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

[3rdAngel]

Post #2525 was premised on your denial of my claim that:

No premise needed. I asked you to prove your claim. You were unable to prove your claim. Therefore it was simply fact you could not prove a claim that scriptures is not Gods Word

The issue of Paul's relationship with Rome has priority over any of your later questions. Acts 26 involves Paul's appeal to Caesar.

Your belief systems is not a rational one. There is nothing at all in Acts 26 vs Acts 22 & Acts 22 vs Acts 9 that shows anything that I have posted here is not truth. If you disagree. Prove how these scriptures disagree with anything that I have posted in this thread. If you cannot why make claims that are not true?

So your position is that if you base your argument on the teachings of a liar, then your argument is true regardless of the facts, right?

Not at all. You have never proven that Paul is a liar. Therefore your working off a faulty premise of unbelief and your reasoning is not rational or supported by any evidence or fact.

Take Care.

 

[3rdAngel]

BUT there is a lot of 'interpretation' needed to understand this ancient document. Like, "Which Day is the Lord's Day"
Why doesn't god clear up all these issues by issuing a 2023 version of The Bible? She could go on TV to explain it.
What is the hold up?

According to the scriptures in the bible, we cannot know God unless God is our guide and teacher through His Spirit (see Isaiah 55:8-9; John 14:26; John 16:13).

 

[Ebionite]

And if the prophecies are weak and mundane?

The relevant ones aren't.

Category error. Laws cannot be fulfilled.

No, law in this context is Torah, which means teaching or instruction. The teaching is fulfilled when the student acquires knowledge.

 

[Ebionite]

No premise needed.

Need is for those who have no regard for the rights of others.

 

[Ebionite]

I asked you to prove your claim.

You're ignoring the issue of priority. Paul was a liar, and you treated him as a reliable source.

You have never proven that Paul is a liar.

The proof is Paul's misrepresentation of where he learned of his role, who he learned it from, and what that role was.

In Acts 26 Paul says that Jesus told him what his role was when he was on the road to Damascus.
In Acts 22 Paul says that Jesus told him to go to Damascus for instructions.
In Acts 9 it is reported that Ananias told Paul what his role was.


And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
Delivering thee from the people, and [from] the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Acts 26:15-18

And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
Acts 9:17-18

 

[3rdAngel]

So you see yourself as born of a spirit because you believe fantastic stories about resurrections and believe them, but not a Jew who doesn't share those beliefs? I like his "spirit" better. He's been humble, polite, and respectful to you.

According to the scriptures and the words of Jesus " Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God and again "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said to you, You must be born again. The wind blows where it wants, and you hear the sound thereof, but can not tell from where it comes, and where it goes: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." and again "He whom God has sent speaks the words of God: for God gives not the Spirit by measure to him." (see John 3:3-7; John 3:36). Therefore it is not being dishonest disrespectful to anyone to tell them the truth if their path of unbelief and sin will see them lose their gift of Gods love and promise of forgiveness and everlasting life. It is our duty of love to tell the truth *see Ezekiel 3:16-21; 2 Timothy 3:16.

Most of the world rejects those scriptures. They're the thoughts of ancient men trying to understand reality in the light of an assumed tri-omni deity that they are willing to speak for - 'God told me to tell you to obey these commandments.'

Most of the world will be lost and perish in their sins and unbelief (John 3:36; Matthew 24:14; Matthew 7:13-23).

Why would an unbeliever reference scripture except in critical analysis of it? For example, this thread is about the seventh day of creation and the commandment to emulate a god that worked six days and took the weekend off, although it was only one day originally. And that's the rebuttal to the claim that the days of creation were not meant as literal days despite containing a morning and evening each. That's me referring to scripture, but not as authoritative. It has no meaning to me.

No one can see or know God if they continue to seek God in their sins and unbelief. Practicing sin and unbelief is what separates us from God according to Isaiah 59:2. Unless we are born again we cannot see the kingdom of Heaven and know God. If we continue in our sins and unbelief we will be forever lost in our sins and unbelief and only meet God come judgement day according to the scriptures because we never tried to find God in Gods appointed way (Hebrews 9:27; Jeremiah 29:13; John 3:36). The rest of this section of your post is unbiblical and unsupported by the scriptures so not a rebuttal to anything in this OP. It is simply your opinion unsupported by scripture.

Why do you suppose that story appears in Genesis? There are hundreds of creatin myths, but this one is spread out over six days and followed by a day of rest. Odin didn't need six days or a day off. Neither did Tiamat. But Jehovah did. Why does just this one creation myth contain a timeline and an unflattering depiction of a slow, fatigable deity that should have needed no time or rest? Cui bono? Who benefits from a commandment forbidding work one day out of seven. And why do we have this seven day cycle? Isn't it obvious? Follow the money. Who needs you to take a day off away the flock or the crops (or in our case, the office) once a week? Don't forget your wallet.

That would be something you would need to prove. Once again all you have provided is your opinion and unbelief of the scriptures which is simply sin in Gods eyes and the reason for the fall of mankind and is why many will be lost come judgement day (Hebrews 9:27; Jeremiah 29:13; John 3:36). Of course you are free to follow your own myths however I believe the scriptures and they teach we will be accountable to God come judgement day for the things we choose to do in this life. The scriptures teach many will be sad at that day knowing what they have forever lost when they could have at least made the effort to seek and find God but refused to do so much rather seeking to hide in their lies, myths, sins and unbelief for season then realizing only too late that what they gave up was worth more than life itself.

This is where I find value in scripture. It's a historical record of ancient thought. Now ask yourself why they included so unflattering a story as that flood myth, which depicts a deity that fails as an engineer, blames his creation for his own failures, cruelly drowns most terrestrial life, and then tries to correct the error using the same breeding stock. That's the description of a cruel, unimaginative, not too bright narcissist. Why put that in the book? There must be a compelling reason, and it shouldn't be too difficult to imagine what that might have been. I'll leave that one for you to solve. As with all books, they are evidence of nothing except that somebody had those thoughts and put them in writing. Not a single word in it is known to be true because of those words. The way we tell the difference between myth (global flood) and history (reign of David) is through empiricism. We checked. The flood is wrong and David was real. You can't determine those things from written words, which as I said are evidence of almost nothing.

That is your mistake. You see the scriptures only as a historical reference. While the scriptures teach "all these things happened to them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the world are come in 1 Corinthians 10:11 and again the part you ignore is "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." - 2 Timothy 3:16. This is where your mistake is and it is this unbelief God calls sin in Romans 14:23 while Jesus says in His own Words "He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God stays on him. That is your position if you continue in your sins and unbelief. We can never find God walking a path of sin and unbelief. Only judgement and death away all those who walk that path.

 

[3rdAngel]

Need is for those who have no regard for the rights of others.

Your post here makes no sense and is unresponsive to the post you are quoting from.

 

[3rdAngel]

You're ignoring the issue of priority. Paul was a liar, and you treated him as a reliable source.

The proof is Paul's misrepresentation of where he learned of his role, who he learned it from, and what that role was.

In Acts 26 Paul says that Jesus told him what his role was when he was on the road to Damascus.
In Acts 22 Paul says that Jesus told him to go to Damascus for instructions.
In Acts 9 it is reported that Ananias told Paul what his role was.

And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
Delivering thee from the people, and [from] the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
Acts 26:15-18

And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
Acts 9:17-18

Your belief systems is not a rational one. There is nothing at all in Acts 26 vs Acts 22 & Acts 22 vs Acts 9 that shows anything that I have posted here in this OP is not true. You have also not proven that Paul is a liar here in anything you have posted here. Therefore your working off a faulty premise of unbelief and your reasoning is not rational or supported by any evidence or fact.. If you disagree. Prove how these scriptures disagree with anything that I have posted in this thread. If you cannot why make claims that are not true?

 

[Ebionite]

Your post here makes no sense and is unresponsive to the post you are quoting from.

Like I said before, you're operating from a faith based (Pauline) paradigm, so law and rights won't be meaningful to you.

 

[Ebionite]

Your belief systems is not a rational one.

Why do you say that?

 

[3rdAngel]

Like I said before, you're operating from a faith based (Pauline) paradigm, so law and rights won't be meaningful to you.

No it is you that is operating of a false faith based (Pauline) paradigm claiming that the Apostle Paul is a liar and you have not been able to prove anything you have posted. This is the faulty premise you are building your teachings on.

 

[3rdAngel]

Why do you say that?

If you try reading the posts, scriptures and questions in the posts you are quoting from you would not need to ask this question as my reasons have already been stated in the posts you choose to ignore.

 

[Ebionite]

No it is you that is operating of a false faith based (Pauline) paradigm and you have not been able to prove anything you have posted.

Wrong, I reject Paul as a liar and a false apostle. Mirrroring me won't work.

If you try reading the posts, scriptures and questions in the posts you are quoting from you would not need to ask this question as my reasons have already been stated in the posts you choose to ignore.

Why would anyone believe that?

 

[3rdAngel]

Wrong, I reject Paul as a liar and a false apostle.

Yet that is something you have never proven. As posted earlier, your belief systems is not a rational one. There is nothing at all in Acts 26 vs Acts 22 & Acts 22 vs Acts 9 that shows anything that I have posted here in this OP is not true. You have also not proven that Paul is a liar here in anything you have posted here. Therefore your working off a faulty premise of unbelief and your reasoning is not rational or supported by any evidence or fact.. If you disagree. Prove how these scriptures disagree with anything that I have posted in this thread. If you cannot why make claims that are not true?

Why would anyone believe that?

As posted earlier, if you try reading the posts, scriptures and questions in the posts you are quoting from you would not need to ask this question as my reasons have already been stated in the posts you choose to ignore.

 

[Ebionite]

Yet that is something you have never proven.

Your standard of proof is irrelevant. I've posted my proof here, and you've been unable to rebut it.

 

[3rdAngel]

Your standard of proof is irrelevant. I've posted my proof here, and you've been unable to rebut it.

Once again you did not post any proof to rebut. You prove to me Paul is lying in Acts 26 vs Acts 22 & Acts 22 vs Acts 9. You are not being truthful now sadly. What you posted in your link did not even make any sense or support anything you have posted here.

 

[Ebionite]

You did not post any proof.

Your denial is worthless. It up to you to rebut what I posted.

 

[3rdAngel]

Your denial is worthless. It up to you to rebut what I posted.

Once again, You did not post any proof to rebut. You are not being truthful now sadly. What you posted in your link did not even make any sense or support anything you have posted here.

 

[Ebionite]

Once again, You did not post any proof to rebut. You are not being truthful now sadly.

Mirror, mirror.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That would be something you would need to prove. all you have provided is your opinion

Why? Proof isn't your criterion for belief? None of your religious beliefs are proven, and they're all "just opinions." Your fallacy is called special pleading, or unjustified double standard.

What I've offered is a plausible hypothesis. You won't find any error of fact in it.

The scriptures teach many will be sad at that day knowing what they have forever lost when they could have at least made the effort to seek and find God but refused to do so much rather seeking to hide in their lies, myths, sins and unbelief for season then realizing only too late that what they gave up was worth more than life itself.

Why should that matter to me? "Proof" - or rather, compelling evidence - *IS* my currency for belief, so I'm going to have to repeat your own words above to you. You're going to need to give me a reason to consider this more than just an unevidenced claim that you've chosen to believe for no reason apparent to me.

You see the scriptures only as a historical reference.

There's nothing else of value to me there apart from a peek at how people thought then compared to now. I view your scriptures like we both view ALL other scripture.