Should Christians Be Keeping the Sabbath?

[BummerBeavis]

I do not believe Paul eliminated any of the 10 commandments. I've thoroughly studied all of the passages claiming abolishment of the fourth commandment by Paul, and none stand up to contextual scrutiny.

no he made some bs about not keeping them "in the flesh" but in the mind. this man was never confirmed by Yeshua or the real apostles as being from God. In fact Yeshua warned us against such a man coming

 

[BummerBeavis]

It’s really hard to argue from opinions. If you can substantiate your statement with facts, of course from the bible, then we can argue or see our differences.

what opinion? I am making a statement of fact. Paul was never confirmed by Yeshua or any of his real apostles as being an apostle. He never met Yeshua. all Paul has is his own self proclamation calling himself an Apostle. He came in his own name. this is not an opinion it is a fact. You just don't like what I have to say because it means the bible has been tmpered with and Paul who did not know Yeshua should not have written 13 of the27 nt books, or any at all!

 

[BummerBeavis]

It’s really hard to argue from opinions. If you can substantiate your statement with facts, of course from the bible, then we can argue or see our differences.

are you saying that paul did not make a distinction about doing something in the spirit and doing it in the flesh?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Paul was never confirmed by Yeshua or any of his real apostles as being an apostle. He never met Yeshua. all Paul has is his own self proclamation calling himself an Apostle. He came in his own name. this is not an opinion it is a fact.

What are your views of Luke and Acts?

 

[JM2C]

In verse 2 Paul introduces the subject matter to his Israelite audience -- justification by faith not deeds. Nothing here remotely states ancestry is excluded. Ancestry was identified prior to Paul's introduction of the subject matter in both chapters.

If you say V2 is referring to Paul’s “Israelite audience” then v1’s “as pertaining or according to the flesh” is the same as the “Israelite audience” in v2, but your recent statement implied that Romans 4:1 “as pertaining or according to the flesh” as Gentiles.

1. Let the bible identify the ancestry of Paul's mostly 'gentile' Roman congregation:

Rom 4:1 But if so, what can we say about Abraham,our forefather by natural descent?

 

[BummerBeavis]

What are your views of Luke and Acts?

i am glad to read acts and see how Paul changed his conversion story every time he told it.

 

[JM2C]

are you saying that paul did not make a distinction about doing something in the spirit and doing it in the flesh?

If you are referring to Acts 9, was Paul in the spirit when he met the Lord Jesus or was he in the flesh? Compare Acts 9 to 2Cor. 12:1-4

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What are your views of Luke and Acts?

i am glad to read acts and see how Paul changed his conversion story every time he told it.

That speaks volumes.

 

[JM2C]

when the SELF PROCLAIMED apostle Saul says "in the flesh" he basically means in reality. like in reality his actions are one way but in his mind/spirit his actions are another way. "according to the flesh" yea the physical body. People who accept this self proclaimed apostle don't keep the 10 commandments "in the flesh", only in their minds do they keep them

I think you need to start from the beginning of the discussion bet James2ko and I to understand that what we are talking about here are the descendants of Abraham “according to flesh” and this has nothing to do with Paul’s in Acts 9 or 2Cor.12:1-4

 

[BummerBeavis]

If you are referring to Acts 9, was Paul in the spirit when he met the Lord Jesus or was he in the flesh? Compare Acts 9 to 2Cor. 12:1-4

Sir Paul makes a distinction about doing things in the flesh and doing things in the spirit or mind. in his flesh he served corruption in his mind he served god. i am butchering this argument but i think you know what I am saying. Now all "christianity" is based on his teachings. Look practically no "christians" keep the 10 commandments! Then look at Paul. Who was this man? Neither The Father or the Son confirmed Paul as an apostle. Only Paul says so! this man was not with Yeshua for 3.5 years being trained by him! there is no biblical authority other than what Paul writes about himself, to accept Paul as an Apostle. If you consider the so called "christian churches" I see on every street corner as biblical, I do not. I don't think they are biblical at all and I think the people in them are going to die un repentant sinners

 

[BummerBeavis]

I think you need to start from the beginning of the discussion bet James2ko and I to understand that what we are talking about here are the descendants of Abraham “according to flesh” and this has nothing to do with Paul’s in Acts 9 or 2Cor.12:1-4

how about you tell me then. Also first, show me Biblically where The Father or his Son, confirmed Paul as an apostle. Show me where God said he took Paul out to the desert and trained him personally. Show me where the real apostles said Paul was an apostle. And then show me why would God do this? Especially when Yeshua warned us about somone coming in their own name. when you look at this man at face value he is a SELF PROCLAIMED APOSTLE.

 

[JM2C]

what opinion? I am making a statement of fact. Paul was never confirmed by Yeshua or any of his real apostles as being an apostle. He never met Yeshua. all Paul has is his own self proclamation calling himself an Apostle. He came in his own name. this is not an opinion it is a fact. You just don't like what I have to say because it means the bible has been tmpered with and Paul who did not know Yeshua should not have written 13 of the27 nt books, or any at all!

I guess more rhetorics from you. Read Acts to see facts about Paul. Facts are written in the bible. Did it say in Acts Paul did met the Lord Jesus? Yes, and that is a fact.

You said, “Paul was never confirmed by Yeshua” That is not fact according to Acts therefore, your statement or premise are nothing but your opinion only. That is the reason why I said: “It’s really hard to argue from opinions. If you can substantiate your statement with facts, of course from the bible, then we can argue or see our differences.”

 

[BummerBeavis]

I guess more rhetorics from you. Read Acts to see facts about Paul. Facts are written in the bible. Did it say in Acts Paul did met the Lord Jesus? Yes, and that is a fact.

You said, “Paul was never confirmed by Yeshua” That is not fact according to Acts therefore, your statement or premise are nothing but your opinion only. That is the reason why I said: “It’s really hard to argue from opinions. If you can substantiate your statement with facts, of course from the bible, then we can argue or see our differences.”

who wrote Acts paul? You show me where The Father or his Son or the apostles he taught for 3.5 years called paul an apostle. You can not. neither could I and I used to believe as you do now. If you follow paul you do not keep the 10

 

[james2ko]

”Abraham “OUR” father, according to the flesh” -Romans 4:1 Paul used the “OUR” or “WE” or “US” as first person PLURAL pronoun, and not the “YOU” as the second person PLURAL pronoun. The same thing in Romans 9:3 “MY” Paul used first person singular.

Either way, Rom 4:1 and 9:3, Paul was talking about his “brothers or kinsman” according to the flesh or as NIV puts it “those of my own race”. He was not talking about the Gentiles on either verse.

If he were referring to ONLY his kinsmen, the first person pronoun "MY" would have been inspired in BOTH passages, right? And he certainly would not say Abraham was also the non-Israelite gentiles' physical father when he mentioned, "Abraham is the father of us all". You still have yet to address my request:

Can you find me an OT reference where all twelve tribes were definitively referred to as Jews? Also, I would like for you to tell me how you interpret this passage:

Joh 7:35 Then the Jews said among themselves, "Where does He intend to go that we shall not find Him? Does He intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?​

Is there a reason why you are ignoring them?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

who wrote Acts paul?

I think we are all wondering how you can be so vocal, so sure of yourself, and yet so demonstrably ignorant about the subject at hand.

 

[BummerBeavis]

I think we are all wondering how you can be so vocal, so sure of yourself, and yet so demonstrably ignorant about the subject at hand.

i dont claim to be super smart. if i am wrong show me. i do know the facts and they are that Paul was never confirmed by God or his Son or the real apostles as being an apostle. He never knew Yeshua, he lied every time he told his conversion story, and he was a murderer.

 

[BummerBeavis]

I think we are all wondering how you can be so vocal, so sure of yourself, and yet so demonstrably ignorant about the subject at hand.

sorry Luke wrote it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

i dont claim to be super smart.

The problem here in not that you are not super smart.

The problem here is that, when it comes to Paul (or the gospels) you are not even minimally literate. To be in that position and, at the same time, claim to know the facts is both laughable and intellectually irresponsible.

 

[BummerBeavis]

That speaks volumes.

also Luke was not an apostle

 

[BummerBeavis]

The problem here in not that you are not super smart.

The problem here is that, when it comes to Paul (or the gospels) you are not even minimally literate. To be in that position and, at the same time, claim to know the facts is both laughable and intellectually irresponsible.

excuse me but Luke was not an apostle so Paul was never confirmed by Yeshua or the apostles . thank you.no need to insult me and I did correct my error. still my argument you have not refuted