if he chooses, notice the word choose. Permitted to bring Sacrifices to the temple, to dwell in the land of Israel and have a place with God in the Kingdom of God. Never in History have they been required to keep the Law as a Jew keeps it. They can do whatever they want on Sabbath. It is not binding upon them. It was not then and it is not now. There are Gentile proslytes today. They are called Noahchides. They have there own websites if anyone wants to see if I am just being sneaky and making this up. If you have trouble finding one just post on a Jewish forum they will help you find one.

Ac 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Now I know you will disagree but the reason these Pharisee's believed this is because they now accepted that the Jew and the Gentile were one in the eyes of God and the Full requirements to become a Jew should be met.

Ac 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear

The apostles disagreed. Now Just in case you think I am being sneaky let me clarify for any one here who is not familiar with Scripture. I am Not going to paste all of Acts 15. If you want to find the book of Acts It is in the Bible {New Testament} after the Gospel of John, chapter 15 is located between 14 and 16. It will be the one with the number 15 in bold type. The entire chapter deals with this topic

Ac 15:19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Ac 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Ac 15:21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

And here is the decision, 15:20 is the requirements and 15:21 is a the choice.

Simply put the Sabbath is a choice for a Christian today just as it was then and before then. This is why you do not see any mention of proper Sabbath keeping In the new Testament.

As to your solution that they did not teach it because every body already knew about it, Being 17 years my senior I really expected better from you.

In the Old Testament, The Israelites were an unruly bunch that had to be chastised daily. Page after page of remember the Sabbath, keep it holy, Stop polluting it etc. etc But in the New Testament silence. According to the writings of Paul the New Testament gentile christians were hardly a bunch of Choir boys and girls.

1co 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

From 1Cor 11:20-34 Paul condemns them for polluting the lords supper.

Yet not one mention of polluting the Sabbath nor a teaching on proper Sabbath keeping. Every other thing under the sun they are constantly being reproached, chastised ,exhorted Warned and threatened for disobediance but apparently the one thing they got right was the Sabbath. On the Sabbath they were perfect little angels. Week after week after week. So perfect that never one time did they have to be instructed onproper Sabbath keeping.
Now Adam, I do beleive in miracles, but I do not believe this one.


Again ,I am not a Sabbath keeper so what makes you think I would interpret these verses according to your interpretation? Like you I have done my own studies and compared them to the Scriptures. If I had come to your conclusions then obviously we would not even be talking about this now would we. You leave me with no choice but to come to the conclusion that anyone who does not come to the same conclusions you do you consider sneaky.

As to being funny, this is no game. This is life and death in the true sense of the word. If we intentionally mislead someone we run risk of committing spiritual murder. The second death. Does that seem humourous to you?
I am neither laughing with you or at you, in fact I am not laughing at all.

The Major problem with doctrinal interpretation is what really happened at the cross. What passed and what remained. Now according to William nothing changed. For his own words are "there is nothing new under the sun" Now he claims to have taught himself Greek and is willing to do interpretations for us.

After seeing already several examples of his method of interpretation I think I will stick to relying on prayer and the Holy Spirit.

Well gotta go the wife wants to have our worship early tonight
yours in Christ
deu58

 

[deu58]

Adam {contiued}

As to being sneaky, when you post do you also post the studies of those who disagree with you or do you only post information that agrees with your
posistion? If the latter is the case then by your own definition of the word you are sneaky.

As for me, most of what I post is straight from the Scripture and if you can not find your own bible how am I supposed to tell you where to look for it?
And when I am really feeling sneaky and post information from outside sources I try to mislead people by Showing the source, page and chapter where they can view the information for themselves. We Sunday keepers are masters of deciet.

As to twisting Scripture, I must then assume that you to still beleive we should sacrifice animals and Abraham is our example that we should use as a pattern for ourselves. For that is what William has posted for all to see and you must be of the same mind. For if you are truly concerned about twisting scripture and did not believe these things yourself surly you would have made some comment on this. At first I wondered if you were simply avoiding comment simply because you have been working together promoteing the Sabbath. But then after showing your concern for twisting Scripture And being sneaky I thought to myself nope,thats not the reason because Adam does not like sneaky and he is very concerned about the purity of the scriptures Lest we cause harm to our other brothers and sisters by presenting
corrupted doctrine

So I can only assume that you are of a like mind. Tell me do you live in a tent and move every couple of weeks trailing a herd of sheep and goats for sacrificing? I guess you must have one of those new centrino laptops for posting.

Actually I have read all your posts here. How do you think I found Bro Brown and Megaport? I have seen enough of your tactics to already form an opinion.
You are nothing new.
Yours in Christ
deu58

 

[deu58]

Hello to you all,

Let us not lose sight of the true Sabbath. The Sabbath that sets us free, the inward Sabbath of resting in the work of Christ.

The law written on stone was to kill the old man. The old man can never be made good he can only be put to death.

The new man that Christ will bring to maturity within us is a friend of God's law for God's law is His heart beat.

The law brings fear to the old man but perfect love (Christ) cast out all fear.

The old man cannot and never will be acceptable to God through His law.

The new man is acceptable to God without the law because of Christ.

The new man grows to understand the law in a new and different way.

The new man soon learns that he can love God through His law.

The new man soon learns there is blessings for him in the law.

The new man soon learns there is joy that comes from keeping the law.

The new man soon realizes he never had this through the old man.

Truth in love,
John

Hello john
Nice to see you back. I seem to remember that you posted earlier that Yuo were a sabbath keeping Christian but not an Adventist. May I ask what church you belong to?
The reason I ask is my wife is an Adventist but she wants to leave Adventism if she can find a Sabbath church that uses the bible and the bible only. We live in Cebu,Philippines and the only Sabbath keeping church we ever see is the SDA. are there any sabbath church's besides the Adventists that have overseas ministries besides the Adventist? If I got the wrong guy sorry about that.

 

[Symes]

Hello john
Nice to see you back. I seem to remember that you posted earlier that Yuo were a sabbath keeping Christian but not an Adventist. May I ask what church you belong to?
The reason I ask is my wife is an Adventist but she wants to leave Adventism if she can find a Sabbath church that uses the bible and the bible only. We live in Cebu,Philippines and the only Sabbath keeping church we ever see is the SDA. are there any sabbath church's besides the Adventists that have overseas ministries besides the Adventist? If I got the wrong guy sorry about that.

deu58

To see what you have wrote is very sad because the Adventists Church that I go to beleives in the Bible. That does not mean to say that our minister does not quote from C. S. Lewis or other authors but at times God has gave others a clearer understanding of His Word than how we see things. I hope and pray that your wife and yourself will see that God has a purpose fot you in the Adventist Church. It is not that I think that the Church is perfect but to me they are the closest body of belivers that follow the teachings of Christ.

 

[deu58]

deu58

To see what you have wrote is very sad because the Adventists Church that I go to beleives in the Bible. That does not mean to say that our minister does not quote from C. S. Lewis or other authors but at times God has gave others a clearer understanding of His Word than how we see things. I hope and pray that your wife and yourself will see that God has a purpose fot you in the Adventist Church. It is not that I think that the Church is perfect but to me they are the closest body of belivers that follow the teachings of Christ.

Dear brother Symes

I know many Adventists believe in the bible. And I know for myself that many Adventists are truly Christians seeking to serve God. Here in the Philippines the Adventist church is seriously fragmented. We have the main group which is the official
Adventist church and then about 50 different splinter home church groups each teaching a slew of diifferent doctrines they have taken from the Spirit of Prophecy.

The problem is sister White. Even with in the Main body of Adventists there are deep divisions concerning the status of sister White. Many of your own pastors acknowledge the problem also. You have people holding to Arian views because of sister Whites teaching of Micheal and you have trinity beleivers, you have Sabbath reformers who want to go back to the original Adventist sabbath posistion and those who want a more moderate sabbath, you have those who pay little mind to sister White to those who practically deify her. The truth of the matter is if sister White were alive today even she would be upset with what is happening inside the church.

Personally I do not beleive that sister White was an Inspired writer. nor am I convinced she was a false prophet. I know that sounds confusing but I beleive she may have been a victim of a medical condition compounded by emotional trauma. What ever the case it is not my place to judge Ellen White. But every Christian has a duty to test the doctrines they are recieving by the litmus of Scripture. And in this case the teachings of Ellen White fall short of the mark.

Personally I have no problem worshipping on the Sabbath. But I can not worship in a church that accepts an extra biblical authority. My wife who began believing that sister White was a divinely inspired prophet is coming to the same conclusions. This is a painful process for her but actually it has increased her faith.

We would like to find a church where we can worship together. She comes to church with me on sunday sometimes but she still wants to keep the Sabbath. She keeps it at home now because she is tired of the argueing and divisions in the church

Have to go now time for morning worship. Thank you for concern and may God bless and keep you.
yours in Christ
deu58

 

[deu58]

Hi deu58,

I started a ministry about seven years ago in Rhode Island USA called Kids 4 Christ Youth Ministry and have branched off from that with an adult minstry called World Harvest Missions. Both of these ministries are street level ministries with outreaches in Haiti and Honduras. I have kind of a different understanding of God's word than most people this is the reason why I started this ministry.

We gather together to celebrate the Sabbath on the seventh day because God made this day for us as an expression of His love for us. To keep the Sabbath is personal expression of love for God for each individual person.

I believe there is a more important understanding of the Sabbath that has to do with an inward rest that God wants to bring us all to understand. I don't believe that inward rest will manifest itself in do's and don'ts on the seventh day but rather a liberty to do what is good without fear of breaking outward regulations and a liberty to gather freely in worship, expressing thanks giving and sharing in the word for the edification of the body of believers. I believe this is a sweet smelling aroma to God our heavenly Father.

I understand some people may not receive this view and I believe it's because they may be trying to understand the law as it applies to regulating the old man. For the born again abiding believer the law is love God and love your neighbor with this as our guide the law will be written on our hearts and will be interpreted for daily living by the Holy Spirit. We have to remember that there is so much more to loving God and loving our neighbor then are written in God's law. Such things will be used to divide the sheep from the goats.

I believe everyone who sincerely has a desire to know God through His word with the confirmation of the Holy Spirit will have a gift to offer the body of Christ, His church. Even with this, we as born again believers are responsible to work out our own salvation testing all spirits to make sure they are of God whether that spirit be of word or of deed.

Truth in love,
John

You know what John? I sure wish you would start a ministry here. Even within the same church Christians usually do not agree on every point so sure you and I would have differing points of view but the most critical point of all we totally agree on.

Ro 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

I am not anti-Sabbath in that I think all Sabbath keepers are in error and must worship
on Sunday. I am anti Sabbath in the respect that there are those who would deny us the choice that we have in Christian liberty to freely make that choice. As I posted above if I could find a Sabbath church that taught that a person had a right to choose in love rather than be attacked by legalism and taught a biblical faith I would have no problem attending that church. Nor would I have a problem helping such a church spread a sabbath message taught in love that permitted people to make a choice. Actually it is much easier to present a good solid Sabbath argument based on the Law of of Love than it is the the Law of Legalism. If that is your position then there is probably little for us to disagree on. Personally I beleive there is only one true church.

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

I believe the phsysical body of this church is scattered through out the different religions who accept Christ as their personal savior. When dealing with individuals whether they be Mormons Jehovahs or Catholics or what ever. I use these guiding principles.

Mt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Ga 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Ga 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

These are the things I look for in a person claiming to be a Christian. If I see these things or that a person is attempting to acquire these things then I believe that this person has a genuine relationship with Christ. This is not to say that doctrine does not play an important part in a church. For to say that it does not is against the teaching of Scripture. I simply mean there are other things to consider. There are guidelines in scripture regarding this.

1jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

We need to be careful because the fruit can be imitated. It is difficult to explain in a letter. I guess the best word is discernment. A gross example would be if you met a person who seemed to posess the fruit of the spirit and you start talking Scripture with them and they claim "oh in our church we teach that fornication is acceptable as long as we repent afterwards". Well, now it is time to start witnessing the true savior to this person because they are lost and do not even know it due to corrupted doctrine. Personally I believe it is better to have Christ and no religion than it is to have religion and no Christ.

My wife was looking over my shoulder reading your post and she would love to talk to you but she does not really know how to use the computer. She is very active and between running the house and sharing Gods Word anywhere and everywhere she has a lot of irons in the fire already. Thanks for the reply and may our Lord and savior bless you and your ministry.

yours in Christ
deu58

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

REMINDER:

In order to post in this thread you must be a Christian.

[noco]

Thank You,
JeffreyLloyd
CF Moderator: General Theology
Team Faithfulness