"THE LORD'S DAY IS THE SABBATH DAY NOT SUNDAY ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURES

[3rdAngel]

3rdAngel said: ↑God’s people are represented in the old covenant by Israel in the flesh born of the seed of Abraham and Gods’ Israel in the new covenant are represented as all those who have now been born again in the Spirit to believe and follow Gods’ Word says Romans 9:6-8; Romans 2:28-29; Galatians 3:28-29. So understanding who Gods Israel is here shows that keeping the Sabbath and all of Gods' 10 commandments is in harmony with the scriptures showing that Gods Israel are only all those who believe and follow what Gods’ Word says. According to the new covenant scriptures both Jewish and gentile believers are all grafted in through faith (Romans 11:13-26) and we are all now one in Christ.
[The Sabbath day] will be a sign between me and the Israelite's forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’” (Exodus 31:17)

Your response here...

You just made that up…. Wow! You are getting desperate….

I did not make up the scriptures in the post you did not bother to respond to. The scriptures in the post you are ignoring show that Gods Israel in the new covenant are simply all those who through faith have been born again to walk in Gods' Spirit. Your response above only shows it is you who is desperate as you have no response to the scriptures that are in disagreement with you. The scriptures are God's Words not my words posted as evidence here against your words that are not Gods' Word so your argument therefore dear friend is with God not me.

According to the old covenant scriptures under the civil laws of the nation of Israel, if anyone was found openly and publicly breaking Gods' Sabbath day by working on the Sabbath they were to be put to death. This was to teach Gods' people that the wages of all sin or breaking anyone of Gods' 10 commandments is death without Gods' forgiveness as also shown in the new covenant in Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord". Therefore Exodus 31:5 was not talking about doing good on the Sabbath day it was talking about openly doing your own work on the Sabbath day that can be done any other day of the week. What you also fail to understand here is that according to the old covenant scriptures, "the death penalty" was not restricted to only Gods' 4th commandment seventh day Sabbath and openly breaking it but it was a law linked to all of Gods' 10 commandments to teach that if we break Gods' law we are all under sin and death.

The same death penalty was given to anyone who was caught breaking 1st Commandment (Exodus 20:3), Thou shalt have no other gods before me (Deuteronomy 17:1-5; 14:6-10; Exodus 22:20); 2nd Commandment, (Exodus 20:4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any idols (Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 27: 15); 3rd Commandment (Exodus 20:7), Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain (Leviticus 24:16); 4th Commandment Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11) see Exodus 31:14-15; 35:2; 5th commandment (Exodus 20:12) honor your father and mother see Exodus 21:15-17; 6th commandment thou shalt not kill (Exodus 20:13) see Leviticus 24:17; Numbers 35:31-33; 7th commandment thou shalt not commit Adultery (Exodus 20:14) see Leviticus 20:10; John 8:3-5; 8th Commandment thou shall not steal (Exodus 20:15) but only applied to man stealing or kidnapping (Exodus 21:16); 9th commandment (Exodus 20:16) thou shall not bear false witness see Deuteronomy 19:15-21 and the 10th commandments thou shall not covet (Exodus 20:17) see Joshua 7:21-25.

This of course all ceased during the time of Christ when Israel was under Roman rule and law and at the death of Christ bringing an end to the old covenant and the bringing in of the new covenant. The death penalty is still in force today because it is written that the wages of sin is death for those that do not repent before the time of judgement is finished (Romans 6:23; James 2:8-12) but enforcement of the death penalty does not take place until the second coming (see Psalms 9:17; Matthew 5:22,29,30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15,33; Mark 9:43,45,47; Luke 12:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; James 3:6; Revelation 2:11, 20:6,14, 21:8 etc etc)

The only difference today is that we are in the new covenant now so we no longer put people to open death because we are not in the physical nation of Israel in the flesh or under the old covenant civil laws of Israel. The death penalty for sin is still the same however for those who reject the gift of God's dear son and continue in sin *Romans 6:23 but Jesus says now that Vengeance is mine and his reward will be with him at the 2nd coming *Romans 12:19-21; Revelation 22:12. God's Word does not teach or support the false doctrine of lawlessness (without law) and Gods' 4th commandment in the new covenant is one of God's 10 commandments that give us the knowledge of what sin is when broken *Exodus 20:8-10; Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7; 1 John 3:4.

Take care.

 

[3rdAngel]

3rdAngel said: ↑ Biblical time is the night first followed by daylight second. Its from Genesis 1. According to the scriptures the 4th commandment says that the Sabbath is the "seventh day" of the week in Exodus 20:10 which is a reference back to Genesis 2:1-3 and the seventh day of the creation week where God rested, blessed and made the seventh day a holy day of rest. Most Christian religions simply choose to forget Gods' 4th commandment when God says "remember" (Exodus 20:8).

Your response here...

Straining at a gnat on this one…. The Jewish day is Sun set to the following sunset.

Really? You just said "Straining at a gnat on this one...The Jewish day is Sun set to the following sunset" which is what I posted above. Does that mean you are straining at a gnat? Your comment makes no sense as it is not straining at a gnat to post scripture as evidence in support of what we believe.

There a no need for further definitions as scriptures details the Jewish Sabbath day already. “Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.” (John 20:1). This day would be our today’s Sunday (Jewish Saturday sundown to Sunday sundown). It was the command from the Roman emperor that worship should take place on Sunday - in honour of their SUN God…But we all know this already! The only reason for an attempt at further defining it is to try to find a way out if your dilemma / it didn’t work, did it, for instance:In Numbers 15:32–36, it says that a man gathering firewood on Sabbath is put to death; the potential punishment for desecrating Sabbath (stoning) is the most severe in Jewish law. I am sure you will say something about that!

Your post here makes absolutely no sense to me. Perhaps you may need to explain yourself a little further. I have not further defined the Sabbath anywhere in my posts I have only posted scripture that defines that Gods' true Sabbath is "the seventh day of the week" (see Genesis 2:1-3 and Exodus 20:8-11) not any day of the week we want to it to be like you are claiming. So I am not further defining the Sabbath but showing how God defines the Sabbath that was already given to us. Sunday worship is a man-made teaching and tradition that has led many away from God and His Word to break the commandments of God (Gods 4th commandment - Exodus 20:8-11). There is not a single scripture in all of Gods' Word that says we are not abolish Gods' 4th commandment and to keep Sunday as a holy day of rest in honor of the resurrection of Jesus. This is a man-made teaching and tradition that has let many to break the commandments of God. Jesus says those who do this are not worshiping God in Matthew 15:3-9. God is calling us all back to worship Him in Spirit and in truth in John 4:23-24. That means to worship God by believing and following what Gods' Word says. (see John 6:63 and John 17:17). It does not mean not believing and not following what Gods' Word says and making any day the Sabbath as that would be not believing what Gods' Word says in Exodus 20:8-11 taken from Genesis 2:1-3 that defines Gods' 4th commandment as the "seventh day of the week starting our time from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Therefore it is not biblical or supported in the scriptures anywhere in the bible that we can make any day a Sabbath day. That is simply not believing and following what Gods' Word says which defines Gods' Sabbath day as "the seventh day" of the week.

Take care.

 

[samtonga43]

He does this because he’s run out of ‘proofs’ in the same way he refers to Adam and Eve in reference to Sabbath day.
It’s all desperation - he will post anything as long as he can say that he’s responded!

Soapy, when will you respond to my question about your claim that a lawyer prays to a judge, and that 3rdAngel prays to you?

 

[samtonga43]

Being excessively rude is not humor. And adding a false accusation does not help your case. Why would it be too difficult to ask your questions again politely? I explained to you earlier how I would not answer rudely asked questions. That there is no need for me to do so. If I do not answer when asked politely then you an claim "running away".

Seriously? You tell me that "One cannot quote posts that do not exist". I responded, deservedly in my opinion, with a very small expression of light sarcasm, but to you, it is actually being "excessively rude". What a delicate soul you have turned out to be!
Tell me, SZ. Do you ever ask impolite questions? (Careful now...)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seriously? You tell me that "One cannot quote posts that do not exist". I responded, deservedly in my opinion, with a very small expression of light sarcasm, but to you, it is actually being "excessively rude". What a delicate soul you have turned out to be!
Tell me, SZ. Do you ever ask impolite questions? (Careful now...)

I am truly amazed! Running away means not answering questions. That means that there were no posts of his to quote. Would it do any good to keep quoting my own posts where questions were asked again and again and again? You are not reasoning rationally here.

The only way to show that someone is running away and not answering questions is to continually ask the same questions again and again. If one falsely claimed that a person was running away it would be child's play to quote the post where the question was answered.

In other words, if the claim was false it would be easy to show it. But if it is true the only thing that shows that it is true are the unanswered questions. I really should not have to explain something that is that obvious.

 

[samtonga43]

No, only you and her have opposed me here. And she has never supported you. She just came to oppose me. Who besides you two have said anything like that about me?

Does this mean we are wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Soapy, when will you respond to my question about your claim that a lawyer prays to a judge, and that 3rdAngel prays to you?

I would like to see the original post that this was based upon, but it appears that you are using an equivocation fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does this mean we are wrong?

It shows that his post was misleading at the best. It says nothing about either of you being right or wrong, but it was a poor attempt to justify his position.

 

[samtonga43]

I am truly amazed! Running away means not answering questions. That means that there were no posts of his to quote. Would it do any good to keep quoting my own posts where questions were asked again and again and again? You are not reasoning rationally here.

And over your head my point flies again. Don't be 'truly amazed', SZ. It was a joke. It's awful to have to explain a joke to someone who appears to be lacking in lightness of heart, but I'll give it a go.

If you tell someone that he/she cannot quote posts that do not exist, you are stating the strikingly obvious. Right?
I thought it was funny, and most people would agree. Think about it, SZ, and get off your high horse, for goodness' sake.
Here is my post again. I would be very grateful if you could spare some time to respond.

Please try to understand the following, SZ. He believes they DID happen. You don't. According to you he has no sound basis for what he believes. According to him he does a sound basis. You believe his exegesis fails. You do not know.
There is no such entity as excessive exegesis or excessive eisegesis. It is either exegesis or eisegesis. You really ought to know this.
***
You stated that parts of the Bible never happened. This is a positive claim, so it is up to you to prove it. Can you do this?

 

[samtonga43]

It shows that his post was misleading at the best. It says nothing about either of you being right or wrong, but it was a poor attempt to justify his position.

Here's what he said:
"It is not being rude to ask you questions and challenge you to prove what you say. It is called having a discussion, which is what we are supposed to be doing here".
I think this is not merely an attempt to justify his position. He actually does justify his position.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And over your head my point flies again. Don't be 'truly amazed', SZ. It was a joke. It's awful to have to explain a joke to someone who appears to be lacking in lightness of heart, but I'll give it a go.

If you tell someone that he/she cannot quote posts that do not exist, you are stating the strikingly obvious. Right?
I thought it was funny, and most people would agree. Think about it, SZ, and get off your high horse, for goodness' sake.
Here is my post again. I would be very grateful if you could spare some time to respond.

Please try to understand the following, SZ. He believes they DID happen. You don't. According to you he has no sound basis for what he believes. According to him he does a sound basis. You believe his exegesis fails. You do not know.
There is no such entity as excessive exegesis or excessive eisegesis. It is either exegesis or eisegesis. You really ought to know this.
***
You stated that parts of the Bible never happened. This is a positive claim, so it is up to you to prove it. Can you do this?

Oh please. I do not believe you. You have only attacked me here.

And you do not seem to understand. It does not matter whether he believes in those myths or not. Unless, and this is an out I gave him a long time ago, one admits that one is just playing silly fanfiction games. As to knowing whether his exegesis fails, yes it does. He is trying to apply myths to the real world and that results in failure. Trying to swing from a web will fail no matter how much one believes in Spiderman. What he is doing is no different from that.

And yes, of course I can prove that they did not happen. I offered to do so to 3rd but he did not want to discuss that here. As I told you before that conversation was between the two of us. I won't lecture to him if he has no interest in learning. But it is very easy to show that his clear YEC beliefs are wrong.

And I will own up to my own mistake. I had an incorrect concept of eisegesis. But exegesis on its own is a failure. It makes an unjustified assumption. That means that one cannot get a proper understanding of the Bible if one uses it. Exegesis assumes that the Bible is literally true, and many parts of it simply did not happen or are wrong. You should know that Genesis is a book of myths. It still works as a collection of morality tales, but it fails as history and exegesis that treats it as history is doomed to fail too. Even in the New Testament there are clear errors. For example Luke's nativity is loaded with them. The number one thing is that his date of Jesus's birth is very weird. It appears to be at first around 4 BCE and then it is quite clearly said to be in 6 CE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's what he said:
"It is not being rude to ask you questions and challenge you to prove what you say. It is called having a discussion, which is what we are supposed to be doing here".
I think this is not merely an attempt to justify his position. He actually does justify his position.

It is rude if the questions are asked in a rude manner. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. it is the being rude part that is a problem.

 

[3rdAngel]

Soapy, when will you respond to my question about your claim that a lawyer prays to a judge, and that 3rdAngel prays to you?

Maybe the same day he actually addresses my post content and the scriptures in them that are in disagreement with him

 

[3rdAngel]

It is rude if the questions are asked in a rude manner. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. it is the being rude part that is a problem.

Can you post a link to where someone has been rude to you by posting questions to you here? I am just wondering if you think you have been rude to others here as well? You keep saying that @samtonga43 has been rude to you or myself but I have not seen this or been aware of it. That is why I was asking. You keep telling @samtonga43 that she keeps attacking you. Can you also post us a single post showing us where she has been attacking you? I have not see that either but as posted in linked posts to you earlier as evidence, I have seen how this type of behavior is something you have done in our past discussions. Are you just posting what you do to others in your post here in order to avoid answering her questions to you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you post a link to where someone has been rude to you by posting questions to you here? I am just wondering if you think you have been rude to others here as well? You keep saying that @samtonga43 has been rude to you or myself but I have not seen this or been aware of it. That is why I was asking. You keep telling @samtonga43 keeping attacking you. Can you also post us a single post showing us where she has been attacking you?

Nope. I made it clear when it happened. If you missed it that is your problem not mine. The posts are still in this thread.

You do not seem to know how and when to demand evidence. If you missed a post that I commented on and samtonga responded to then you cannot demand evidence pages later. The thread is still here. The posts are still there. If you really want to find them you can do it.

 

[3rdAngel]

Nope. I made it clear when it happened. If you missed it that is your problem not mine. The posts are still in this thread.
You do not seem to know how and when to demand evidence. If you missed a post that I commented on and samtonga responded to then you cannot demand evidence pages later. The thread is still here. The posts are still there. If you really want to find them you can do it.

No you didn't post anything to prove your claims and accusations about @samtonga43 or myself. You simply mirrored what we were saying about you back to us without providing any evidence to your claims. At least we posted evidence to support our claims in linked post examples. So I am guessing that is a no than? You are not able to provide any evidence for your claims here again. This is the same type of behavior from you in our past discussions. You have been unable to respond to post and scripture content that has been in disagreement with you so in order to avoid discussion you post rude comments and accusations you are unable to prove and then runaway from the discussion. Its become all to predictable with you now SZ. That is why I said it has become a little boring now chatting with you. We are best to look at discussing the OP or post content and being able to prove what we claim to be true. If we cannot all we have is empty words that have no truth in them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No you didn't post anything to prove your claims and accusations about @samtonga43 or myself. You simply mirrored what we were saying about you back to us. At least we posted evidence to support our claims in linked post examples. So I am guessing that is a no than? You are not able to provide any evidence for your claims here again. This is the same type of behavior from you in our past discussions. You have been unable to respond to post and scripture content that has been in disagreement with you so in order to avoid discussion you post rude comments and accusations you are unable to prove and then runaway from the discussion. Its become all to predictable with you now SZ. That is why I said it has become a little boring now chatting with you.

Oh my!! Evidence was not needed.. You need to learn when evidence is required. I pointed it out when it occurred. The post was evidence.

You need to learn when evidence is required and when it is not. I quoted the posts when they occurred. So even if she deleted them they will still show. As long as she did not break any rules her posts or delete her own posts will still be there.

Now as to why your argument fails I could present evidence for that too, but you said that you did not want to discuss that here.

 

[Soapy]

Here we are going to differ. It can be shown that the Genesis creation story is just a myth. There never were only two people. The order of appearance on life is wrong. The time frame is extremely wrong. It has plants before the Sun. It is just a mess. It still "works" as a morality tale, but it is not literally true. That is why I asked that question. He bases his interpretation on an event that never happened.

Thanks for the input but it’s not anywhere near my authority to discuss or debate.

(p.s. When discussing / debating Scriptural matters it’s best to stick to what the scriptures says IN GENERAL - yes there are arguably points of dispute which no one can ever prove one way or another : Faith is the way!)

The discussion (debate) is about ‘The Lord’s Day’ and whether this is also the ‘Sabbath Day’ as defined by the Jews of the Bible Scriptures.

We aren’t interested in whether the creation process was 7 Earth days or an evolutionary process over tens of thousands of years (my bets on the latter). What we are interested in is whether ‘Lords Day’ and ‘Sabbath Day’ are the same thing.

The O.P. is badly worded and fully open to interpretation and contention since we do not know WHICH ‘Lord’ is being spoken of: ‘Jesus Christ’ or ‘Almighty God’. But thank goodness there are no Trinitarians in this thread to squalor the debate.

But since the debate is largely unsolvable with our limited knowledge of what John (on Patmos) meant, the debate has swayed towards the other matters largely distracted by the awful repetitive nonsense posing as worthy argument from 3rdAngel.

It is clear that he knows that we are now in the era of ‘True Worship’ which is on a personal level to God - and so he ignores what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman and sticks to the what was: Corporate Worship on the Jewish Sabbath (‘Day of Rest from daily work’ in which God must be worshipped and evil doings must be refrained from - to comply!)

3rdAngel cannot moved forward since doing so would mean admitting the change so he just keeps repeating the same arguments no matter what is shown to him. Also, he uses the age old tactic of flooding his posts with so much ‘chatter with questions’ that it’s difficult without playing his game to answer to everything he asks - thus infusing his ever growing lengthy posts with accusations of his opponent not responding to his questions - plus, of course, not acknowledging any answers that are given to him. He also seeks to try to demoralise his opponent by ‘assuming’ answers for them (‘So that’s no, then!’)

Im not sure how he writes his responses so quickly - I saw a whole swathe of stuff that was posted in 2 minutes…. Seems he’s a dab hand at ‘Copy-Paste’ rather than fresh lively instinctive original content.

3rdAngel is as much the same as those Jews Jesus claimed made millstones of the laws around their necks since whole Sabbath Day is legal jewish law (and I don’t argue against Corporate Worship - it’s a necessary group activity) Ig has become repetitive and rote: same songs, same prayers; same procedures… that require no real SPIRIT : it is, in effect, A JOB for the preachers.

But notice that 3rdAngel does not engage in the actual DAY that is called ‘Sabbath’. How many times have I posted this to him about ‘Friday sun down to Saturday sun down’…?

So… does God vilify the ‘SUNDAY WORSHIP’ of today?

I mean, like, ‘Sunday’ worship was commanded by Constantine, the Roman Emperor, to comply with worship of the Roman god of the Sun, ‘Sol’.

But yet, seven day adventists who follow the Sabbath day worship are no better true worshippers that the ’Sunday’ worshippers.

You can see by now that NEITHER those who ‘Worship on the mountain’ nor ‘Those who worship in the temple’ are fully acceptable to God (those who follow the Sabbath of those who follow the Sun-day worship) - BUT RATHER, those who worship IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH!

….oh, wasn’t that what Jesus said???

 

[3rdAngel]

Thanks for the input but it’s not anywhere near my authority to discuss or debate.

(p.s. When discussing / debating Scriptural matters it’s best to stick to what the scriptures says IN GENERAL - yes there are arguably points of dispute which no one can ever prove one way or another : Faith is the way!)

The discussion (debate) is about ‘The Lord’s Day’ and whether this is also the ‘Sabbath Day’ as defined by the Jews of the Bible Scriptures.

We aren’t interested in whether the creation process was 7 Earth days or an evolutionary process over tens of thousands of years (my bets on the latter). What we are interested in is whether ‘Lords Day’ and ‘Sabbath Day’ are the same thing.

The O.P. is badly worded and fully open to interpretation and contention since we do not know WHICH ‘Lord’ is being spoken of: ‘Jesus Christ’ or ‘Almighty God’. But thank goodness there are no Trinitarians in this thread to squalor the debate.

But since the debate is largely unsolvable with our limited knowledge of what John (on Patmos) meant, the debate has swayed towards the other matters largely distracted by the awful repetitive nonsense posing as worthy argument from 3rdAngel.

It is clear that he knows that we are now in the era of ‘True Worship’ which is on a personal level to God - and so he ignores what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman and sticks to the what was: Corporate Worship on the Jewish Sabbath (‘Day of Rest from daily work’ in which God must be worshipped and evil doings must be refrained from - to comply!)

3rdAngel cannot moved forward since doing so would mean admitting the change so he just keeps repeating the same arguments no matter what is shown to him. Also, he uses the age old tactic of flooding his posts with so much ‘chatter with questions’ that it’s difficult without playing his game to answer to everything he asks - thus infusing his ever growing lengthy posts with accusations of his opponent not responding to his questions - plus, of course, not acknowledging any answers that are given to him. He also seeks to try to demoralise his opponent by ‘assuming’ answers for them (‘So that’s no, then!’)

Im not sure how he writes his responses so quickly - I saw a whole swathe of stuff that was posted in 2 minutes…. Seems he’s a dab hand at ‘Copy-Paste’ rather than fresh lively instinctive original content.

3rdAngel is as much the same as those Jews Jesus claimed made millstones of the laws around their necks since whole Sabbath Day is legal jewish law (and I don’t argue against Corporate Worship - it’s a necessary group activity) Ig has become repetitive and rote: same songs, same prayers; same procedures… that require no real SPIRIT : it is, in effect, A JOB for the preachers.

But notice that 3rdAngel does not engage in the actual DAY that is called ‘Sabbath’. How many times have I posted this to him about ‘Friday sun down to Saturday sun down’…?

So… does God vilify the ‘SUNDAY WORSHIP’ of today?

I mean, like, ‘Sunday’ worship was commanded by Constantine, the Roman Emperor, to comply with worship of the Roman god of the Sun, ‘Sol’.

But yet, seven day adventists who follow the Sabbath day worship are no better true worshippers that the ’Sunday’ worshippers.

You can see by now that NEITHER those who ‘Worship on the mountain’ nor ‘Those who worship in the temple’ are fully acceptable to God (those who follow the Sabbath of those who follow the Sun-day worship) - BUT RATHER, those who worship IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH!

….oh, wasn’t that what Jesus said???

Says the man unwilling to respond to all the scriptures and the post content that disagrees with him

 

[3rdAngel]

Oh my!! Evidence was not needed.. You need to learn when evidence is required. I pointed it out when it occurred. The post was evidence.

You need to learn when evidence is required and when it is not. I quoted the posts when they occurred. So even if she deleted them they will still show. As long as she did not break any rules her posts or delete her own posts will still be there.

Now as to why your argument fails I could present evidence for that too, but you said that you did not want to discuss that here.

You to not seem to understand what evidence is or burden of proof.