• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

COL 2:16 And The Sabbath - Are You Being Told The Truth?

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
Au contraire. I simply don’t take the texts irresponsibly at face value, like you do.
Your claims have no truth in them. You have already been provided the scriptures that show why your claims are in error. You are free to believe as you wish however. Your argument seems to be with God not me putting the teachings of men above the Word of God.
So... either you’re saying that peer review isn’t a thing, or you’re unwilling to check it out as I asked.
I am saying neither. I am a Government scientist by profession if you must know. I am only saying what the scriptures teach is that man made teachings and traditions do not supersede God's Word.
Scholars disagree with each other all the time; that’s the amorphous nature of the subject they study. But that’s not the same thing as peer review (which is an agreed-upon scholastic standard). Our job as researchers is to ferret out the facts as best we can and use that as a basis for determining what the texts are and what they say.
Nonsense. Scholars disagree all the time in peer reviewed published papers. Not meaning this disrespectfully but you need to get your facts right before writing. :)
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Perhaps they are in your view because you do not believe in God or his Word and these things are foolishness to you because you do not know God
My standing as a member of the clergy in a mainstream denomination nullify your “perhaps.” Unless, of course, you prefer to challenge God’s decision of a call to vocation? Happily, only discerning and faithful people are called to the judicatory that oversees the authority of the call, so we need not pay your “judgment” any attention.

JESUS being the living Word of God *JOHN 1:1-4; 14 has the right to interpret the true meaning of the scriptures when mankind does not understand them
So do we.
Nonsense the biblical record is the only true historical record. Only historical records that agree with the scriptures are true in my view and history supports many historical records in the scriptures
Aaaand this is where your reality train decidedly leaves the rails. The absurdity of the post speaks for itself.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sure they are, if they do not agree with the written word and the Spirit of God they are not biblical neither are they from God according to the scriptures. :)
No. They’re not. It’s not the job of the exegetical process to “agree” with the texts. It’s the job of the exegetical process to read out of the texts what’s there, regardless of faith, belief, or any other bias. Obviously, you don’t understand what you’re arguing against.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
My standing as a member of the clergy in a mainstream denomination nullify your “perhaps.” Unless, of course, you prefer to challenge God’s decision of a call to vocation? Happily, only discerning and faithful people are called to the judicatory that oversees the authority of the call, so we need not pay your “judgment” any attention.
According to the scriptures (not me) you should not be a member of any Church if you do not believe and follow God's Word.
So do we.
Not if it disagrees with the scriptures.
3rdAngel said: Nonsense the biblical record is the only true historical record. Only historical records that agree with the scriptures are true in my view and history supports many historical records in the scriptures
Your response...
Aaaand this is where your reality train decidedly leaves the rails. The absurdity of the post speaks for itself.
All I hear are your words here denying God's Word which has been shared with you. Your argument here therefore according to the scriptures is with God not me if you want to put the teachings of men over the Word of God. :)
 
Last edited:

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
3rdAngel wrote: Sure they are, if they do not agree with the written word and the Spirit of God they are not biblical neither are they from God according to the scriptures.
Your response..
No. They’re not. It’s not the job of the exegetical process to “agree” with the texts. It’s the job of the exegetical process to read out of the texts what’s there, regardless of faith, belief, or any other bias. Obviously, you don’t understand what you’re arguing against.

Perhaps you need to rethink what you wrote here. If the teachings of men do not agree with the Word of God (scripture) how are they biblical (scripture)? Your post here makes no sense. :)
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Your claims have no truth in them. You have already been provided the scriptures that show why your claims are in error
The scriptures provided don’t do that, however. It’s your interpretation of them that finds error where there is none.
Your argument seems to be with God not me putting the teachings of men above the Word of God
My argument is with your slipshod interpretations.

I am a Government scientist by profession if you must know
Oh, that explains a lot, and given your statement above with regard to history, that little factoid scares the H. E. double-toothpicks out of me. So the professional scientist has deigned to lock horns with the professional bible scholar. Which is sort of like a CPA thinking he knows as much about scientific research and analysis as a professional scientist.

I am only saying what the scriptures teach is that man made teachings and traditions do not supersede God's Word
“God’s word” is a very fluid appellation whose meaning is entirely subjective and meaningless in any objective study of ancient texts. What the scriptures teach is what we can exegete out of them — a process you’ve failed to engage at all.

Nonsense. Scholars disagree all the time in peer reviewed paper. You need to get your facts right
Of course they do. But they do agree on the standard of peer-review itself. They do agree on a certain standard of professionalism in research and publication. Thus far, you’ve failed to provide ANY scholasticism from ANY camp, preferring, instead, to believe that ALL scholarship takes a second chair to your belief. Pardon me, but that doesn’t sound like a very scientific approach to the texts in question. If you’re a scientist, you know that all legit research is subject to standards, yes? It’s the same thing with the exegetical process.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
According to the scriptures (not me) you should not be a member of any Church if you do not believe and follow God's Word
“Belief” in “God’s word” is, again, an entirely subjective and fluid concept. It’s not up to you to decide what that may or may not mean for me or my judicatory.

Not if it disagrees with the scriptures
Oh-so-wrong. We have already determined that the texts’ apparent advocacy of slavery is wrong. And that’s just one little issue.
All I hear are your words here denying God's Word which has been shared with you. Your argument here therefore is with God not me if you want to put the teachings of men over the Word of God
Once again, my argument is with your unprofessional interpretations.

Perhaps you need to rethink what you wrote here. If the teachings of men do not agree with the Word of God (scripture) how are they biblical (scripture)? Your post here makes no sense
Of course they don’t make sense to you; you know nothing about the exegetical process. As a scientist, you understand that quantum mechanics, to the Uninitiated, is indistinguishable from “magic.”
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
The scriptures provided don’t do that, however. It’s your interpretation of them that finds error where there is none.
Well that is not true. JESUS says in his own Words (not mine) it is vain to think you are following God if you follow the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God *MATTHEW 15:3-9. PETER says in his own words (not mine) that we ought to obey God rather than man. These are God's Words not mine. Why do you not believe them? This is your error. You do not believe God's Word and put the teachings and traditions of men over the Word of God.
My argument is with your slipshod interpretations.
Yet here you still are not being able to provide an argument that the scriptures that have been provided to you that show why your in error are not true. Somthing to think about :).
Oh, that explains a lot, and given your statement above with regard to history, that little factoid scares the H. E. double-toothpicks out of me. So the professional scientist has deigned to lock horns with the professional bible scholar. Which is sort of like a CPA thinking he knows as much about scientific research and analysis as a professional scientist.
What statement in regards to History? I will come back to this shortly. Do you mean the one that said..

"According to the scriptures and the historical records, I believe, God's people all through time before and after JESUS and the Apostles and early disciples and Church all through time to this very present day have all kept God's 4th commandment Sabbath according to the scriptures unbroken to this very present day. This is proven both biblically *ACTS 13:14; ACTS 13:44; ACTS 16:13; ACTS 17:2; LUKE 4:16; ACTS 18:4 and on the historical records."

I will come back to this one. I have provided the biblical historical record and elsewhere you know I have provided the Historical records from the early Chruch onwards. I will repost them again if you like.

It was the scholars of the day in JESUS time that put JESUS on the cross. According to the scriptures, spiritual things are spiritually discerned and is why God revealed his Word to humble fisherman. Even the biblical scholars do not agree among themselves what makes you think anything is any different today? All your trying to do is deny the very scriptures you claim to believe but clearly do not.
“God’s word” is a very fluid appellation whose meaning is entirely subjective and meaningless in any objective study of ancient texts. What the scriptures teach is what we can exegete out of them — a process you’ve failed to engage at all.
Nonsense! Trouble is you have not exegeted anything as shown in this OP that has proven from the scriptures alone why you are in error to think man made teachings and traditions supersede the Word of God.
3rdAngel said: Nonsense. Scholars disagree all the time in peer reviewed paper. You need to get your facts right
Your response...
Of course they do. But they do agree on the standard of peer-review itself. They do agree on a certain standard of professionalism in research and publication. Thus far, you’ve failed to provide ANY scholasticism from ANY camp, preferring, instead, to believe that ALL scholarship takes a second chair to your belief. Pardon me, but that doesn’t sound like a very scientific approach to the texts in question. If you’re a scientist, you know that all legit research is subject to standards, yes? It’s the same thing with the exegetical process.

Look your getting your facts wrong again. All a peer reviewed Jounal means is that you have had people look at what is written and the methodology of what is written to make sure that the correct process to methodology has been followed. Peer review is not agreeing that what is written is true. It is only a saying a process has been followed to publish findings. Peer review means that a board of scholarly reviewers in the subject area of the journal, review materials they publish for quality of research and adherence to editorial standards of the journal, before articles are accepted for publication. It does not mean that all the scholars agree to what has been written and claimed within the article published.

Hope this helps. :)
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Well that is not true. JESUS says in his own Words (not mine) it is vain to think you are following God if you follow the teachings and traditions of men that break the commandments of God *MATTHEW 15:3-9. PETER says in his own words (not mine) that we ought to obey God rather than man. These are God's Words not mine. Why do you not believe them? This is your error. You do not believe God's Word and put the teachings and traditions of men over the Word of God.
Problem is, you’ve made an incorrect determination with regard to the nature and applicability of these “commandments.”

Yet here you still are not being able to provide an argument that the scriptures that have been provided to you that show why your in error are not true. Somthing to think about
The scriptures provided aren’t cogent to your argument though.

What statement in regards to History? I will come back to this shortly. Do you mean the one that said..

"According to the scriptures and the historical records, I believe, God's people all through time before and after JESUS and the Apostles and early disciples and Church all through time to this very present day have all kept God's 4th commandment Sabbath according to the scriptures unbroken to this very present day. This is proven both biblically *ACTS 13:14; ACTS 13:44; ACTS 16:13; ACTS 17:2; LUKE 4:16; ACTS 18:4 and on the historical records."

I will come back to this one. I have provided the biblical historical record and elsewhere you know I have provided the Historical records from the early Chruch onwards.
No. I mean the one where you said that the only history you’ll believe is the only
History that agrees with the Bible.

It was the scholars of the day in JESUS time that put JESUS on the cross. According to the scriptures, spiritual things are spiritually discerned and is why God revealed his Word to humble fisherman
That doesn’t make all scholarship evil. It makes the misuse of the scholarship evil.

problem is, the words of the Bible are not “spiritual things.” They are very human things. Once we’ve adequately exegeted what those human words mean, only then can we attend to the spiritual matters that lie behind them. O Mr. Scientist, surely you know that you can’t work the equation until you’ve done the arithmetic.

Nonsense! Trouble is you have not exegeted anything as shown in this OP that has proven from the scriptures alone
Exegesis rarely works “from the scriptures alone,” because of a little niggle called “context.”

Look your getting your facts wrong again. All a peer reviewed Jounal means is that you have had people look at what is written and the methodology of what is written to make sure that the correct process to methodology has been followed. Peer review is not agreeing that what is written is true. It is only a saying a process has been followed to publish findings. Peer review means that a board of scholarly reviewers in the subject area of the journal, review materials they publish for quality of research and adherence to editorial standards of the journal, before articles are accepted
Read my response again. I believe I was quite clear that scholars do disagree on findings, but that they DO agree on the standards that should be used to obtain the findings.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
“Belief” in “God’s word” is, again, an entirely subjective and fluid concept. It’s not up to you to decide what that may or may not mean for me or my judicatory.
If you read the scriptures the meaning is very clear. No need to guess. Those who believe God's Word follow what God says *JOHN 10:26-27
Oh-so-wrong. We have already determined that the texts’ apparent advocacy of slavery is wrong. And that’s just one little issue.
Well that one is not true. There was many reasons for slavery in the old testament. Some of these reasons were from war, others were from poverty or seeking to pay of debts. This was never God's plan and there is no scripture to suggest otherwise. In Deuteronomy God gave strict instructions how slaves were to be treated with honor and dignity. If there was no slavery caused by war or poverty then many would have simply died and perished. Slavery in the bible teaches us that we are all slaves to sin and this is what salvation is over according to the scriptures.
Once again, my argument is with your unprofessional interpretations.
Yet here you are not able to deny the scriptures shared with you that shoew why you are in error? Go figure.
Of course they don’t make sense to you; you know nothing about the exegetical process. As a scientist, you understand that quantum mechanics, to the Uninitiated, is indistinguishable from “magic.”
Well that one has no truth in it. Where have I not demonstrated exegetical process in this thread and while we are at it where have you? All I am hearing here again is empty claims you cannot prove :)
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
Problem is, you’ve made an incorrect determination with regard to the nature and applicability of these “commandments.”
Well that is not true. All you have provided is your opinion with no evidence saying you do not agree with the scriptures that have been posted that you do not believe or disagree with. If you have God's word to prove your claims prove them. If you do not why do you not believe the scriptures shared with you that show why you are in error?
The scriptures provided aren’t cogent to your argument though.
"DITTO"
No. I mean the one where you said that the only history you’ll believe is the only History that agrees with the Bible.
Soo and this is different to what you are quoting from which is showing biblical evidence supported by the historical records why?
That doesn’t make all scholarship evil. It makes the misuse of the scholarship evil.
I was not saying or have I said anywhere that scholarship is evil. I have only stated it does not supersede the Word of God. If it teaches against scripture then there is no truth in it. The teachings of men do not replace the Word of God.
problem is, the words of the Bible are not “spiritual things.” They are very human things. Once we’ve adequately exegeted what those human words mean, only then can we attend to the spiritual matters that lie behind them. O Mr. Scientist, surely you know that you can’t work the equation until you’ve done the arithmetic.
This is your view that you cannot prove because you do not believe the scriptures and what they teach. This is not my view. I choose to believe and follow God's Word over the teahcings and traditions of men that deny the Word of God.
Exegesis rarely works “from the scriptures alone,” because of a little niggle called “context.”
The meaning of exegesis - a descendant of the Greek term exegeisthai, meaning "to explain" or "to interpret" simply means that. It does not mean you have to go to sources outside of scripture to interpret what that scriptures are teaching. Context is applied to the scriptures that are being interpreted in surrounding context, not to sources outside of the scripture that is being examined.

According to the scriptures, God's Word teaches you can only understand God's Word as God guides and teaches you through his Spirit *JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13; JOHN 17:17: JOHN 7:17; JOHN 8:31-36; HEBREWS 8:11; 1 JOHN 2:27. That is why the scriptures teach that the natural man (unbeliever) receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Read my response again. I believe I was quite clear that scholars do disagree on findings, but that they DO agree on the standards that should be used to obtain the findings.

No you were not clear. You were making claims that because a paper is "peer reviewed" it must be correct. This is not the meaning of "peer review" as shown above.

Your welcome :)
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
If you read the scriptures the meaning is very clear. No need to guess. Those who believe God's Word follow what God says
Not so clear. What is the “word of God?” We’ve already determined that it’s not particularly the texts, themselves. What does John mean by “word of God?” Does he mean “some text that someone calls ‘Bible?’” Or does he mean something else? We have to exegete the texts in order to determine just what John means, instead of just assuming that he means the same thing you mean.
Well that one is not true. There was many reasons for slavery in the old testament. Some of these reasons were from war, others were from poverty or seeking to pay of debts. This was never God's plan and there is no scripture to suggest otherwise
And yet... “God’s word” condones it...

Where have I not demonstrated exegetical process in this thread?
E.V.E.R.Y.W.H.E.R.E.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Well that is not true
Yes. it is.

All you have provided is your opinion with no evidence saying you do not agree with the scriptures that have been posted that you do not believe or disagree with.
The scriptures you’ve posted have not been cogent. And I’ve said as much.

If you have God's word to prove your claims prove them.
I don’t need “God’s word” to prove anything of the sort. It’s plain as the nose on your face.
So, you agree that the texts you’ve provided aren’t cogent? that’s a start...

Soo and this is different to what you are quoting from which is showing biblical evidence supported by the historical records why?
The texts don’t prove history. Historical facts prove (or disprove) the texts. You’ve got the tail wagging the dog.

I was not saying or have I said anywhere that scholarship is evil. I have only stated it does not supersede the Word of God. If it teaches against scripture then there is no truth in it
You said the scholars killed Jesus. But not all scholars killed Jesus. Scholarship, not the texts themselves, provide the litmus test. Again, you’ve got the tail wagging the dog.

This is your view that you cannot prove because you do not believe the scriptures and what they teach
I think you have that backward. You can’t prove that they are.

. This is not my view
Yes. It is your interpretation.

The meaning of exegesis - a descendant of the Greek term exegeisthai, meaning "to explain" or "to interpret" simply means that
It means “to read out of” (as opposed to eisegesis, which means “to read into, which is what you’re doing here).
It does not mean you have to go to sources outside of scripture in interpret what that scriptures are teaching
When we’re dealing with texts of ancient origin, from foreign cultures, and written in foreign (and sometimes dead) languages, that have been edited, compiled, redacted, cobbled together, and glossed, yes, we do have to go to outside sources. Because what we’re ultimately dealing with are translations of editions, and not the texts, themselves.
According to the scripture God's Word teaches you can only understand God's Word as God guides and teaches you through his Spirit
But we have to wade our way through the language, context, and editing first. We’re on step one. You’ve decided to skip step one and go straight to step 27.
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
That's part of Jewish Law, thus not binding on Gentiles.
In the New Testament Jesus said to "keep the commandments". The commandments include the one about remembering the sabbath day to keep it holy. I repest - God made the sabbath holy and nothing can change that. It has nothing to do with being Jewish or Christian or anything else. God has the final word and that word is that the seventh day is holy. Make any excuse you want but you cannot change what God has made holy.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
Not so clear. What is the “word of God?”
Accordng to the scriptures, God's Word are words "inspired" by God meaning God breathed (life) in the Greek having origin in the mind of God revealed to men by God's Spirit *JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13 and not understood by those who do not believe God's Word or know God (unbelievers) *2 TIMOTHY 3:16; JOHN 6:63; 2 CORINTHIANS 2:14.
We’ve already determined that it’s not particularly the texts, themselves.
Well that is not true. The scripture are indeed God's Word, you just do not believe them. JESUS is the living word of God *JOHN 1:1-4; 14 who has given mankind the written Word of God *MATTHEW 4:4; 2 TIMOTHY 3:16; 2 PETER 1:21.
What does John mean by “word of God?” Does he mean “some text that someone calls ‘Bible?’” Or does he mean something else? We have to exegete the texts in order to determine just what John means, instead of just assuming that he means the same thing you mean.
The Word of God is just as it means; God's Word, T H E W O R D S OF G O D. The Word of God is as it says it is God's Word expressed in JESUS and revealed to mankind by GOD through his written Word *MATTHEW 4:4; 2 TIMOTHY 3:16; PSALMS 119:111. Are you going to try and explain this away as well?
And yet... “God’s word” condones it...
Nonsense. God's Woid does not anywhere condone slavery. It only provided laws so that the rights of those who were slaves were protected and not abused by men. As posted earlier, there were many reasons for slavery in the old testament. Some of these reasons were from the spoils of war, others were from people in poverty that seek to work to earn a living, while others were seeking to pay off debts through labour. This was never God's plan and there is no scripture to suggest otherwise.
In Deuteronomy God gave strict instructions how slaves were to be treated with honor and dignity. If there was no options for slavery caused by war or poverty then many would have simply suffered, died and perished. Slavery in the bible is not condoned by God and teaches us that we are all slaves to sin and that JESUS has purchased our freedom from our slavery to sin (breaking any one of God's 10 commandments). We are all slaves to sin according to the scriptures but JESUS has paid the price for our sins and given us freedom to walk in newness of life if we believe and follow His Word.
E.V.E.R.Y.W.H.E.R.E.
Well that is not true. If we are being honest it is more like..... N. O. W. H. E. R. E.
If you disagree post a link to where you have provided exegesis to scripture here. If you cannot why make up things that are not true? :)
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
Yes. it is.
Well that is not true. All you have provided is your opinion with no evidence saying you do not agree with the scriptures that have been posted that you do not believe or disagree with. If you have God's word to prove your claims prove them. If you do not why do you not believe the scriptures shared with you that show why you are in error?
The scriptures you’ve posted have not been cogent. And I’ve said as much.
Sure they have you just do close your eyes and ears to hearing the scriptures that disagree with you. According to the scriptures the same happened to JESUS and PAUL when they were talking to the JEWS who did not believe God's Word in MATTHEW 13:13-15 and ACTS 18:25-27, They were quoting from ISAIAH 6:9-10. Why? The natural man receives not the things of the spirit of God neither can he know them for they are foolishness unto him. It is hard to see when we close our eyes and ears to hearing God's Word.
3rdAngel said: If you have God's word to prove your claims prove them.
Your response...
I don’t need “God’s word” to prove anything of the sort. It’s plain as the nose on your face.
I see, you cannot prove any of your claims through the scriptures. Thanks for agreeing with me
So, you agree that the texts you’ve provided aren’t cogent? that’s a start...
Not at all. You just agreed with me that you have no scripture to support your claims and opinions. This was the point I was making earlier and shows why you are in error and unable to support your claims that man made teachings and traditions supersedes the Word of God.
The texts don’t prove history. Historical facts prove (or disprove) the texts. You’ve got the tail wagging the dog.
Nonsense. I posted to you that I have both the biblical historical texts supported and verified by the historical records to support my position. This is something you simply do not have to support your position and you know it :)
You said the scholars killed Jesus. But not all scholars killed Jesus. Scholarship, not the texts themselves, provide the litmus test. Again, you’ve got the tail wagging the dog.
I never said all scholars killed JESUS. Sadly, now your making things up and making unfounded claims that are not true.
I think you have that backward. You can’t prove that they are.
This is your view that you cannot prove because you do not believe the scriptures and what they teach. This is not my view. I choose to believe and follow God's Word over the teahcings and traditions of men that deny the Word of God.
Yes. It is your interpretation.
No it is called scripture, which was provided and speaks for itself. You simply choose not to believe it.
It means “to read out of” (as opposed to eisegesis, which means “to read into, which is what you’re doing here).
Indeed, eisegesis is what you are doing by trying to explain context from sources outside of scripture to interpret what the scriptures are teaching. As posted earlier context is applied to the scriptures that are being interpreted in surrounding scripture context, not to sources outside of the scriptures that are being examined. A good example of the above is our conversation on "THE LORDS DAY" where you claim, it is a reference to "SUNDAY" from sources "outside" of the scriptures where the scriptures themselves "NOWHERE" in the whole bible define "THE LORDS DAY" as Sunday or the first day of the week. This is simply another good example of a man made teaching and tradition read into the scriptures eisegesis that is not there. Disagree? Prove it, and show me exegesis read from the scriptures to interpret the scriptures.
When we’re dealing with texts of ancient origin, from foreign cultures, and written in foreign (and sometimes dead) languages, that have been edited, compiled, redacted, cobbled together, and glossed, yes, we do have to go to outside sources. Because what we’re ultimately dealing with are translations of editions, and not the texts, themselves. But we have to wade our way through the language, context, and editing first. We’re on step one. You’ve decided to skip step one and go straight to step 27.
Strawman alert - I am sorry did you say something? All I am hearing here are your excuses not to believe God's Word and making statements not relavant to our conversation or what you have done in our conversation. The translation of the bible have been already compiled by many experts in Hebrew and Greek and provided to us already today in many translations so that what we have today is very close to the original.

What you have provided in this discussion is "NONE" of the above in your post and our discussions which is talking about the original language and Hebrew and Greek Word meanings. The focus of the above is still in relation to the meaning of the scriptures applied to the original language. You have simply read sources outside of exegesis of the scriptures and provided your opinion eisegesis you cannot prove with evidence. A good example of evidence of my claims here is your handling as shown above already of "THE LORDS DAY" where you read into the scriptures from something that is not written in them eisegesis.

Now that we have available to us close translations to the original Hebrew and Greek, are you an elder in a Church that does not know that you cannot understand the scriptures unless God is your guide and teacher *HEBREWS 8:11; JOHN 14:26; JOHN 16:13; JOHN 17:17; JOHN 7:17; JOHN 8:31-36; 1 JOHN 2:27. By not believing God's Word according to the scriptures you are seeing with your eyes but cannot see and hearing with your ears but cannot hear. Sadly though this is your own choosing.

Hope this helps :)
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
Jesus was talking to Jews. Yeah, it really did, because the commandments come out of Judaic culture, not the culture of the Gentiles. Judaic law isn’t binding on Gentiles.

According to the scriptures both ISRAEL and a JEW in the new testament are all those who believe and follow God's Word. Gentile believers are now grafted in to God's ISRAEL *ROMANS 11:13-27.

ROMANS 9:6-8 [6], FOR THEY ARE NOT ALL ISRAEL WHICH ARE OF ISRAEL,: [7], NEITHER, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SEED OF ABRAHAM, ARE THEY ALL CHILDREN: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called <Christ> [8], That is, THEY WHICH ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE FLESH, THESE ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD: BUT THE CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE <those who believe> ARE COUNTED FOR THE SEED.

God's ISRAEL are all those in CHRIST that have been given a NEW HEART according to the NEW COVENANT promise...

ROMANS 2:28-29 [28], FOR HE IS NOT A JEW WHICH IS ONE OUTWARDLY; NEITHER IS THAT CIRCUMCISION, WHICH IS OUTWARDS IN THE FLESH: [29], BUT HE IS A JEW WHICH IS ONE INWARDLY; and CIRCUMCISION IS OF THE HEART, IN THE SPIRIT, AND NOT IN THE LETTER; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Hope this helps :)
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In the New Testament Jesus said to "keep the commandments". The commandments include the one about remembering the sabbath day to keep it holy. I repest - God made the sabbath holy and nothing can change that. It has nothing to do with being Jewish or Christian or anything else. God has the final word and that word is that the seventh day is holy. Make any excuse you want but you cannot change what God has made holy.
There are 613 Commandments, not just 10. In Exodus, after you read where Moses comes down from Sinai with the tablets, kkep reading as he continues to add more.

If you have a doubt about this, google "163 commandments".
 

lostwanderingsoul

Well-Known Member
Jesus was talking to Jews.
Yeah, it really did, because the commandments come out of Judaic culture, not the culture of the Gentiles. Judaic law isn’t binding on Gentiles.
God was not talking to anyone ( Christian or Jew ) when He created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. Also, if the commandments are for Jews then it is OK for Christians to lie and cheat and steal and kill. Is that what you believe? Christians sure sound like a bunch of hoodlums if they do not have to follow any rules.
 
Top