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

Subduction Zone · Nov 29, 2022

3rdAngel said:
Alright dear friend lets talk more when you can support your claims (see post # 617 linked and post # 618 linked). You do make me smile though. Have a nice night.

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong again by not following your own rules.

Right now I am satisfied. You yourself have shown that you are wrong by not following what you proposed as rules.

Soapy · Nov 29, 2022

3rdAngel said:
So that is a no? More evidence that you are not even reading my posts to you.

Slow down your posts lengths … stop pasting swathes of text… it doesn’t prove anything but that you can copy and paste.

Argumentum ad Populum go google it. Does not mean that a majority is right.

This is true. But COMMON SENSE is paramount.

A liar amongst a group of truth sayers does not prove that the liar is the one who is right…

What we are saying to you is that what you are posting is wholly incorrect in structure, design, evidence, and truth.

THAT IS THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY.

Posts me a single link that I have not been able to defend my position with scripture? You will not find anything. The Jews in the days of Jesus we the majority. They called Jesus of the devil and His followers a cult. Does that mean in your mind that Jesus was wrong and the majority of the Jews that persecuted and killed Jesus were right? I do not think you have given much thought to your argument here dear friend. An Argumentum ad Populum does not mean a majority view is the correct view or is true.

See previous comment. I should have posted it here but I saw through your false argument way ahead of the rest of your expellation.

(((I found this ‘Urban Dictionary’ meaning of ‘Expellation’:
A situation where the toilet fails to flush the faeces away properly, and the person is forced to flush it again multiple times using other means, ...
Hmm… seems kind of like the correct word!!))

metis · Nov 29, 2022

3rdAngel said:
In the old covenant Sanctuary laws and the Levitical Priesthood of the earthly Sanctuary had daily and yearly animal sacrifices for sin atonement so that Gods' people could receive Gods forgiveness for sins that they committed attached to every day of the year in the earthly temple...

That doesn't answer my question, but that's OK.

metis · Nov 29, 2022

3rdAngel said:
What scripture are you referring to here. As far as I am aware there is no scripture that states you cannot travel more than 1 and 1/4 mile on the Sabbath. Perhaps that is a man-made teaching and tradition?

Not to travel on Shabbat outside the limits of one's place of residence (Ex. 16:29)

3rdAngel said:
So as shown from the scriptures above metis, 1 Corinthians 11 is not saying that we have to go out in public with out heads covered.

Oh, so orthodox Jews got it all wrong, eh?

So, do you keep your hair covered in church?

3rdAngel · Nov 29, 2022

metis said: ↑ So. what about the other 603, which includes the Laws dealing with Shabbat?

My full response to your question here...

3rdAngel said:
Good question metis. In the old covenant Sanctuary laws and the Levitical Priesthood of the earthly Sanctuary had daily and yearly animal sacrifices for sin atonement so that Gods' people could receive Gods forgiveness for sins that they committed attached to every day of the year in the earthly temple. These of course were the shadow laws of the old covenant that were to teach Gods' people of the coming Messiah and the work and ministration of Jesus as our great high priest once and for all and Gods' sacrifice for the sins of the world (see John 1:29; Hebrews 7:1-23; Hebrews 8:1-13; Hebrews 9:1-27 and Hebrews 10:1-22). These shadow laws were also linked into every day of the week. In the old covenant however there were also many different types of sabbaths that are not the same as God's 4th commandment (e.g ceremonial sabbaths in the annual Feast days - Leviticus 23), the sabbath of the land (seventh year - Leviticus 25). These sabbaths or rests are not the same as the creation seventh day of Gods' 4th commandment this is a memorial of Gods' creation and a celebration of God as the creator of heaven and earth. The annual ceremonial sabbaths are not the same as Gods' 4th commandment that is linked directly to the seventh day of each week and one of Gods' 10 commandments. The annual ceremonial sabbaths in the annual Feast days are linked directly to the annual Feast days and depending on the yearly cycle they could fall on any day of the week because they are linked directly to the annual Feast days. These annual ceremonial sabbaths in the Feast days are found in; (1) Feast of Unleavened Bread (first and last day) *Leviticus 23:6-8 (2) Feast of Trumpets *Leviticus 23:24-25 (3) Day of Atonement *Leviticus 23:27-32 (4) Feast of Booths *Leviticus 23:34-36 (5) Feast of First Fruits *Leviticus 23:39 (6) Feast days of Holy convocation of no work (sabbaton Colossians 2:16 *Leviticus 23:7-8; 21;24; 27; 35-36). So what has stopped now in the new covenant is the ceremonial sabbaths in the Feast days because these are fulfilled and continued in Christ to who they pointed to and the earthly Sanctuary, Levitical Priesthood and all the ceremonial shadow laws for sin offering that were linked into these days as they were shadows of things to come pointing to the body of Christ (Colossians 2:16-17).

You responded with...

metis said:
That doesn't answer my question, but that's OK.

Actually how does this not directly answer your question. The answer provided discussion on Gods' old covenant eternal laws (10 commandments) and Gods' shadow laws fulfilled and continued in Christ under the new covenant and also touched on the other minor moral laws, civil laws, ceremonial laws attached to the Levitical Priesthood and Sanctuary laws with their daily animal sacrifices and sin offering, and feast days pointing to Jesus and His work in the new covenant and also the differences between the ceremonial sabbaths in the Feast days and Gods' 4th commandment seventh day Sabbath connection to the above. Did you want to explain what you meant in your question if you believe I did not answer it? I believe the above answer shows the difference between the old and the new covenant and the relationship between the two covenants and their respective times and laws. Happy to discuss it further as it is a topic I am interested in but I would prefer discussion on the OP.

God bless.

3rdAngel · Nov 29, 2022

3rdAngel said: ↑ What scripture are you referring to here. As far as I am aware there is no scripture that states you cannot travel more than 1 and 1/4 mile on the Sabbath. Perhaps that is a man-made teaching and tradition?

Your response here...

metis said:
Not to travel on Shabbat outside the limits of one's place of residence (Ex. 16:29)

Lets examine the scripture detail and contexts...

Exodus 16:29 29, See, for that the LORD has given you the sabbath, therefore he gives you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide you every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.

Firstly, where does this scripture say you cannot travel more than 1 1/4 mile on the Sabbath like you posted earlier? - It doesn't! Now if you take the scripture as you posted out of its context it says you have to stay in your house on the Sabbath right? So for 4000 years has every Jew (including Jesus) broken the Sabbath by going to the synagogues on the Sabbath day? (e.g. Luke 4:16; Acts 15:21; see also Acts 17:1-3) - Of course not! So what is the solution to the scripture taken out of its context? - Well it is the context. The scripture is not saying anywhere that you cannot go out of your home on the Sabbath and cannot travel more than 1 1/4 mile. It says talking about not going out of your house to gather manna on the Sabbath! Here lets add the scripture contexts back in.

Exodus 16:4-5 4, Then said the LORD to Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no. 5, And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.

Exodus 16:14-29 14, And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, on the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground. 15, And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, It is manna: for they knew not what it was. And Moses said to them, This is the bread which the LORD has given you to eat. 16, This is the thing which the LORD has commanded, Gather of it every man according to his eating, an omer for every man, according to the number of your persons; take you every man for them which are in his tents. 17, And the children of Israel did so, and gathered, some more, some less. 18, And when they did mete it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his eating. 19, And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till the morning. 20, Notwithstanding they listened not to Moses; but some of them left of it until the morning, and it bred worms, and stank: and Moses was wroth with them. 21, And they gathered it every morning, every man according to his eating: and when the sun waxed hot, it melted. 22, And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. 23, And he said to them, This is that which the LORD has said, To morrow is the rest of the holy sabbath to the LORD: bake that which you will bake to day, and seethe that you will seethe; and that which remains over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. 24, And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. 25, And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath to the LORD: to day you shall not find it in the field. 26, Six days you shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none. 27, And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. 28, And the LORD said to Moses, How long refuse you to keep my commandments and my laws? 29, Then said the LORD to Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no. 5, And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.

Note: as shown from the scriptures above Exodus 16:29 does not say we have to stay in our house on the Sabbath or not travel more than 1 1/4 mile on the Sabbath. The scripture context says they were to stay home and not gather manna on the Sabbath. So your scripture does not agree with what you posted earlier that we cannot travel more than 1 1/4 mile on the Sabbath. The scripture does not even say that we have to stay home on the Sabbath. The scripture context here is to staying home and not gathering manna on the Sabbath. Anyhow hope this is helpful. Context matters here and it is disagreeing with your interpretation of the scripture you provided.

metis said:
Oh, so orthodox Jews got it all wrong, eh? So, do you keep your hair covered in church?

Absolutely 100%. 1 Corinthians 11:4-15 show that the head covering has nothing to do with men it is for woman who are praying or prophesying in the Church. So me being a man no why would I have to have a head covering in the Church when the scriptures were directed at woman praying of prophesying in the Church? Lets discuss the detail and the context again.
Firstly 1 Corinthians 11 is new covenant scripture not old covenant scripture so is a message for Gods new covenant Church. Secondly I am a man and not a woman so these scriptures are not applicable to me. Thirdly the context 1 Corinthians 11:6 is not about going about in general public but about women praying or prophesying in the Church. Lets look at the scripture contexts.

This is what 1 Corinthians 11:6 says here in context...

1 Corinthians 11:4-15 4, Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5, But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6, For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7, For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8, For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9, Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10, For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11, Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12, For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13, Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14, Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15, But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

From the scriptures above

The scriptures you provided are new covenant scripture not old covenant scripture - 1 Corinthians 11:4-15

Context is to woman praying and prophesying in the Church not men or woman walking in public - 1 Corinthians 11:5

A woman should have her head covered while praying or prophesying in the Church - 1 Corinthians 11:5-7

The woman's covering to her head while praying or prophesying in the Church is to be long hair - 1 Corinthians 11:15

So as shown from the scriptures above metis, 1 Corinthians 11 is not saying that we have to go out in public with out heads covered. It is new testament scriptures not old testament scripture so is relevant to new testament Christians but the context show that it is talking about women praying or prophesying in the Church and that her long hair should be used as a covering for her head while she might be praying or prophesying.

Take Care.

3rdAngel · Nov 29, 2022

Soapy said:
The ‘proofs’ were not proofs at all.If Christianity was compared to mathematics you wouldn’t get past junior high school. That, by the way, is an attack on your view, not on YOU! But of course, it links back to YOUR thinking.For instance: GOD MADE Jesus to be king and priest. This is EVIDENCED by the Jewish (Hebrew / Israelite) ceremony of ANOINTING. Yet you say that Jesus WAS ALREADY GOD… So, how does Jesus-God get to be made priest and king (two stations of authority which are way lesser in position that GOD!) if Jesus-God was already God?

Scripture is proof and it disagrees with your words here that are not Gods' Word and when scripture says Jesus is the God of creation then our job is simply to believe it (e.g. John 1:1-4; 14; Romans 14:23; John 3:36)

3rdAngel · Nov 29, 2022

3rdAngel said: ↑ Argumentum ad Populum go google it. Does not mean that a majority is right. Posts me a single link that I have not been able to defend my position with scripture? You will not find anything. The Jews in the days of Jesus we the majority. They called Jesus of the devil and His followers a cult. Does that mean in your mind that Jesus was wrong and the majority of the Jews that persecuted and killed Jesus were right? I do not think you have given much thought to your argument here dear friend. An Argumentum ad Populum does not mean a majority view is the correct view or is true.

Once again that would be something you would need to prove. So far all you have provided is your words in disagreement with Gods' Word while refusing to address all the scriptures in the posts provided to you that are in disagreement with you. You would be more believable when you are able to address my posts and the scriptures in them that are in disagreement with you. Until then we will of course agree to disagree.

Actually your post here only shows you are not reading my posts to you. I have never said anywhere that only Jesus is God. You were posted a scripture supported study showing the "oneness" of God in post # 397 linked. Your response we to simply ignore and not respond to all the scriptures that were in disagreement with you. Lets talk more when your able to respond to my posts dear friend. The only contradiction is you not being able to address the scriptures that are in disagreement with you.

Your question was answer why pretend it wasn't. If you believe I have not answered any of your questions post me a link to where I have not answered your questions please in case I have missed something. If you cannot then why make up things that are simply not true. If is your understanding of what "one" God means or the oneness of God that is the problem here and that was addressed in more than one post way back in post # 397 linked that you refused to respond to.

Once again this is just more evidence that you are not reading my posts to you. You were posted scripture stating verbatim that Jesus is God. So no I never had a premise that no one did not not say Jesus was not God. I posted scripture with the Apostles stating word for word that Jesus was God. This of course is is direct disagreement with you and a contradiction to the false teachings you are promoting here. Your response again was to simply ignore all of the content and the scriptures in my posts that have been shared with you that are in disagreement with you while quoting you over the scriptures that are in disagreement to you. I post as evidence to these claims post # 399 linked for which I am still waiting for you to address.

Well here is an easy one that has already been addressed with detail showing you not one but everything that you have posted here that is not true and that I have already responded to still awaiting a response from you. I post as evidence to this fact that is in disagreement with your claims here; post # 503 linked; post # 514 linked; post # 515 linked. Lets talk more when you have something truthful to add to the discussion.

Your response here linked...

Soapy said:
I do not need to prove anything - you have already proved it against yourself. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

Well that is not true dear friend. Your just running away from our discussion if your not willing to address the scriptures in the posts you have been quoting from that are in disagreement with you. Of course you do not have to if you do not want to. Its up to you.

3rdAngel · Nov 29, 2022

Soapy said:
Slow down your posts lengths … stop pasting swathes of text… it doesn’t prove anything but that you can copy and paste.

This is true. But COMMON SENSE is paramount.

A liar amongst a group of truth sayers does not prove that the liar is the one who is right…

What we are saying to you is that what you are posting is wholly incorrect in structure, design, evidence, and truth.

THAT IS THE OPINION OF THE MAJORITY.
See previous comment. I should have posted it here but I saw through your false argument way ahead of the rest of your expellation.

(((I found this ‘Urban Dictionary’ meaning of ‘Expellation’:
A situation where the toilet fails to flush the faeces away properly, and the person is forced to flush it again multiple times using other means, ...
Hmm… seems kind of like the correct word!!))

Sooo that is a no than you do not have anything to support your claims and accusations now do you. Lets be honest dear friend. There is no need to be unkind in your replies.

Take Care.

Subduction Zone · Nov 29, 2022

3rdAngel said:
Scripture is proof and it disagrees with your words here that are not Gods' Word and when scripture says Jesus is the God of creation then our job is simply to believe it (e.g. John 1:1-4; 14; Romans 14:23; John 3:36)

No. Scripture cannot be "proof" until you demonstrate that it is reliable. That it is good enough for you does not matter. It has to be good enough for those that you are debating with. For people that reason rationally there are standards of evidence and scripture as you use it does not meet those standards.

This is why I asked a question that you kept running away from. I asked you if you were just playing silly fan fiction games here. It appears that you are. You should have made it clear from the start that you were not arguing rationally.

Subduction Zone · Nov 29, 2022

3rdAngel said:
Sooo that is a no than you do not have anything to support your claims and accusations now do you. Lets be honest dear friend. There is no need to be unkind in your replies.

Take Care.

He has a point. You tend to quote verses that have nothing to do with the argument and you never explain why you quoted them.

Even if you are going to play silly games you still need to justify the verses that you quote. I could list endless verses in an argument, but if they had nothing to do with it that would not help me one bit.

3rdAngel · Nov 29, 2022

Subduction Zone said:
Thank you for admitting that you are wrong again by not following your own rules. Right now I am satisfied. You yourself have shown that you are wrong by not following what you proposed as rules.

Well sadly that is not true. Anyhow let talk more when you can support your claims (see post # 602 linked and post # 603 linked). You do make me smile though and I love chatting with you even if you can't support your claims here

3rdAngel · Nov 29, 2022

Subduction Zone said:
He has a point. You tend to quote verses that have nothing to do with the argument and you never explain why you quoted them. Even if you are going to play silly games you still need to justify the verses that you quote. I could list endless verses in an argument, but if they had nothing to do with it that would not help me one bit.

Then prove it. Post me a single link where I have posted scriptures that does not support what my posts are saying. If you cannot why make up things you cannot prove or that are not truthful. It is simply lies and a distraction to the discussion. So my challenge to you now is to post the evidence to support your claims that I post scripture that does not support what my posts are claiming?

Take Care.

3rdAngel · Nov 29, 2022

Subduction Zone said:
No. Scripture cannot be "proof" until you demonstrate that it is reliable. That it is good enough for you does not matter. It has to be good enough for those that you are debating with.

Its a scripture debate section of the forum which is set by the terms in the OP. The forum is not a debate forum as to the question is scripture true or not true. Therefore discussing scripture interpretations, the scriptures can be used to as evidence for or against different interpretations of the scriptures.

Subduction Zone said:
For people that reason rationally there are standards of evidence and scripture as you use it does not meet those standards.

The standard of evidence with scripture interpretation is context to topic and subject matter. Scripture is being uses as evidence to correct interpretation or false interpretation in a scripture debate forum which is evidence for or against interpretation of scripture.

Subduction Zone said:
This is why I asked a question that you kept running away from.

All your questions have been addressed with detailed scripture responses as well as other evidence in our past discussions showing why our use of scripture is not supported in the bible by adding context back into the discussion as evidence as to why your views of the scriptures are in error. Furthermore as proven already in post # 602 linked and post # 603 linked it is you the one that has been running away from the discussion unwilling to respond to my posts and scripture evidence provided in them that disagree with you. By doing so you already lose the debate.

Subduction Zone said:
I asked you if you were just playing silly fan fiction games here. It appears that you are. You should have made it clear from the start that you were not arguing rationally.

You would be best to stop the false accusations and name calling and provide evidence for your claims it would make what you say more believable. Lets talk more when you have some thing to contribute to the discussion. Until then we should just simply agree to disagree as there is no reason to be unkind and disrespectful in our responses to others even if we do not agree with them .

Take Care.

Subduction Zone · Nov 29, 2022

3rdAngel said:
Well sadly that is not true. Anyhow let talk more when you can support your claims (see post # 602 linked and post # 603 linked). You do make me smile though and I love chatting with you even if you can't support your claims here

When you only refer back to your old losses you are only admitting defeat again.

You need to work on your debating skills a tad.

Subduction Zone · Nov 29, 2022

3rdAngel said:
Then prove it. Post me a single link where I have posted scriptures that does not support what my posts are saying. If you cannot why make up things you cannot prove or that are not truthful. It is simply lies and a distraction to the discussion. So my challenge to you now is to post the evidence to support your claims that I post scripture that does not support what my posts are claiming?

Take Care.

Others have already done that and you only had denial as a response. This is why clear rules for debate are needed.

One of the rules has to be that merely linking a verse from the Bible does not count for anything. One has to post the verse and explain how it applies.

Subduction Zone · Nov 29, 2022

3rdAngel said:
Its a scripture debate section of the forum which is set by the terms in the OP. The forum is not a debate forum as to is scripture true or not true. Therefore discussing scripture interpretations, the scriptures can be used to as evidence for or against different interpretations of the scriptures.

Then you are just playing silly fan fiction games. Not only that there are several translations of the Bible. Do you have a favorite? If so why?

The standard of evidence with scripture interpretation is context to topic and subject matter. Scripture is being uses as evidence to correct interpretation or false interpretation in a scripture debate forum which is evidence for or against interpretation of scripture.

That is fine if you want a religion that is easily refutable. There is a very good reason that some churches think that sola scriptura is blasphemy. You may "win" the debate on this thread, but in the real world you will only have formed a false religion.

All your questions have been addressed with detailed scripture responses as well as other evidence in our past discussions showing why our use of scripture is not supported in the bible by adding context back into the discussion as evidence as to why your views of the scriptures are in error. Furthermore as proven already in post # 602 linked and post # 603 linked it is you the one that has been running away from the discussion unwilling to respond to my posts and scripture evidence provided in them that disagree with you. By doing so you already lose the debate.

No, they haven't, and by merely referring back to old lost arguments you have lost the debate. You are still not following clear and necessary rules.

I am willing to ignore all of your previous losses and start with a clean slate.

You would be best to stop the false accusations and name calling and provide evidence for your claims it would make what you say more believable. Lets talk more when you have some thing to contribute to the discussion. Until then we should just simply agree to disagree as there is no reason to be unkind and disrespectful in our responses to others even if we do not agree with them .

Take Care.

You failed to show that I did so. The false accusations appear to have come from you. Like most people that do not understand a subject you resent having your lack of understanding pointed out to you. You then start running away from reasonable questions, being rude, and making false accusations against others.

Let's work out the rules. And start with a clean slate.

Ooh, and no Gish Gallops. I know that you love to use those but all to often over half of your material does not support you or even opposes you. That is why a while back I offered to refute the whole thing by refuting one claim. It is best to develop claims one at a time fully.

3rdAngel · Nov 30, 2022

Subduction Zone said:
When you only refer back to your old losses you are only admitting defeat again. You need to work on your debating skills a tad.

Actually I have not had any losses. I was only referring to past losses and your unwillingness to discuss facts and provide evidence or to address the content of the posts that are in disagreement with you as listed in post # 602 linked that supplied as evidence that you choose to run away from. Unlike you the linked posts supports what I am saying to you is true. You do make me smile though with your posts though and I enjoy our chats

3rdAngel · Nov 30, 2022

3rdAngel said: ↑ Then prove it. Post me a single link where I have posted scriptures that does not support what my posts are saying. If you cannot why make up things you cannot prove or that are not truthful. It is simply lies and a distraction to the discussion. So my challenge to you now is to post the evidence to support your claims that I post scripture that does not support what my posts are claiming?

Your response...

Subduction Zone said:
Others have already done that and you only had denial as a response. This is why clear rules for debate are needed. One of the rules has to be that merely linking a verse from the Bible does not count for anything. One has to post the verse and explain how it applies.

So that is a no then? Your not able to provide a single link as evidence to support your claims that I have posted scripture that has not supported what I have been saying? - I did not think you could. You lose again.

3rdAngel · Nov 30, 2022

3rdAngel said: ↑ Its a scripture debate section of the forum which is set by the terms in the OP. The forum is not a debate forum as to is scripture true or not true. Therefore discussing scripture interpretations, the scriptures can be used to as evidence for or against different interpretations of the scriptures.

Your response here...

Subduction Zone said:
Then you are just playing silly fan fiction games. Not only that there are several translations of the Bible. Do you have a favorite? If so why?

Your ignoring the post content your suppose to be responding to showing you do not understand what a debate it about in preference to make false accusations and claims you are not able to prove. Therefore all your providing here is your words that are in disagreement with Gods' Word so we will have to agree to disagree. Who cares if there is different bible translations. I love all of them and from time to time use all of them as well as look into the Hebrew and Greek. What you do not understand is that you cannot know God and His Word without the promise of His Spirit but you cannot understand this if spiritual things are spiritually discerned and you do not know God and His Word that His Spirit speaks through.

3rdAngel said: ↑ The standard of evidence with scripture interpretation is context to topic and subject matter. Scripture is being uses as evidence to correct interpretation or false interpretation in a scripture debate forum which is evidence for or against interpretation of scripture.

Your response here...

Subduction Zone said:
That is fine if you want a religion that is easily refutable. There is a very good reason that some churches think that sola scriptura is blasphemy. You may "win" the debate on this thread, but in the real world you will only have formed a false religion.

Not really, you would have to first prove that there is no God. I think you tried this before in our earlier discussions in the thread were you claimed to have evidence but when asked you never provided any (whats new). You made the claim here so what good reason is there that scripture alone is blasphemy? Show me the good reason and evidence for your claim. Lets discuss your claims that "scripture alone is blasphemy? Are you up for it? Let me ask you again. Prove your claims. Or will all I hear back from you again is silence?

3rdAngel said: ↑ All your questions have been addressed with detailed scripture responses as well as other evidence in our past discussions showing why our use of scripture is not supported in the bible by adding context back into the discussion as evidence as to why your views of the scriptures are in error. Furthermore as proven already in post # 602 linked and post # 603 linked it is you the one that has been running away from the discussion unwilling to respond to my posts and scripture evidence provided in them that disagree with you. By doing so you already lose the debate.

Your response here...

Subduction Zone said:
No, they haven't, and by merely referring back to old lost arguments you have lost the debate. You are still not following clear and necessary rules. I am willing to ignore all of your previous losses and start with a clean slate.

You are a funny one I will give you that even if what you say is not truthful. In the linked post you are quoting from you were provided a list of all the posts shared with you providing evidence that is in disagreement with you that you choose to run away from and not address proving you lost all of our debates. So your projections if you cannot prove your claims like I did in the post you are responding to without addressing again are simply you not telling the truth. I have followed the same rules I suggested to you earlier from the beginning. You will be more believable dear friend if you can prove what you say. So far you haven't been able to prove anything in our discussions. Your only projecting and been full of false claims and accusations your unable to prove. At least when I say something to you I provide evidence in support of my claims (e.g. see post # 602 linked and post # 603 linked)

more to come...

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

Veteran Member

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince

aged ecumenical anthropologist

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member