Why Sunday as Sabbath?

[d.n.irvin]

So your saying that the Old testament was not written in Hebrew and the New testament was not written in Greek? futher more which translation of KJV do you perfer? and how does your translation view the Sabbath and why do you believe it?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So your saying that the Old testament was not written in Hebrew and the New testament was not written in Greek? futher more which translation of KJV do you perfer? and how does your translation view the Sabbath and why do you believe it?

I'm not sure who you're talking to here.

No translation of the Bible that I know of (or any Christian group for that matter) claims that the Sabbath is anything other than Saturday. If they did, they would be stupid.

It's not an issue! You can't debate a point that people already believe.

:computer: :banghead3

 

[d.n.irvin]

"Human minds vary. The minds of different education and thought receive different impressions of the same words, and it is difficult for one mind to give to one of a different temperament, education, and habits of thought by language exactly the same idea as that which is clear and distinct in his own mind. Yet to honest men, right-minded men, he can be so simple and plain as to convey his meaning for all practical purposes. . . .​

The writers of the Bible had to express their ideas in human language. It was written by human men. These men were inspired of the Holy Spirit. Because of the imperfections of human understanding of language, or the perversity of the human mind, ingenious in evading truth, many read and understand the Bible to please themselves. It is not that the difficulty is in the Bible. Opposing politicians argue points of law in the statute book, and take opposite views in their application and in these laws. . . .

"The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes. . . .​

"The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers."
Ms 24, 1886 (1SM 19-21).

​

Source.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Where is this stolen from?

When asked to think,

PLAGAIRIZE!

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/rev-egw.html

 

[d.n.irvin]

The Ten Commandments were spoken by God Himself, and were written by His own hand. They are of divine, and not of human composition. But the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed in the nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us' (John 1:14)

Source

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The Ten Commandments were spoken by God Himself, and were written by His own hand. They are of divine, and not of human composition. But the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed in the nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us' (John 1:14

And this is stolen from http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/rev-egw.html

 

[CaptainXeroid]

*** MOD POST ***​

Citing outside works to make a point is not only permitted but often necessary. It is equally important to credit the source. Please refer to the Forum Rules or PM one of the Moderators if there are any questions.

 

[logician]

"The Ten Commandments were spoken by God Himself"

Really, you were there?

 

[nutshell]

"The Ten Commandments were spoken by God Himself"

Really, you were there?

Were you?

 

[logician]

"Were you?"

Since it didn't happen, no I wasn't.

 

[wmam]

Hey I got a question what has Jesus been doing in heaven since he left earth?

Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Rom 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is the Anointed that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of Elohim, who also maketh intercession for us.

 

[wmam]

Yep.
Nope. We aren't "disobeying a commandment." The commandment no longer applies. "Disobeying" what no longer applies is a moot point.

Oh so it is o.k. to "Murder" and "Steal" as well as "Sleep wih our Fathers and Mothers????????

In fact, he was a rabbi...and he broke the Sabbath laws.

Did He now? Where? Whose laws are we speaking of? The Most High's or man's?

No. Christianity is a pan-cultural religion. Judaism, largely, is not.

So am I to gather what man has created and named as christianity, as you say, "Christianity is a pan-cultural religion" is stuffed with all sorts of paganisms and such from all sorts of worldly views and interpretations?

No. I do not believe that. But I don't make a distiction between what is "the true Church" and what is "not." To do that assumes that the Church is not one...which we know is untrue.

So you accept that there are those out their whether they be individuals, places and groups that teach lies and deceptions but you think it untrue? LOL.... which is it?

You're obfuscating the point. The scripture reads "as of," in other words, "for example." And yes. I rarely (if ever) read the KJV, because there are more accurate versions.

O.k. ... Then what one see's is a material of which was made from a living creature and that of something that came forth from the ground. I see no exception here as to pertaining to two different items coming from, essentially, the same place. The ground. Though one could argue that the sheep from whence the wool was derived, essentially, came from the ground as did man but as man bares a difference than that of a plant or earth bound chemicals which would be the "Breath of Life" or as in the Hebrew .......

H5397

נשׁמה

neshâmâh

nesh-aw-maw'

From H5395; a puff, that is, wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect or (concretely) an animal: - blast, (that) breath (-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.

Either one.

Then you must believe that it is o.k. to rape a child or posion someone in front of their family. I say this only to show that these to are in the law.

But the poster toward whom this rebuttal was aimed said, "the whole Law" -- that the Law is divided into various parts is not cogent to this argument.

So you agree that the law is divided into various parts? If so then can you tell us which you believe to have been nailed to the cross? I kinda see that you have chosen the law pertaining to the Shabbat and that of the clean and unclean foods but please go on as to any others.

No.

Really? I can't believe you believe that and except the words of the NT....

Joh 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

Joh 19:28 After this, Yahshua knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that Elohim would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Yahshua ha Mashiach might be given to them that believe.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of Elohim, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I am also under the understanding that when these were written that the only Scripture in question was that which was in scrolls which contained the Law and the Prophets as well as various writtings. Wouldn't you agree?

None of this adequately refutes my previous post...

Was it suppose to? I was only curious as to what you think you know. Thanks for a peek.

 

[d.n.irvin]

So now you dont believe the bible, the bible says God spoke and wrote the ten commandments, not Moses, so the 4th commandment Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy, like all the rest, are God's mandate not Moses or anyone else. So in essence to say that the ten commandments are not binding today is to reject God. Now how Christian is that!

 

[d.n.irvin]

The reason I cite other works in my post is because "I" could not have said it better, and to prove the point only. Not to take credit for what was actually said by the author. I would hope everyone would make post from other works, I think it would make for easier conversation. I think people would understand where you are comming from faster. Besides who is anybody foolin- if they think we believe they came up with there point of view alone.
You make me think your just dogging what im trying to rely, no one wants to comment on the post with scriptures, other works, or anything else but conjecture as far as I can tell. That being said, I will cite every thing from here on out. I'll also try to keep it short. Sorry to offend.

d.n.irvin

 

[James the Persian]

May I ask our Sabbatarians what they make of the Council of Jerusalem (in Acts, before someone accuses me of introducing 'mere tradition' into the topic) and whether they are familiar with the Noahide laws and the people to whom God gave the Decalog? Your answers to these questions would almost certainly move the discussion on and we could perhaps avoid further spamming of the thread with plagiarised posts.

James

 

[wmam]

May I ask our Sabbatarians what they make of the Council of Jerusalem (in Acts, before someone accuses me of introducing 'mere tradition' into the topic) and whether they are familiar with the Noahide laws and the people to whom God gave the Decalog? Your answers to these questions would almost certainly move the discussion on and we could perhaps avoid further spamming of the thread with plagiarised posts.

James

The Council decided that for those Indo-Euro-Asians, as I also would believe other races as well that were not Hebrew, that were seeking and studying truth would need to follow that which the Most High described to be on all the sons of Noah. Remember that these laws came before the laws given to Moses. Those that are looking to be grafted into are under the first where once they accept and have decided to and are chosen to be grafted in will need be under the second if they look to enter the Kingdom. It is written that unless you be circumcised that you will not enter into the Kingdom and that still applies. Just for those that are studying and looking for now, circumcision, isn't required.

I first wondered what this at all had to do with the observance of the Shabbat but then seen where one might consider that the Shabbat law was part of the second but the laws of the Shabbat was handed over before that. Look at the Noahide laws that the council agreed to. They all had to do with the person not laws pertaining to observence.

 

[James the Persian]

The Council decided that for those Indo-Euro-Asians, as I also would believe other races as well that were not Hebrew, that were seeking and studying truth would need to follow that which the Most High described to be on all the sons of Noah. Remember that these laws came before the laws given to Moses. Those that are looking to be grafted into are under the first where once they accept and have decided to and are chosen to be grafted in will need be under the second if they look to enter the Kingdom. It is written that unless you be circumcised that you will not enter into the Kingdom and that still applies. Just for those that are studying and looking for now, circumcision, isn't required.

I first wondered what this at all had to do with the observance of the Shabbat but then seen where one might consider that the Shabbat law was part of the second but the laws of the Shabbat was handed over before that. Look at the Noahide laws that the council agreed to. They all had to do with the person not laws pertaining to observence.

So, do you think that the Council at Jerusalem was inspired by God and, hence, made the correct decisions? I'm afraid that your post is rather unclear and jumbled and so I cannot quite make out what you are trying to say. If, however, you do agree that the Council was inspired, then would you mind explaining to me why you insist that Christians of Gentile stock adhere to the law given to Israel, a law that they were never expected to adhere to, in direct contradiction of the ruling of said Council?

If you look to Acts 15, you will see it quite clearly stated that Gentiles who converted would not fall under Jewish law but needed only to observe a subset (I would point this out, as not all of them are mentioned) of the Noahide laws. Sabbath observance is not mentioned and nor is it, indeed, one of the Noahide laws at all. It was a law given to the Jews alone and hence is only binding upon them. I am not a Jew nor of Jewish stock, so why should I feel compelled to adhere to a Jewish law made superfluous in any case by the death and resurrection of the Incarnate Son of God?

James

 

[SoyLeche]

The reason I cite other works in my post is because "I" could not have said it better, and to prove the point only. Not to take credit for what was actually said by the author. I would hope everyone would make post from other works, I think it would make for easier conversation. I think people would understand where you are comming from faster. Besides who is anybody foolin- if they think we believe they came up with there point of view alone.
You make me think your just dogging what im trying to rely, no one wants to comment on the post with scriptures, other works, or anything else but conjecture as far as I can tell. That being said, I will cite every thing from here on out. I'll also try to keep it short. Sorry to offend.

d.n.irvin

By all means - cite others. That isn't the problem. The problem comes when you don't say anywhere in the post that you are not using your own words. That's called plagerism (sp?), and it is stealing. It doesn't take much to post a link along with the quote.

 

[sojourner]

Oh so it is o.k. to "Murder" and "Steal" as well as "Sleep wih our Fathers and Mothers????????

The point I'm making is that Jesus says the commandments are 1) Love God, 2) Love neighbor. All other Law, as well as the prophets hang upon these two commandments. Since murder, theft and incest do not exemplify love, but selfishness, your point is not cogent.

Did He now? Where? Whose laws are we speaking of? The Most High's or man's?

So, you're now agreeing with my point above? You're saying that the Law of God is love, and not a Pharisaical set of "Man's rules?" And that, when Jesus healed on the Sabbath, he was acting out of "God's Law" and not "Man's rules?"

If "Man's rules" are so unimportant, why did Jesus give the Church power to forgive and bind sins? "Man's rules" are our interpretations of "God's Law," which is love. It appears that you're waffling on the issue. You insist upon a strict keeping of the Law in the Bible, yet you ask me which are which.

So am I to gather what man has created and named as christianity, as you say, "Christianity is a pan-cultural religion" is stuffed with all sorts of paganisms and such from all sorts of worldly views and interpretations?

You're right to say that Christianity was made by humanity. Jesus was fully human, and so were his disciples. What you're forgetting is that Jesus was also fully divine, and by his grace, his disciples are made new and live in a state of righteousness, in agreement with God. The Church has the mind of Christ in them, because we are the Body of Christ.

That Body has seen fit to embrace cultures and peoples other than Jews and Judaism. There's nothing wrong with that.

So you accept that there are those out their whether they be individuals, places and groups that teach lies and deceptions but you think it untrue? LOL.... which is it?

I believe that some folks "don't have it right." But I don't tell them that they're not part of the "true Church." No one has all the answers but God. We all live together in our humanness, with all our different understandings. But that reality does not mean that there is a plurality of Churches.

O.k. ... Then what one see's is a material of which was made from a living creature and that of something that came forth from the ground. I see no exception here as to pertaining to two different items coming from, essentially, the same place. The ground. Though one could argue that the sheep from whence the wool was derived, essentially, came from the ground as did man but as man bares a difference than that of a plant or earth bound chemicals which would be the "Breath of Life" or as in the Hebrew .......

H5397

נשׁמה

neshâmâh

nesh-aw-maw'

From H5395; a puff, that is, wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect or (concretely) an animal: - blast, (that) breath (-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.

This is all completely beside the point. The point I was making was that one cannot insist that all the Law be kept, when that one does not "keep the whole Law" himself.

Then you must believe that it is o.k. to rape a child or posion someone in front of their family. I say this only to show that these to are in the law.

No, that wouldn't be keeping the Law in love.

So you agree that the law is divided into various parts? If so then can you tell us which you believe to have been nailed to the cross? I kinda see that you have chosen the law pertaining to the Shabbat and that of the clean and unclean foods but please go on as to any others.

Jesus, in going to the cross, demonstrated a selfless love. Jesus asks us to follow him. Therefore, we keep the Law by similarly demonstrating a selfless love (which is the summation of the Law) -- not in (as you say) "following the laws of Men."

 

[sojourner]

Really? I can't believe you believe that and except the words of the NT....

I am also under the understanding that when these were written that the only Scripture in question was that which was in scrolls which contained the Law and the Prophets as well as various writtings. Wouldn't you agree?

Maybe I missed the point you were attempting to make. I thought you wanted to know if I thought that the Bible interpreted itself, which it clearly does not.

Was it suppose to? I was only curious as to what you think you know. Thanks for a peek.

Let's be honest. Of course it was. It is not within the scope of your expertise to determine what "I think I know."