F
from scratch
Guest
If you're talking about Israel, yes. If you wish to include the whole world, no.
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.
If you're talking about Israel, yes. If you wish to include the whole world, no.The Law was a way of life, not that many got stoned because they all grew up in godly morals.
But they stoned gentiles, and rightfully so- the world was barbaric then. To not kill was to be killed.
A lot of people today do not understand that reality.
God demanded that entire tribes be taken out, down to the infants themselves, so that there would be no act of revenge in the future- somebody raiding your entire establishment for the sake of vengeance.
God has preeminence over life, do not mistake that for a second. He is our Creator, so therefore, He governs who should die and who should live.
I'm not missing the point, you are purposely ignoring the point and using illogical arguments to support your position. Almost every time I refute your points with sound logic instead of refuting my logic you just make another illogical point and another and another never refuting anything just like a boat in the river saying it is attacking but instead moving around making smoke screens never making things clear or staying in one place long enough.You missed the point. It is the one commandments that takes an active conscious decision. Even those who never hear about the bible will tell you not to take that which is not yours etc., but to honor God by keeping His Sabbath does not come to mine that easily. It takes a knowledge of the fact, commitment and love to God himself. It is the only Commandment that receives opposition.
No. It is because there make no sense or they directly contradict other Scripture.Sure it can. And it does. And this has been pointed out to you scores of times. Many posts reside in this and previous threads you've simply ignored because you can't align your religious paradigm with what the Bible testifies.
It never had to be mention. It was a given fact. Both Jews and gentles were keeping the Sabbath. Acts 13:I'm not missing the point, you are purposely ignoring the point and using illogical arguments to support your position. Almost every time I refute your points with sound logic instead of refuting my logic you just make another illogical point and another and another never refuting anything just like a boat in the river saying it is attacking but instead moving around making smoke screens never making things clear or staying in one place long enough.
The Sabbath is not mentioned by new testament authors in any form or fashion that you continuously equate it as..... you are forced to use Old testament jewish specific scriptures to support it upon non jewish generic Christians.
I'm sorry but this is no proof of gentiles keeping the Sabbath. One could easily conclude that the gentiles were interested in Jesus and Paul and came to where he was speaking to the Jews on the Sabbath.It never had to be mention. It was a given fact. Both Jews and gentles were keeping the Sabbath. Acts 13:
43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. ( not Jews)
45But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
Not the only time either that Paul met on the Sabbath with Gentles. If the Sabbath was a problem it would have been addressed directly. It never was. Act 15 was a perfect opportunity, do you see it there?
Yes. How far back into the Memory Hole do you want to go? Each time Scripture testifies of our deliverance from the old covenant (the Ten Commandments, as Moses named it) and someone posts the Biblical texts for you, you replace Scripture's testimony with this:
Instead of Scripture, you need to replace Scripture with your admission that it "makes no sense". Did you think we were the first to encounter this empty excuse?It is because there make no sense or they directly contradict other Scripture.
Your premises have been dependent on select sound-bites that can't be reconciled with other passages, or even the context your sound-bites came from.It is not just quoting scripture but it is the right application that counts. Satan quoted scripture too.
But it sure sounds like your posts! You've been alternating between insisting the Law isn't holy, and yet is! And I caught you regurgitating Ellen for her heretical 'sabbath test' you now know there isn't a shred of Biblical support for. Do you need to visit the Memory Hole to see how many times you've borne false witness on this thread alone?The scriptures say if we tell lies we will be lost, but you want to maintain that the Commandments that say thou shalt not lie is not for us, and then you want to tell us that we should not tell lies and that the same commandments that are removed are Holy. Your theology is that it is not but it is. That does not sound like my holy and wise God.
I'm not missing the point, you are purposely ignoring the point and using illogical arguments to support your position. Almost every time I refute your points with sound logic instead of refuting my logic you just make another illogical point and another and another never refuting anything just like a boat in the river saying it is attacking but instead moving around making smoke screens never making things clear or staying in one place long enough.
The Sabbath is not mentioned by new testament authors in any form or fashion that you continuously equate it as..... you are forced to use Old testament jewish specific scriptures to support it upon non jewish generic Christians.
You are correct but no one is seeking salvation by keeping the law. Do not take it that the reason for being obedient to God's holy law is about seeking Salvation by works. It is about accepting Christ as our Lord and saviour and living with the power of the Holy Spirit to do the will of God including obeying His sanctified Ten Commandments. Why add more sins to our account after coming to Christ.It has been pointed to repeatedly that the body is dead because of sin. No amount of law keeping is going to change that conclusion.
The LAW stands secure in the determination that 'all' have been concluded to be under sin. That conclusion is not going to change by any amount of law applications.
We bear what we bear in a dead body corrupted by SIN, period. If a man keeps the law, he does so with sin remaining in his flesh regardless, ever seeking to declare itself righteous on a contrived basis.
s
Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.There are several witnesses in the Old Testament that sin is wrong before the law. You seem to be tell me that one can't know about sin unless they get it from the law. Romans says this simply isn't true.
You are correct but no one is seeking salvation by keeping the law.
I've never said that believers can sin against the law. I'm even pickier about the law than the SDA, recognizing that even the mere thought of sin is sin.Do not take it that the reason for being obedient to God's holy law is about seeking Salvation by works.
42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.I'm sorry but this is no proof of gentiles keeping the Sabbath. One could easily conclude that the gentiles were interested in Jesus and Paul and came to where he was speaking to the Jews on the Sabbath.
Again. NO PROOF here a gentile was keeping the Sabbath..... AT ALL.
What gives you the idea that SDA's do not accept that sin starts in the mind? Again I give you credit for that fact.Of course you are. Every legalist I've ever engaged say that if anyone violates the law and does not followup with some prescribed methodology or ritual or combination to put it right, they are in fact lost, should they happen to pass before they get (whatever prescription) done. That's the fear that holds most of these groups together. And let's also face the fact that some 'leaders' get a perverse kind of kick out of sitting on top of the 'forgiveness' pile, prescribing the cure that ails ya.
I've never said that believers can sin against the law. I'm even pickier about the law than the SDA, recognizing that even the mere thought of sin is sin.
What is superabundantly clear to anyone who is honest about the law is the simple fact that we have sin in thought, word and ultimately if not kept in check DEED. Deed is merely the final showing. It starts much earlier than that, just as Jesus shows us, from with. Evil thoughts factually defile the man.
So, if you want to be accurate about Jesus' Factual Presentations you could at least acknowledge that.
So a legalist doesn't commit adultery? Big deal. Every last one of us who is honest and genetically inclined are assaulted along the lines of lust continually and INTERNALLY. And yes, those thoughts are SIN because they are EVIL and DEFILING.
If you want to be a legalist, at least be a good and honest one and take what Jesus said about these things as a fact. Judging by the outside of the cup is worthless drivel. God assuredly sees well past that and directly into our INNARDS. He is not fooled either.
Not one bit. Not one time.
s
What gives you the idea that SDA's do not accept that sin starts in the mind? Again I give you credit for that fact.
What is the fear, the evil, in saying that one should not have idols as a Christian? How can that be legalistic? Because I do not steal I am legalistic?
What gives you the idea that SDA's do not accept that sin starts in the mind? Again I give you credit for that fact.
What is the fear, the evil, in saying that one should not have idols as a Christian? How can that be legalistic? Because I do not steal I am legalistic?
yup.... nothing like diversion and evasion instead of direct confrontationIt was a diversion, Precious. Don't fall for this common substitute for an answer that never came.
yup.... nothing like diversion and evasion instead of direct confrontation
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?